A serious question. No judgment from any of you, or me, or us

Thrasher73 wrote:

Who could’ve predicted that a thread on Revelation and religion would turn into a racial, political shit show?!

Um...anyone with a few brain cells left.

We all knew where this was ultimately going to end up but until it got to that point I was just another member of the board posting a few responses and reading what was going on.

I put the moderator hat on a few pages ago so I'm asking everyone to please stick to a civil discussion of ideas.

Mglaffas81 wrote:

Wrecked Neck wrote:

LMFAO!!!!!!! Mass shootings every day in America???? Are you kidding me? We have had our share to be sure, and pretty much all of them are by white males, and all of them are covered very extensively. The Muslim mass killings usually involve bombs in crowded places. Or maybe hijacked airplanes slamming into large buildings. Either way, don't try and make some racial bullshit post saying we don't cover a shooting unless it was some crazed Muslim.

I did no such thing - a mass shooting is defined as 3-4 casualties (non-fatal injuries included) or so, can't exactly remember. I didn't just pull it out of my ass.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mass-shootings-2019-more-than-days-365/  

- that equates to more than one a day on average. That's all

Defined by who? Some random group of people spending exorbitant amounts of tax payers money to come up with some ignorant ass conclusion that shooting 3-4 people constitutes a mass shooting so they can make a case to take away my rights? Please! A mass shooting by just about anyone's definition, would be a lone gunman setting up a plan to shoot as many random people that happen to be in his area of attack. The dude in Vegas shooting at a crowd of concert goers is a mass shooting. Some random gang banger pulling a drive by is NOT a mass shooting.

Troublezone wrote:

Wrecked Neck wrote:

LMFAO!!!!!!! Mass shootings every day in America???? Are you kidding me? We have had our share to be sure, and pretty much all of them are by white males, and all of them are covered very extensively. The Muslim mass killings usually involve bombs in crowded places. Or maybe hijacked airplanes slamming into large buildings. Either way, don't try and make some racial bullshit post saying we don't cover a shooting unless it was some crazed Muslim.

You are correct! Shootings by white males are always the focus of the media (never mind the possibility of MK-Ultra) but the killings and violence from Muslims or minority groups are shielded by liberals to protect them from negative public opinion. White males are open season though.

I didn't say it that way, I only said what I consider mass shootings are generally done by white males, and that mass shootings are covered extensively. In no way was I pulling the race card with what I said.

Wrecked Neck wrote:

Troublezone wrote:

Wrecked Neck wrote:

LMFAO!!!!!!! Mass shootings every day in America???? Are you kidding me? We have had our share to be sure, and pretty much all of them are by white males, and all of them are covered very extensively. The Muslim mass killings usually involve bombs in crowded places. Or maybe hijacked airplanes slamming into large buildings. Either way, don't try and make some racial bullshit post saying we don't cover a shooting unless it was some crazed Muslim.

You are correct! Shootings by white males are always the focus of the media (never mind the possibility of MK-Ultra) but the killings and violence from Muslims or minority groups are shielded by liberals to protect them from negative public opinion. White males are open season though.

I didn't say it that way, I only said what I consider mass shootings are generally done by white males, and that mass shootings are covered extensively. In no way was I pulling the race card with what I said.

I’m not playing a race card either. I stated an observation. I’m not trying to be an albatross here...  I stand alone and own up to my comments.

At this point, I don’t care if this thread gets locked.

I think everyone needs to step back take a breath and chill dafuq out. Nobody is going to solve the world's problems on this thread, so just chill. Agree to disagree and move on. Nothing here is that fucking serious.

My Thread - My rules. Mods/Admins will know when Anthraxfan shows up to throw a wrench in things. But, up til now? Page 4? There is nothing but passionate discussion between a whole helluva lot of people from all over the globe. You shut this down down? Well, it will show the contingent of HOMies that you want our First Constitutional Amendment to have a White Hood thrown over it.

