Jump to content

D.C. Navy Yard Shooting


Realism

Recommended Posts

British hero of the mall massacre: Ex Royal Marine with a handgun saved 100 lives as terrorists ran amok

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2430201/British-hero-mall-massacre-Ex-Royal-Marine-handgun-saved-100-lives-terrorists-ran-amok.html

 

Yeah, and hang on a fucking minute because I just actually read that article and nowhere in there does it say that anyone was saved because this guy had a gat.

 

There is actually sweet fuck all about what took place. All is says is that a guy who had a gun on him ran back in to the building a few times to help people get out, nothing else at all. For all you know he may never have even laid eyes on any of the attackers and just led people out the door of the building to escape the panic. His firearm may have been completely irrelevant to what happened or it may have been pivotal, none of us have a fucking clue what occurred here.

 

 

 

although I do note that you, RIPS aren't actually making any claims. Rather you've simply suggestively placed this somewhat misleading headline here instead. And that gets back to how argument by link and meme is usually profound and eye catching on the outside and hollow and meaningless when actually investigated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.
  • Replies 115
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This right here is the story of America's gun culture, passed down from fathers to sons, and now to daughters as well. I was taught to respect but never fear guns. The gun itself doesn't do the harm it is only a tool, ambivalent to intent. If anything, fear the hand wielding the gun.

 

^Real talk. Britain for example likes to boast about their gun bans and how they brought down gun related crime. They do this while completely and deliberately ignoring the fact that Britain's violent crime rate has actually risen and that Britain is an extremely violent country with gangs of soccer "hoodlums" and skinheads running around beating people in the heads with bricks and stabbing people with anything from knives to broken bottles randomly at will. In broad daylight, knowing full well that they live in the most video surveiled country in the world. You are way more likely to get mugged and/or bludgeoned to death in broad daylight in London than on the streets of any major city in any southern state that is friendly towards people having the right to carry. Why? Because when you disarm the public you throw them to the mercy of the police and the criminals who know that they are disarmed and defenseless and who are emboldened by this.

When only thugs have guns, whether they be the local Sheriffs Deputies or hardened criminals who will always be able to buy guns regardless of any ban, you are essentially throwing the sheep to the mercy of the wolves and telling them "good luck!".

 

A gun is a fucking tool. There are battery powered circular saws and gasoline powered chainsaws that anybody can walk into Lowes or Home Depot and buy cash in hand.

If you and your family and your entire neighborhood and your entire city are all banned from owning guns, then how the fuck are you supposed to protect yourself from some schizophrenic nut who just kicked in your front door wielding a chainsaw?

The police in this country will tell you that you're supposed to call them, but by the time 911 even answers the phone you will be in the process of getting sawed to pieces. And then when they finally show up, it's going to be in the form of a "kill everything in sight" SWAT team that will first shoot your dogs, then proceed to shoot into every room that they're about to enter thus killing whatever remaining family members might still be hiding under a bed or in some closet from the dude with the chainsaw.

And then they'll all get paid vacations while being praised as "heroes" for pulling off the mission without a single one of their team getting so much as a scratch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

*I own a couple WWII rifles, that I am reasonably sure saw combat.

 

 

 

My grandpop had his WW2 M1 and his father's rifle from WW1 in the basement closet where he kept all his guns.

He had a fucking arsenal.

You ever see that show "Pickers" on The History Channel?

Yeah, that's a glorified version of what those people actually do.

When my grandpops obituary ran in the local paper, some REAL pickers came knocking on the door.

They took my grandmother for his entire arsenal for $200 and left her with a smile on her face thinking that she did good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/concealed-weapons-save-lives-article-1.1121161

 

Concealed weapons save lives

The evidence is clear: Massacres are stopped by legally armed citizens

 

What evidence?! There's no evidence at all in that article at all, it's just a guy giving his opinion.

 

 

Do you even READ the articles before you post them up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, and hang on a fucking minute because I just actually read that article and nowhere in there does it say that anyone was saved because this guy had a gat.

 

There is actually sweet fuck all about what took place. All is says is that a guy who had a gun on him ran back in to the building a few times to help people get out, nothing else at all. For all you know he may never have even laid eyes on any of the attackers and just led people out the door of the building to escape the panic. His firearm may have been completely irrelevant to what happened or it may have been pivotal, none of us have a fucking clue what occurred here.

