Thousand oaks shooting

[Curious George]

I think the kids should be listening to more positive music, to expand their mind. And trust me, you can definitely party to this music. It's very simple to do.

I think it is a dangerous practice to suggest imposition of value judgement on subjective tastes.

 

[Cooky]

I think it is a dangerous practice to suggest imposition of value judgement on subjective tastes.

I don't think it's wrong to condemn a song that glorifies murdering a woman behind a boathouse out of sexual desire. Do you?

 

[Curious George]

I don't think it's wrong to condemn a song that glorifies murdering a woman behind a boathouse out of sexual desire. Do you?

I think it is a dangerous practice to impose such a value judgement on others.

 

[Cooky]

I think it is a dangerous practice to impose such a value judgement on others.

First you said subjective tastes, now you say others... I don't know what you're getting at.

...Filthy lyrics are not subjective though. Good and bad are real things. I'll just say that.

 

[Curious George]

First you said subjective tastes, now you say others... I don't know what you're getting at.

...Filthy lyrics are not subjective though. Good and bad are real things. I'll just say that.

You moved from children ought to listen to x, to condemning x and x is wrong.

The movement went from imposing value judgement on subjective taste to imposing those value judgements on others.

When we are discussing the expression of ideas and creativity this is a very dangerous rationale.

 

[ecco]

only a couple more ?!? Really?

Gotta love the way you think. At a glance it is over 6 times the average of other Countries.

I understand some people are taken aback by objectivity and rationality in the face of emotional discord.

I would have be taken aback if I thought someone old enough to be on these forums could not understand a simple graph.

I am not taken aback when people intentionally misrepresent facts. I'm very used to seeing it here.

 

[Curious George]

I would have be taken aback if I thought someone old enough to be on these forums could not understand a simple graph.

I am not taken aback when people intentionally misrepresent facts. I'm very used to seeing it here.

There was no misrepresentation of fact. I said my impression was only a couple more per 100k.

There is no "misrepresentation of fact."

 

[ecco]

...Filthy lyrics are not subjective though.

Are you really suggesting that everyone would agree with your version of what constitutes "Filthy lyrics"?

I doubt I would agree with you.

Therefore it is subjective.

Good and bad are real things. I'll just say that.

Nothing in life is black or white. Everything is shades of gray.

 

[ecco]

There was no misrepresentation of fact. I said my impression was only a couple more per 100k.

There is no "misrepresentation of fact."

Uh huh.

 

[Cooky]

Are you really suggesting that everyone would agree with your version of what constitutes "Filthy lyrics"?

I doubt I would agree with you.

Therefore it is subjective.



Nothing in life is black or white. Everything is shades of gray.

You don't think lyrics that glorify raping and murdering a woman behind a boathouse is filthy?

 

[Curious George]

Uh huh.

Well, that is one way to concede. I would have preferred you acknowledge that ypu got worked up over an irrelevant point, but we take what we can.

 

[PureX]

He was a Marine. How much better gun training can you get than that? Barring the fact that his mental condition was dismissed, there's no reason he wouldn't have been able to responsibly own and handle a gun.

So what is your point? That reasonable regulation and oversight wouldn't have stopped this particular killer? Are you thinking that if the legal regulation doesn't work 100% of the time then we shouldn't have any? Because no law I know of can stop us from breaking them 100% of the time.

 

[Jainarayan]

That reasonable regulation and oversight wouldn't have stopped this particular killer?

No, it wouldn’t. What is “reasonable regulation”? If someone is determined to do something they’re going to do it. The Second Amendment can be repealed, every registered gun turned in and melted down, and someone will get his hands on a gun if he has a mind to do something bad.

 

[Cooky]

So what is your point? That reasonable regulation and oversight wouldn't have stopped this particular killer? Are you thinking that if the legal regulation doesn't work 100% of the time then we shouldn't have any? Because no law I know of can stop us from breaking them 100% of the time.

But he used a handgun and not an assault rifle. Those are currently legal in California.

 

[PureX]

No, it wouldn’t. What is “reasonable regulation”? If someone is determined to do something they’re going to do it. The Second Amendment can be repealed, every registered gun turned in and melted down, and someone will get his hands on a gun if he has a mind to do something bad.

see post #132

 

[oldbadger]

So then you are speculating.
Not sure that answers my question
No.

Ah, George...... in your post 1 you wrote:-

Is there some reason why we keep producing mass murderers?

I asked you 'Did the murderer get the gun illegally?'
...and I'm not sure that you answered my question, either?
There we go, you and I, not sure that we get our questions answered.

How bad? How has it changed?