I don't care that this is way off my original topic. The things said by Gil, Wrecky, Tz, MGLA, and the rest of us...well... can you say it is not educating? We must not hate each other ON THIS BOARD for our individual experiences. The same experiences that programmed our brains, intentions, and generally daily feeling towards others not exactly like us. I thought I was fairly educated in the thoughts of the world. Traveled 32 countries, usually staying in the heart of whatever community - never as a tourist. But, I have learned a shit ton just from the previous 3 pages, a couple of pms, and the intelligence of this board. As that guy over East would say - Rant Over.

I apologize to whoever I offended. I didn’t mean to. I have made amends with uncle sax. Hopefully everything can cool off.

There were no amends to make, brother.  You and I are no different.  Two humans.  nothing more.

But, here is this:

I love you all guys. Not in a gay way of course...

I agree with this being quite educational. Now, back to heavy metal .

Gilbert wrote:

I love you all guys. Not in a gay way of course...

I agree with this being quite educational. Now, back to heavy metal .

I am uncomfortable with that "love all you guys" comment Gil. Might have to send this thread another direction..... Oops - No. That was just gas. Carry on.

Wrecked Neck wrote:

Mglaffas81 wrote:

Wrecked Neck wrote:

LMFAO!!!!!!! Mass shootings every day in America???? Are you kidding me? We have had our share to be sure, and pretty much all of them are by white males, and all of them are covered very extensively. The Muslim mass killings usually involve bombs in crowded places. Or maybe hijacked airplanes slamming into large buildings. Either way, don't try and make some racial bullshit post saying we don't cover a shooting unless it was some crazed Muslim.

I did no such thing - a mass shooting is defined as 3-4 casualties (non-fatal injuries included) or so, can't exactly remember. I didn't just pull it out of my ass.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mass-shootings-2019-more-than-days-365/  

- that equates to more than one a day on average. That's all

Defined by who? Some random group of people spending exorbitant amounts of tax payers money to come up with some ignorant ass conclusion that shooting 3-4 people constitutes a mass shooting so they can make a case to take away my rights? Please!  A mass shooting by just about anyone's definition, would be a lone gunman setting up a plan to shoot as many random people that happen to be in his area of attack. The dude in Vegas shooting at a crowd of concert goers is a mass shooting. Some random gang banger pulling a drive by is NOT a mass shooting.

No one is trying to take away your rights, Wrecked Neck. What people do want, is sensible gun control laws, of which currently you don't seem to have. Leave it to the NRA and money in politics to corrupt any progress on profitable areas, such as weaponry and healthcare. I'm sure mass shootings, the larger ones, are covered extensively - but you can't deny that the tone of the conversation and portrayal of the perpetrator would be radically different, if he turned out to be of middle eastern/whatever people regard as "muslim"/foreign background - suddenly it's all about a foreign threat that must be curtailed, which leads (especially with your current government) to absolutely nonsensical political interference, which affects countless innocent people and the entire world. However, if the perpetrator is white (which he almost always is), he's a "crazed, lone wolf" that came completely out of the blue - funny how that seems to happen with quite considerable frequency. I think the previous administration tried to expand and additionally fund areas of the FBI (or whoever deals with terrorist-related issues) that focus specifically on right-wing domestic threats - but, lo and behold, that was shut down.

Okay, whenever someone says they aren't trying to take away our rights hasn't been paying attention, and isn't worth arguing with. Some politicians have come out and admitted it. Hell that democratic moron running for president said it just a couple months ago. Of course his senile old ass said he was going to take our AR-14's whatever the hell those are.

Whatever else you wrote, I didn't read, because your opening sentence was enough for me to see I'm wasting my time.

Any terrorist groups (foreign or domestic) are terrible. But when you kill or capture a “crazed lone-wolf gunman”, it is over for that person/threat. As opposed to dealing with a group like ISIS, it doesn’t just go away... there are many of them all sharing the same ideology. There’s no “cutting the head off the snake” to stop them. A new leader takes over when the last one is killed. That is why they are considered a bigger threat.