 

 

 

although I do note that you, RIPS aren't actually making any claims. Rather you've simply suggestively placed this somewhat misleading headline here instead. And that gets back to how argument by link and meme is usually profound and eye catching on the outside and hollow and meaningless when actually investigated.

 

While I agree that the "100's saved" is probably exaggerated, and you do have a point about them leaving out details, the fact remains that (assuming that this story is even true at all), dude probably would not have been emboldened enough to do what he did if not for the fact that he was armed and knew how to shoot. And that most people have a tendency to just lay down and hide instead of actually trying to get out in situations like that, therefore had somebody not had the balls to run in there with a side arm and lead them out, they would have basically just stayed where they were at until the terrorists busted in and had a turkey shoot.

 

I say this full well knowing that I'm just making an assumption that this story about some so called British Marine actually being able to fly to another country with his side arm is somehow true, just as much as you're making the assumptions that you just made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well actually, I didn't make any assumptions regarding what happened at all, that's my whole point. As as I said, none of have a clue what happened in there, the gun may have been pivotal and it may have been irrelevant, none of us know and neither can we draw any conclusion.

 

In saying that, you're totally right that the weapon more than likely gave him courage and capability to go back in and help others, it's fair point. Although I reckon you get an unarmed marine who's done a few tours and I reckon he'd probably head in to do what he could whether he was armed or not. But, that's clearly an assumption too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What evidence?! There's no evidence at all in that article at all, it's just a guy giving his opinion.

 

 

Do you even READ the articles before you post them up?

 

He provided solid evidence that these mass shootings only happen in places that are known to be disarmed.

Idiots like to point at the Fort Hood shooting, and even this DC shooting saying "see!!! it can even happen on a military base!!!! where everybody is armed!!!".

Clinton is my dude. He's one of my favorite presidents not just in my lifetime, but just in general.

But one of a few things he fucked up on was passing a law back in the 90's that disarmed military bases.

Besides a few security guards, all the guns were locked the fuck up and out of reach of anybody there.

This guy knew that.

So did the asshole who shot up Fort Hood.

They both knew this because they FUCKING WORKED THERE!!!

How many instances before these two can you name where any one asshole even had the balls to walk onto a U.S. military base just blasting at whoever?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well actually, I didn't make any assumptions regarding what happened at all, that's my whole point. As as I said, none of have a clue what happened in there, the gun may have been pivotal and it may have been irrelevant, none of us know and neither can we draw any conclusion.

 

In saying that, you're totally right that the weapon more than likely gave him courage and capability to go back in and help others, it's fair point. Although I reckon you get an unarmed marine who's done a few tours and I reckon he'd probably head in to do what he could whether he was armed or not. But, that's clearly an assumption too.

 

The only thing I know is that there are 65 missing, and apparently (according to the news anyways) it's all over now because a section of the mall just happened to "collapse on itself".

Gotta wonder about those 65 unaccounted for.

I'm sure their bodies will eventually be found right along side their hostage takers, but that we'll hear a different "official" story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, that's not solid evidence, that's not even evidence, that's an argument.

 

Evidence tests a theory and covers variables to ensure there there weren't other reasons not immediately apparent that effected outcome. Evidence also ensures that there is a direct relationship between two things, you know the old correlation and cause argument.

 

 

To be clear, I'm not saying that he's definitely wrong as I'm sure there's a strong argument made in terms of deterrence. However when he says "I haven't found any recorded circumstances of armed civvies accidentally shooting bystanders", that doesn't mean these circumstances don't exists, just that he hasn't found them. How do we know that this guy isn't a schmuck and didn't look very well or even has a strong bias and avoided looking where he thought some of these circumstances might exist? We don't know because this is opinion where he's very loosely cited some examples that may possibly support his argument. There is no 'evidence' in the true sense of the word in that article, let alone 'clear evidence'. There's only an argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, that's not solid evidence, that's not even evidence, that's an argument.

 

Evidence tests a theory and covers variables to ensure there there weren't other reasons not immediately apparent that effected outcome. Evidence also ensures that there is a direct relationship between two things, you know the old correlation and cause argument.

 

 

 

The fact that this type of shit very rarely if ever happens in places like gun shows or police stations, and more often than not happens in schools, malls, and places of business where the perpetrator knows damn well that their victims are sitting ducks is the proof that I already pointed out and that you are pretending to not hear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evidence tests a theory and covers variables to ensure there there weren't other reasons not immediately apparent that effected outcome. Evidence also ensures that there is a direct relationship between two things, you know the old correlation and cause argument.

