beecee Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 Quote Let's be clear and agree the examined opinion is superior to knee-jerk reaction. I can't believe I had to type that. That of course depends on the agenda the person doing the examination has...eg: I have had to deal with many UFO nuts who claim they have dilligently researched UFO sightings and they have come to the weird conclusion, that Alien visitations are real and so are the medically inspired anal probing many of them do. In simpler language your claim of examining holds no water with me. 1 minute ago, scherado said: I am the arbiter of what points are relevant to ME; YOU are the arbiter of YOURS--I can't believe I had TO TYPE THAT SENTENCE. Unbleeping believable!!!! Your exitatations along with your claims do little to impress me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scherado Posted October 5, 2017 Author Share Posted October 5, 2017 1 minute ago, beecee said: In simpler language your claim of examining holds no water with me. And you can type really, really slow and hope that helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beecee Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 3 minutes ago, scherado said: I am the arbiter of what points are relevant to ME; YOU are the arbiter of YOURS--I can't believe I had TO TYPE THAT SENTENCE. Unbleeping believable!!!! One more time and you go onto my ignore list for my health.. I'm mortified!!!! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scherado Posted October 5, 2017 Author Share Posted October 5, 2017 Just now, beecee said: I'm mortified!!!! You've been added. Good luck with your new username, if you chose that option. -3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 18 minutes ago, scherado said: One more time and you go onto my ignore list for my health.. It's like a spoiled 12 year old who can't cope with the fact other people may not agree with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silvestru Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 1 hour ago, scherado said: You've been added. Good luck with your new username, if you chose that option. I'm sure that beecee will create a new account just to continue his fruitful conversation with you. scherado, this might be impolite or against the rules but I see many people patiently trying to explain different topics to you and make you maybe think differently. Can you please tell us some thing about you? Maybe we just need to get to know you a bit. (of course only if you are comfortable with that) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Area54 Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 10 hours ago, Ten oz said: There is an ongoing investigation. His motive is being investigated. I don't understand why you think authorities already know the motive and aren't releasing that information? Even if they have a pretty good idea at this stage what the motivation was, it would be prudent to complete their investigation before issuing their conclusions, rather than having the embarrassment of one or more retractions. Moreover, while it seems he acted alone, ongoing investigations into possible accomplices could be prejudiced by an early release of such information. In short, the authorities, in this regard, appear to be handlong things in a sober and reasonable manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beecee Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, scherado said: You've been added. Good luck with your new username, if you chose that option. Petulance, arrogance, spitting the dummy, delusions of grandeur, just about says it all! Also worth noting that our friend never once commented on the link I gave. https://www.sciencealert.com/the-largest-dataset-we-have-shows-powerful-evidence-gun-control-works/page-2 Edited October 5, 2017 by beecee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scherado Posted October 5, 2017 Author Share Posted October 5, 2017 1 hour ago, Silvestru said: I'm sure that beecee will create a new account just to continue his fruitful conversation with you. ... How can you be so sure? I'm not serious when I wish someone luck in that regard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silvestru Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 44 minutes ago, scherado said: How can you be so sure? I'm not serious when I wish someone luck in that regard. Spoiler sarcasm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ten oz Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 2 hours ago, Area54 said: Even if they have a pretty good idea at this stage what the motivation was, it would be prudent to complete their investigation before issuing their conclusions, rather than having the embarrassment of one or more retractions. Moreover, while it seems he acted alone, ongoing investigations into possible accomplices could be prejudiced by an early release of such information. In short, the authorities, in this regard, appear to be handlong things in a sober and reasonable manner. Absolutely, I think Scherado is hinting at something else though with the insistence that Paddock's motives are already known to authorities and continued call backs to Sept. 11th. I don't understand what Scherado is trying to get at. The more I read about Paddock the more ridiculous it is that he was on any law enforcement radar. I know this will upset some but in my opinion