Wrecked Neck wrote:

Okay, whenever someone says they aren't trying to take away our rights hasn't been paying attention, and isn't worth arguing with. Some politicians have come out and admitted it. Hell that democratic moron running for president said it just a couple months ago. Of course his senile old ass said he was going to take our AR-14's whatever the hell those are.

Whatever else you wrote, I didn't read, because your opening sentence was enough for me to see I'm wasting my time.

Wow.

In any case, with the way your country is set up politically and with the influence that money plays in legislation, I think you can rest assured that your guns are as safe and unregulated as can be. Screw the fact that people on your own terrorist watch list have had no trouble getting their hands on guns and subsequently carried out heinous acts.

As you stated, you don't want to listen to anything I have to say and that's fine. Be happy with your guns and keep backing politicians that do absolutely nothing to make your life better. Stagnant wages since the 80s, crippling drug prices and a broken healthcare system that bankrupts its patients for the crime of being sick must be a-okay with you. As long as you have your guns and bible.

What I don’t get is how anti-gun people think guns are the only way to achieve mass casualties. Remember a thing called bombs? One person walking around in close proximity to others with C-4 strapped to their chest. Boom! Just like that (and no gun needed). Taking away guns doesn’t stop evil people. Also poison can be used to kill a lot of people at once. Knives? Not as many deaths, but more than a few can die.

Troublezone wrote:

Any terrorist groups (foreign or domestic) are terrible. But when you kill or capture a “crazed lone-wolf gunman”, it is over for that person/threat. As opposed to dealing with a group like ISIS, it doesn’t just go away... there are many of them all sharing the same ideology. There’s no “cutting the head off the snake” to stop them. A new leader takes over when the last one is killed. That is why they are considered a bigger threat.

That logic is a bit flawed. How many of the past 50+ terrorist attacks (a mass shooting by a lone gunman is a terrorist attack) have been carried out by a radical Muslim? How many have been carried out by right wingers? The numbers are overwhelming. When you say that it's "over for that person/threat", what exactly does that mean? Yeah, it's over until the next right winger carries out another attack, which is by far the most likely scenario. How about looking at the underlying issues and getting to the root of the problem? I'll give you a hint: It's the guns. You're swimming in them and your federal laws are too loose - that doesn't just go away, that demands legislative action, which you are capable of realizing.

Since Australia banned assault rifles and tightened its gun policy significantly after the Port Arthur shootings, there hasn't been a single mass shooting in the country. Would you like to call that a coincidence?

Do you seriously believe that radical Islam is a bigger threat to you than general gun violence?

Troublezone wrote:

What I don’t get is how anti-gun people think guns are the only way to achieve mass casualties. Remember a thing called bombs? One person walking around in close proximity to others with C-4 strapped to their chest. Boom! Just like that (and no gun needed). Taking away guns doesn’t stop evil people. Also poison can be used to kill a lot of people at once. Knives? Not as many deaths, but more than a few can die.

Yes, but it's a hell of a lot harder to manufacture a bomb on a regular basis than in is to get a hold of a gun in your country.

Mglaffas81 wrote:

Troublezone wrote:

Any terrorist groups (foreign or domestic) are terrible. But when you kill or capture a “crazed lone-wolf gunman”, it is over for that person/threat. As opposed to dealing with a group like ISIS, it doesn’t just go away... there are many of them all sharing the same ideology. There’s no “cutting the head off the snake” to stop them. A new leader takes over when the last one is killed. That is why they are considered a bigger threat.

That logic is a bit flawed. How many of the past 50+ terrorist attacks (a mass shooting by a lone gunman is a terrorist attack) have been carried out by a radical Muslim? How many have been carried out by right wingers? The numbers are overwhelming. When you say that it's "over for that person/threat", what exactly does that mean? Yeah, it's over until the next right winger carries out another attack, which is by far the most likely scenario. How about looking at the underlying issues and getting to the root of the problem? I'll give you a hint: It's the guns. You're swimming in them and your federal laws are too loose - that doesn't just go away, that demands legislative action, which you are capable of realizing.