 

That sounds like a legal argument to me.

The same type of legal argument that sends people to prison in this country depending on their monetary status to hire a lawyer capable of arguing "evidence" to the contrary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mate, I'm sure that you have a point but you gotta understand the difference between proof and an argument.

 

You telling me something isn't proof, it's just you telling me stuff. I have no idea how credible your argument is, it may 100% and it may be that you're full of shit. Surely you don't believe something just because some one on the internet told you so, right?

 

 

I know there's a bunch of studies that are both for and against what you're saying, I've read a bunch of them, some a crap, some are thorough. I even said above that I'm sure there's a strong argument for deterrence (so maybe it's that you're not listening to me instead) but that's not the only question that needs to be asked. And to be honest, I'm not even interested enough to dig in to this issue because it doesn't effect me.

 

 

Again, I'm not arguing for or against gun laws in this thread, nowhere will you see me saying yay or nay. What I'm doing is pointing out bullshit, like that there was any real evidence in that article as the headline claimed or that the guy in Kenya may have saved the people with or without the gun.

 

I just get tired of people trying to act like they have all the answers and putting forward bullshit to back them self up like I feel RIPS does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That sounds like a legal argument to me.

The same type of legal argument that sends people to prison in this country depending on their monetary status to hire a lawyer capable of arguing "evidence" to the contrary.

 

It might but I'm basing it more on scientific argument, the Hypothetico Deductive Technique. Its the foundation of science in terms of physics, medical, psychology as well as political science, social science and all that shit. It's about testing a theory to the point that you cannot find anything to disprove it or think of any question that hasn't been asked.

 

And in reality, what you're talking about, an argument being evidence is actually closer to legalese that what I'm saying. Because in science you can't prove anything you can only get to the point where you say we can't find anything that says it's not true or any unanswered questions. However with law all you have to do is argue to the point that the law is satisfied and the judge/jury is convinced.

 

So actually what you're saying is close to legal argument than what I'm saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be clear, I'm not saying that he's definitely wrong as I'm sure there's a strong argument made in terms of deterrence. However when he says "I haven't found any recorded circumstances of armed civvies accidentally shooting bystanders", that doesn't mean these circumstances don't exists, just that he hasn't found them. How do we know that this guy isn't a schmuck and didn't look very well or even has a strong bias and avoided looking where he thought some of these circumstances might exist? We don't know because this is opinion where he's very loosely cited some examples that may possibly support his argument. There is no 'evidence' in the true sense of the word in that article, let alone 'clear evidence'. There's only an argument.

 

Are you drunker than me?

The leading cause of self inflicted gun deaths is suicide.

Suicidal people will kill themselves by whatever means necessary, and tend to opt towards the quickest and easiest option.

Ban guns, and see a rise in self hangings and deliberate OD's.

I can guarantee you for a fact that more people in this country die at the hands of trigger happy police than by accidentally shooting themselves or others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you drunker than me?

The leading cause of self inflicted gun deaths is suicide.

Suicidal people will kill themselves by whatever means necessary, and tend to opt towards the quickest and easiest option.

Ban guns, and see a rise in self hangings and deliberate OD's.

I can guarantee you for a fact that more people in this country die at the hands of trigger happy police than by accidentally shooting themselves or others.

 

1. I only wish

2. I'm sure what you're saying is probably right but I'm not sure how it relates to my point.

 

I'm just saying that the dude in the article gave his opinion and he me be right he may be wrong, we can't tell because he just chose a very small amount of cases in a really complex issue without going through all the details and possible variables. He could be a shmuck that made shit up, he may be on the fucking job and did really good research, we just can't tell from such a short opinion piece like that.

 

Not sure how that relates to suicide and stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mate, I'm sure that you have a point but you gotta understand the difference between proof and an argument.

 

Just like you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to criminal law in my country, I am equally not your "mate".

I have no intention of sticking my cock inside you repeatedly until I cum inside you in an attempt to "mate" with you.

 

The only definition of "evidence" in this country is a legal argument.

I for one should know, as many times as I've been through the ringer.

And the cop who arrested you's "evidence" is ALWAYS his word no mater how contrived.