Well, before tightening of gun laws here there were lots of mass shootings.
After gun laws were tightened they went away.
My point has been (all along in this thread) that a % of human beings are going to be murderers, and a very small % will be mass murderers if they can. If you are happy with the levels of crime reduction and deterrence in your State (?) and Country, then 'OK'. If not it is you who should be trying to answer questions, not me.

 

[Curious George]

Ah, George...... in your post 1 you wrote:-

I asked you 'Did the murderer get the gun illegally?'
...and I'm not sure that you answered my question, either?

To my knowledge the shooter legally acquired the handgun but was potentially using an illegal magazine. I am not sure if this was a legally acquired the magazine or not.

There we go, you and I, not sure that we get our questions answered.

Except I have no issue answering questions.

Well, before tightening of gun laws here there were lots of mass shootings.

I am just not sure there were widespread mass shootings there prior to the gun regulation.

After gun laws were tightened they went away.

Can you please point me to a source where I can see prolific mass murder in the UK before gun regulation?

My point has been (all along in this thread) that a % of human beings are going to be murderers, and a very small % will be mass murderers if they can. If you are happy with the levels of crime reduction and deterrence in your State (?) and Country, then 'OK'. If not it is you who should be trying to answer questions, not me.

If you dont want to answer that is fine, but I suppose not answering would be better than offering a bamd-aid answer amd shrugging ypur shoulders when I push back against that.

 

[oldbadger]

To my knowledge the shooter legally acquired the handgun but was potentially using an illegal magazine.

Great! Now I know....

I am not sure if this was a legally acquired the magazine or not.

Uhh, Hang on there.... no I don't!

Except I have no issue answering questions.

Great! So can you explain why there have been almost as many mass shootings as days in the US in 2018?

I am just not sure there were widespread mass shootings there prior to the gun regulation.

Oh yes there were. There was a dreadful incident at Hungerford, England back in the 80's, and gun laws were changed because of that incident. Auto-rifles and other totally unnecessary weapons were banned. And there was Dunblane in Scotland in the 90's. All handguns (apart from antiques) were banned soon after that.
That'#s two mass shootings before increased controls...... 2 mass shootings is a MASSIVE number of mass shootings.

Can you please point me to a source where I can see prolific mass murder in the UK before gun regulation?

Done....... there were in fact more than two but but you might just get the point. One mass murder is one too many.,

If you dont want to answer that is fine, but I suppose not answering would be better than offering a bamd-aid answer amd shrugging ypur shoulders when I push back against that.

You're not pushing back against me, George, you're pushing back against the common-sense of better gun controls.

 

[Curious George]

Great! Now I know....

Uhh, Hang on there.... no I don't!

Sure you do, the gum was legally acquired.

Great! So can you explain why there have been almost as many mass shootings as days in the US in 2018?

Because the U.S. is turning put that many mass murders. Why this is so, is trickier. I was hoping to hear input. I was also hoping that input would be more substantive than "its the guns!"

Oh yes there were. There was a dreadful incident at Hungerford, England back in the 80's, and gun laws were changed because of that incident. Auto-rifles and other totally unnecessary weapons were banned. And there was Dunblane in Scotland in the 90's. All handguns (apart from antiques) were banned soon after that.
That'#s two mass shootings before increased controls...... 2 mass shootings is a MASSIVE number of mass shootings.


Done....... there were in fact more than two but but you might just get the point. One mass murder is one too many.,

Were there more than two? What and when were they?

I can find 2 in the 20 years before gun regulation and 1 in the 20 years after.

Now you can argue that it was the gun regulation that decreased the number from 2 to 1, but i hardly think that is a large enough dataset to make any such claim.

You're not pushing back against me, George, you're pushing back against the common-sense of better gun controls.

You are the one claiming that gins are the problem. I am pushing back against you.

 

[ecco]

I don't think it's wrong to condemn a song that glorifies murdering a woman behind a boathouse out of sexual desire. Do you?

...Filthy lyrics are not subjective though.

Are you really suggesting that everyone would agree with your version of what constitutes "Filthy lyrics"?

I doubt I would agree with you.

Therefore it is subjective.

You don't think lyrics that glorify raping and murdering a woman behind a boathouse is filthy?

You went from a specific song to a generalized comment "..Filthy lyrics are not subjective though" back to a specific song. I was responding to your generalized comment.

As to the specific song, I couldn't comment because I don't know the song. Nor do I know the context. You say it glorifies, I might disagree.

Perhaps I would agree with you on a few specific songs. But that doesn't alter the fact that the interpretation of lyrics is subjective and not objective. Many people found Madonna's Like a Virgin filthy.

Many people got offended when George Carlin did his routine on seven words you can't say. He got arrested as did Lenny Bruce before him.