Since Australia banned assault rifles and tightened its gun policy significantly after the Port Arthur shootings, there hasn't been a single mass shooting in the country. Would you like to call that a coincidence?

Do you seriously believe that radical Islam is a bigger threat to you than general gun violence?

I already said “a lone gunman” is a terrorist. That falls under “domestic”. Duh!

How many Muslim terrorist attacks are reported by the news? Some news sources are biased. It serves the liberal agenda better (to ban guns in America) by attackIng domestic homegrown killers. Has there even been “50+” terrorist attacks by American lone gunmen in recent times? Give me a list instead of spouting off numbers you make up in your head. Funny thing about you is that instead of condemning both Muslim and homegrown American shooters, you only attack the American killers. You obviously turn a blind eye due to political correctness. Anti- American views are widespread in Europe and the rest of the world.

Mglaffas81 wrote:

Troublezone wrote:

What I don’t get is how anti-gun people think guns are the only way to achieve mass casualties. Remember a thing called bombs? One person walking around in close proximity to others with C-4 strapped to their chest. Boom! Just like that (and no gun needed). Taking away guns doesn’t stop evil people. Also poison can be used to kill a lot of people at once. Knives? Not as many deaths, but more than a few can die.

Yes, but it's a hell of a lot harder to manufacture a bomb on a regular basis than in is to get a hold of a gun in your country.

Not really. You have no idea how many amateur bomb makers there are. They even had a book in circulation back in the day called Anarchist’s Cookbook. It doesn’t even matter what is easier to get a hold of... it takes a certain kind of person to kill people and they are determined to kill regardless of the method. Banning guns won’t stop them. 99% of American gun owners are responsible.

Also to address your comment on the lone gunmen...

Of coarse there will always be another one to replace the last one. But the difference is they are generally just one person. A large terrorist group like ISIS is many and they attack as a unit. Basically they can terrorize a whole village or town all at once. A lone gunmen is restricted to being just in one place. Do the math. Plus ISIS torture and behead people.

I’m not just against Muslim terrorists. I also abhor drug cartels. They are just as bad!

I'm not turning a blind eye to anything - I shouldn't have to specifically condemn Islamic terrorism in order for your to assume that I obviously do. I'm just sincerely asking whether you genuinely believe that radical Islamic terrorism is a bigger threat to you. The numbers just don't speak to that. I'm not going to try to find all kinds of statistics, I think you know that the rate of gun-related deaths in your country are disproportionately high to say the very least.

No one is talking about banning guns (maybe certain types of guns) - but any sensible person would want comprehensive gun control - at the very least federal background checks (which still isn't enough), which you still don't have, yet it is backed by the majority of Americans - ever wonder why so many proposals never go anywhere, even with overwhelming support from the American people? I'm not anti-American at all - I believe your country has the potential to be so much better, if only you'd take care of your corruption and what equates to legalized bribes in your political system.

I revert to my Australia point - that is not a coincidence.

You seriously think that there are Islamist-related attacks that go unreported? Give me a break. You know that's not true.

Mglaffas81 wrote:

I'm not turning a blind eye to anything - I shouldn't have to specifically condemn Islamic terrorism in order for your to assume that I obviously do. I'm just sincerely asking whether you genuinely believe that radical Islamic terrorism is a bigger threat to you. The numbers just don't speak to that. I'm not going to try to find all kinds of statistics, I think you know that the rate of gun-related deaths in your country are disproportionately high to say the very least.

No one is talking about banning guns (maybe certain types of guns) - but any sensible person would want comprehensive gun control - at the very least federal background checks (which still isn't enough), which you still don't have, yet it is backed by the majority of Americans - ever wonder why so many proposals never go anywhere, even with overwhelming support from the American people? I'm not anti-American at all - I believe your country has the potential to be so much better, if only you'd take care of your corruption and what equates to legalized bribes in your political system.

I revert to my Australia point - that is not a coincidence.  

My own government is the biggest threat. Erosion of constitutional rights is our biggest problem. How do you like that curve ball? They allow things to happen (if you catch my drift). You think they couldn’t have prevented 9/11?