this situation is a terrific example of white privilage in the U.S. today. Paddock bought 33 guns in the last 12 months, had paid cash for his home in Mesquite, over the years has bought and sold nurmerous homes in NV, FL, TX, and CA, self professed (on bank statements toexplain huge cash purchases) that he gambled over a million dollars a year, and etc yet none of that raised red flags because Paddock was a middle age white male. Like with so many other killers his neighbors and family are speaking about how surprised they are by all of this as if stock piling assualt weapons and buying homes in cash is just good ole' Americana. So enamored with guns and a cartoonish sense of rugged American independence few are pointing out how strange everything about Paddock's life were. If he had been Muslim, African American, or etc I believe neighbors and those he interacted with would have been suspicious of him and for GOOD reason. Obviously I can't prove that but it is what I think. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Area54 Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 2 minutes ago, Ten oz said: Obviously I can't prove that but it is what I think. It is difficult not to share your viewpoint. You may be mistaken, but there seems - another opinion - a core of truth in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geordief Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 Being part of any minority (in any sense) will make you stand out as suspicious.. Being wealthy can be a camouflage in its own way (look at how con men will affect wealthy appearance routinely) Speculation as to this person's motives are extremely vital but (of course) the authorities are privy to clues at this time . I see no reason that they should be secretive about what they find when all the facts and deductions are known. My mind boggles at what must have been the task of cornering a man with a machine gun in an enclosed space. (and the mentality which accepts their legitimate sale to the public) . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 17 hours ago, scherado said: I would take up arms--I don't own any--if it were necessary to protect the Constitution-given right to bear arms. It is not a so-called right, is is precisely of the same type as the two enumerated the amendment that precedes it, the First Amendment. There are well-known limits on all of the rights enumerated in the first amendment. It has been acknowledged by SCOTUS that there are limits on the 2nd. And, a nit: the Constitution does not give anyone rights. It enumerates some of them. Rights are assumed to belong to the people, automatically. They are not granted by the government, or by a document. The Constitution is simply formally recognizing certain rights, as it also enumerates the powers we give to the government (which potentially represents rights that we cede, in order for the government to function) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 The BBC view purporting to show that mass shootings are increasing in the USA. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-41474594/las-vegas-how-us-mass-shootings-are-getting-worse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scherado Posted October 6, 2017 Author Share Posted October 6, 2017 The brother Paddock gave a...well, it's a press conference, of sorts. There is a woman giving running commentary and interpretation of body language and speculative truth. One might conclude that this guy not only knew of the plot, but may have been expected to participate and decided it was a bad idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beecee Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 53 minutes ago, scherado said: The brother Paddock gave a...well, it's a press conference, of sorts. There is a woman giving running commentary and interpretation of body language and speculative truth. One might conclude that this guy not only knew of the plot, but may have been expected to participate and decided it was a bad idea. No interview and whatever the motive behind this atrocity, will change the fact that such a thing could only occur in a country with totally inadequate archaic gun laws, based on some imagined misplaced loyalty to a constitution drawn up in 1790, after a war for independence. One would think we are talking about some third world African country or one that was undergoing some sort of terror related and religious backed violence as in some Islam countries. And yet we are talking about the USA, the supposed leader of the free world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ten oz Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 39 minutes ago, beecee said: No interview and whatever the motive behind this atrocity, will change the fact that such a thing could only occur in a country with totally inadequate archaic gun laws, based on some imagined misplaced loyalty to a constitution drawn up in 1790, after a war for independence. One would think we are talking about some third world African country or one that was undergoing some sort of terror related and religious backed violence as in some Islam countries. And yet we are talking about the USA, the supposed leader of the free world. By comparison this sort of implies Africa as a whole is the worst place on earth. That is debatable and unnecessarily dismissive of Africa as a whole which has nothing to do with this conversation. Opressive regimes, famine, and atrocities exist all over the world; to say that Assad, Kim Jung-un, ISIS, or etc are evil and use them as specific examples for comparison is more appropriate than just casually throwing the whole of Africa and "Islam countries" under the bus generalizing to an insulting degree. