Those Dumb Democrats

[KL-666]

Now, to make the point clear here. Guns or no guns will not really contribute to the solution of all those problems. Even if a registered gun owner shoots a terrorist before he can blow people up, it would prove only, that he had to face a guy who shouldn't have been there in the first place. The point to solve those problems is long before you see black clad guys with suicide vests running wild in your streets. But as of yet, all police agencies failed in pre-emptive measures.

Sorry, Jwocky, i forgot to acknowledge this as a serious opening for both sides to find common grounds. If you say this, than you must also understand and respect that some people may see this as a ground to have guns for the public, and others do not. Just understand each others position for starters. That is the start of a chance to get somewhere together.

Kind regards, Vincent

[jwocky]

Well, you quoted he quintessence out of my post, so I assume, there is the core of some common ground. My problem is, the whole gun debate solves nothing but covers up the real issues here. For example, the San Bernardino shooter was for the first time involved in a terror plot in 2012 and nobody added 1 to 1 ... For example, the mastermind behind the Paris attack was known to French authorities at least by name (Abdelamid Abaaoud) since the Charlie Hebdo attack in January, however, there was no information to Belgium where he lived all the time.
The Germans caught two guys in a car with eight AK-47 in the trunk, headed for France, but there was no warning to the French.
Russia warned the FBI about the Boston Bombers, the information never made it from FBI to Homeland.
The Iraqis warned the Russians about some connection between Al-Qaeda in 2012 ... still, there was no follow up and people were blown to pieces.
So ... the main failure has nothing to do with gun bans, it has to do lack of communication, secrecy and paranoia between intelligence agencies and also with the tendency to prevent information of the public.

[Lydiot]

"Homicide rates in the U.S. and peer countries by weapon type, 2013"

from here



Disclaimer: I haven't read through the actual source documents that underlie the graphs.

Question: Does it not seem like there is a far larger variation in death caused by firearm versus all other means? Sure, this is correlation only, but juxtaposed to using argument-only as evidence it isn't insignificant. It seems then, to me, at least plausible that with more guns owned gun related deaths go up - BUT - not that other types of assaults go up when that availability drops.

Now, to contrast, the "Unintentional firearm death rates in the U.S. and peer countries, 2013"



A curious discrepancy between the differences between nations.

[SkyBoat]

So, instead, I drink another coffee and let your post stand there as a glowing example for another generic liberal posting misinformation in a way so clumsy even a school child can see what is wrong there.

@JWocky, I know you've drank a lot of coffee when you and I, in particular have gotten into these discussions. And I am the generic liberal you accuse of being totally clumsy and posting only misinformation (except the stats from the National Shooting Sports Foundation). By simple deduction, then, you as a conservative, have a clear and insightful perspective on this whole gun violence problem in the United States. There is no reason for you to take offense at this, it is the "if, then proposition" you set up:

Alas, a lot of those things go wrong, every day and everywhere and I would rather like to discuss options how to solve that problem than being jumped for being a conservative by someone who considers himself educated and informed but still got a number of things wrong because of lack of detailed knowledge (and this didn't go your way Vincent).

But enough is enough in this regard of the liberal/conservative polarization.

I am strongly suggesting, as the Global Moderator, that for the purposes of this kind of discussion--and this applies to all of us, but with a special note to @MIG29pilot who started the thread and gave it the provocative title, that we all cease and desist from using politically denigratative terms as ad hominem attacks. There are ways to discuss an issue like this without it becoming a series of attacks based on point-counterpoint. But to do that all the parties in the debate have to step away from posts that are demeaning, make use of ad hominem sarcasm or condescension. That is not to say the debate cannot be intense, have humor or a degree of sarcasm, but this thread illustrates how a discussion can deteriorate into something destructive, and I own the fact I am part of that, and so I am calling for a stop to this so that we don't create lines of resentment and fragmentation within our group.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Anyone is welcome to challenge that opinion with facts that are contrary to that opinion. But a thread that is built on insults and the open criticism of one political party in a country is not in the best spirit of Free Flight.

Continue on the conversation. That is why I changed the title of the thread. It represents what is being discussed.

[jwocky]

Okay, you called for it, SkyBoat.

The last discussion started when you claimed Germany has to pay for Greece because "they never paid reparations for WWI" ... actually, Germany paid more than 88 billion Euros (recalculated into today's currency of course, the first payments were Goldmark for example). And there was of course no obligation for Germany to paid for the failed socialist experiment in Greece. All payments, the Germans made were a voluntary act of help that doesn't cause any obligation to pay more.
After I told you that, you went all wild on me. You became insulting and arrogant and you never apologized. Fine ...

The one before was about hoe the US welcomed me with open arms and therefore, I would be obligated to bow to your liberal opinions, not to the opinions of other Americans. The logic failure in this demand is obviously, but when I told it to you, you went personal on me. Of course, you didn't know at the time why I like America and Americans in general and you didn't know anything about my past with Americans and well, I never served in the American military only together with them ... so you had the really bad idea to say also some stupid things about vets ... well, you never apologized seriously for that glitch.