Come to America and try arguing against said "evidence", and you better have a lot of money for a really good lawyer.

And even then you'll probably lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It might but I'm basing it more on scientific argument, the Hypothetico Deductive Technique. Its the foundation of science in terms of physics, medical, psychology as well as political science, social science and all that shit. It's about testing a theory to the point that you cannot find anything to disprove it or think of any question that hasn't been asked.

 

And in reality, what you're talking about, an argument being evidence is actually closer to legalese that what I'm saying. Because in science you can't prove anything you can only get to the point where you say we can't find anything that says it's not true or any unanswered questions. However with law all you have to do is argue to the point that the law is satisfied and the judge/jury is convinced.

 

So actually what you're saying is close to legal argument than what I'm saying.

 

 

 

You know how I have a knack to argue?

To me, everything I argue is fact.

And I'm just some dude on the internet who never went to college much less law school.

Now just imagine if I was a well educated American lawyer.

Yeah, that's my point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. I only wish

2. I'm sure what you're saying is probably right but I'm not sure how it relates to my point.

 

I'm just saying that the dude in the article gave his opinion and he me be right he may be wrong, we can't tell because he just chose a very small amount of cases in a really complex issue without going through all the details and possible variables. He could be a shmuck that made shit up, he may be on the fucking job and did really good research, we just can't tell from such a short opinion piece like that.

 

Not sure how that relates to suicide and stuff.

 

 

 

Put it this way, some dude in your country punched out a cop so hard for tazing his dad that he crippled the cop for life.

Went to trial and evidence that the cop shouldn't have even been tazing said Dad in the first place was actually even allowed into "evidence".

Not only that, the judge actually found that dude who slugged the cop was in his right to defend his dad who the court found was wrongfully being tazed in the first place.

 

Every single aspect of what I just typed would be completely incomprehensible in any American court of law.

In fact, the guy who punched out the cop would have been instantly shot dead on site by the other cops in attendance just for even punching a cop. And this would have happened even before they determined that that said knockout punch even affected the cop anything more than just being knocked out.

Then the guy's dad would have stood trial for the murder of his own son as well as the paralysation of said cop, and been found guilty by the "evidence" that he started the fight that lead to his tazing that lead to his son punching out the cop that lead to said cop being crippled that lead to the other cops "having to " pump 40 bullets into said son.

 

Apparently "evidence" has a different definition in Australia than it does in America.

Because here in America, the definition of "evidence" is just the legal argument presented by the DA.

That is unless you can afford million dollar lawyers and outspend the DA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no doubt that things are different here when shit goes to court over police action, but that's not what we're talking about here.

 

The issue is that evidence means one thing in terms of law and the justice system and something else when concerning research and social sciences. Given that the dude in the article is using social research to argue about what law is applicable for society (rather than making a legal argument in a court of law) then I'd reckon that a social science definition of evidence is the most applicable.

 

Anyway, it's almost 6pm on a Friday here. My work of spreading disinformation and spying in graffiti artists is over for the week. Catch y'all on Monday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mate, I'm sure that you have a point but you gotta understand the difference between proof and an argument.

 

Guess I somehow missed this first time around.

Wasn't arguing "proof vs argument".

Was saying that argument and evidence in a court of law are the exact same thing, and that "proof" is subjective to whichever argument is better funded.

Or at least that's how it works in the states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no doubt that things are different here when shit goes to court over police action, but that's not what we're talking about here.

 

The issue is that evidence means one thing in terms of law and the justice system and something else when concerning research and social sciences. Given that the dude in the article is using social research to argue about what law is applicable for society (rather than making a legal argument in a court of law) then I'd reckon that a social science definition of evidence is the most applicable.

 

Anyway, it's almost 6pm on a Friday here. My work of spreading disinformation and spying in graffiti artists is over for the week. Catch y'all on Monday.

 

Evidence is in the eye of the beholder, and here in America they only open their eyes to the evidence that pays them more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

here in America, the definition of "evidence" is just the legal argument presented.

 

Well not really, the legal argument presented uses evidence and must abide by the rules of evidence. The actual argument though is based on the law at issue.

Evidence Part One: Any matter of fact that a party to a lawsuit offers to prove or disprove an issue in the case.

Evidence Part Two:A system of rules and standards that is used to determine which facts may be admitted, and to what extent a judge or jury may consider those facts, as proof of a particular issue in a lawsuit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...