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geordief Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 3 minutes ago, Ten oz said: By comparison this sort of implies Africa as a whole is the worst place on earth. That is debatable and unnecessarily dismissive of Africa as a whole which has nothing to do with this conversation. Opressive regimes, famine, and atrocities exist all over the world; to say that Assad, Kim Jung-un, ISIS, or etc are evil and use them as specific examples for comparison is more appropriate than just casually throwing the whole of Africa and "Islam countries" under the bus generalizing to an insulting degree. . Yes it is a lazy description. So what is the cause or group of causes behind this attachment to the existing gun laws in USA? Some justifications are defensible but it is astonishing that the counter arguments can be dismissed in the face of such repellent outcomes. It is probably off topic but perhaps a clear eyed discussion of why this horrible status quo persists might help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scherado Posted October 6, 2017 Author Share Posted October 6, 2017 1 hour ago, geordief said: . Yes it is a lazy description. So what is the cause or group of causes behind this attachment to the existing gun laws in USA? Some justifications are defensible but it is astonishing that the counter arguments can be dismissed in the face of such repellent outcomes. I quote myself: This thread is not about gun control. People are free to discuss that, but there is a thread, When is the time? dedicated to that ==>da thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 26 minutes ago, scherado said: I quote myself: That's another way of avoiding dissenting views. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ten oz Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 (edited) 31 minutes ago, scherado said: I qoute myself: @ scherado, geordief's post is on topic. While it using the words "gun laws in USA" as a whole the post questions motives and justifications behind the laws as means of challanging the larger mentality of gun owners. It is nuanced but on topic as it tips its hat to a possible motive. Perhaps you should read the post geordief was responding to and then the post of theirs you qouted again with an eye towards subtext. Edited October 6, 2017 by Ten oz spelling error/ formatting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geordief Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 (edited) On 10/4/2017 at 1:50 PM, hypervalent_iodine said: ! Moderator Note Sorry, I wasn't necessarily referring to the posts directly prior to the last note. I am satisfied that those posts are on topic. I was more hinting at the posts about rapes and the breakdown of U.K. society. Scherado, whether you authored this thread or not, we have standards and rules that you agreed to obey upon signing up. We expect that the topic of a thread is what is outlined in the title and OP. Anything more is considered off topic, for the purposes of keeping discussion focussed. If you wish to discuss other things, please start other threads. Quoting Ten Oz @ scherado, geordief's post is on topic. While it using the words "gun laws in USA" as a whole the post questions motives and justifications behind the laws as means of challanging the larger mentality of gun owners. It is nuanced but on topic as it tips its hat to a possible motive. Perhaps you should read the post geordief was responding to and then the post of theirs you qouted again with an eye towards subtext. Yes ,perhaps it was on topic after all as per the mod's above and earlier comments ,which I had misremembered (hope I am allowed to quote mods' warnings-I was unable to link to it or refer to it by a post number). Even so Gun Laws do merit their own thread as each of these atrocities may not lead to clear discussion in the immediate aftermath.(forgetting them is not helpful either,of course) Edited October 6, 2017 by geordief Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Airbrush Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 (edited) 7 hours ago, scherado said: The brother Paddock gave a...well, it's a press conference, of sorts. There is a woman giving running commentary and interpretation of body language and speculative truth. One might conclude that this guy not only knew of the plot, but may have been expected to participate and decided it was a bad idea. I listened to the entire interview with the shooter's younger brother. It is interesting. He is very defensive and looks like he is lying. Maybe he was supposed to participate in the shooting, and maybe also some bombs? Maybe Paddock chose a country music concert to shoot up because they represented Trump in his mind. When you see video of people running from the concert, it is mostly whites right? Maybe Paddock is a Trump hater, Antifa? Edited October 6, 2017 by Airbrush Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 And maybe he's a space alien with butt problems. Good grief. Really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now