The one before was actually my fault because I mixed up two different robbery cases. You spoke about another on e than I did. I never insulted you personally, but because I was wrong, you damended an apology. Not in private but in the Mumble room in which that case was brought tp. I apologized, since in that instance, I was wrong).

So, you recognize the generic liberal I talk about on several signs:
- he is immidiately personal insulting (see SkyBoat's post)
- he talks without knowing the facts or also despite knowing the facts
- he feel entitled just "decide" what others have to think, because he knows so much better
- he never apologizes, regardless how wrong he was but he demands apologies from everybody else

and after he is done demanding apoligies and ko-tous and insulting ... he comes and asks for favours from you ...

And this is, as far as I am concerned the end of this discussion. It is now a proven fact, that one can't discuss in any civilized manner with a generic liberal. So I am out of here.

[Lydiot]

So, you recognize the generic liberal I talk about on several signs:
- he is immidiately personal insulting (see SkyBoat's post)
- he talks without knowing the facts or also despite knowing the facts
- he feel entitled just "decide" what others have to think, because he knows so much better
- he never apologizes, regardless how wrong he was but he demands apologies from everybody else

and after he is done demanding apoligies and ko-tous and insulting ... he comes and asks for favours from you ...

And this is, as far as I am concerned the end of this discussion. It is now a proven fact, that one can't discuss in any civilized manner with a generic liberal. So I am out of here.

Classic.

[IAHM-COL]

I don't think the title of this post leads to anything good:
Democrats aren't dumb. You really can't generalize that.
Republicans aren't dumb, either. You really can't generalize that.
There are dumb people[*], and they distributed among both parties.

I was born and raised outside of the United States of America, and I am a new "import". From my outsider perspective, I will tell you: There is something really asinine goin' on. A bipartisan political system that takes the world as black or white, with an utter disregard of the grayscales and the technicolor of the real world. The need to make every decision of the political life a problem of voting across political lines (the "you are with me or against me" attitude) that prevails in every government decision -- leaving the sane element of "thinking about it" outside of the problem. That is, in my opinion, beyond dumb.

In respect to gun control (the fashion topic in 'America')... oh man! What a delicate issue to just "vote" or "opine" across a black.white political line.

____Footnotes
[*] Just do any effort possible to assure you are not one of those.

[jwocky]

@Lydiot: Very classic. I tried to talk about the real problems, those that kill every year alone in the US approximately a thousand people. I am obviously not allowed to because every time, those other problems come on the table, someone yells "gun control", drools a little bit and the whole thing goes down the gutter again. So yes, I agree, it's a classic.
Nevertheless, just to avoid misunderstandings, when I said "I am out of here, it referred to this thread". I am not withdrawing from FG or from this forum and I am not killing it from my server (I got some emails about this) and yes, I will still tinker on planes, even I am currently quite pissed. But here is the rub: I am that badass bastard conservative (in fact not religious bound and neither entirely party affiliated, that is just another "ass-umption", SkyBoat brought in now several times). Thus, I stand to words I gave, as the bad stupid conservative bastard I am obviously, I have no choice but to do so. For anybody, who doesn't understand it, look in the dictionary of old-fashioned under "honesty" and "honorable". And now, I am really out of this thread, I only came back to make the situation clear and stumbled on your little clumsy attempt to hit me under the belt. Get better at it!

[KL-666]

Obviously Jwocky and Skyboat have discussed before, and i obviously i know nothing about it. But what i do know is that a lot of things can go wrong in discussions. Skyboat probably made mistakes, but i know Jwocky is no girly either and can make mistakes. Both of you better sit back for a while and think about how to repair it. it would be a sad mistake to keep blowing this up.

On a personal note, Jwocky, do not make a bad experience in your eyes with one liberal, into thinking that all liberals make the same mistakes.

Good luck to both, Vincent

[jwocky]

Vincent, that is why I classified SkyBoat as "generic". As most of us know, most people are not "generic" which makes those few who are very annoying at some times. However, you are, compared to me, probably a "liberal" but then, the US version of this term is so twisted sometimes, I doubt it can be applied on a European to begin with and if, you are certainly not the kind of "generic liberal" who insults other people and then whines if the victim of the attack doesn't bow immediately.
See, the funny thing is, the guys I work with at the moment, they are in many aspects and still we can work together. Actually, we have a lot of fun. But then, we all stay there on the base of facts when it comes to our work. Well, yes, and I admit, some of my lines are sometimes a bit shocking for some sensitive souls, but hey, they are all based on the realities of life. And, so my impression, are yours. So, as long as you don't try to whack me with something hard and find it unjust if I give you a little whack in return, we can work together, it's that simple with me.