Colorado tragedy: THINK IT THROUGH!

Damocles said:
I would just like to interject something here...

What happened there was an atrocity. Calling it a "tragedy" imparts some innocence in the event that does not exist.
Click to expand...

Whatthe maniac did was an atrocity. What happened to the movie goers was a tragedy. It depends on your foccus.
 
Damocles said:
Wow.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...078D80E1BA09C2CDB70907&view=detail&FORM=VIRE3
Click to expand...


I am not sure what you mean by 'Wow' here. But, Damocles, do you and that stupid little man from Phoenix, honestly believe that I am unaware of what happened? Let me just say this: I designed and made a huge poster showing a weeping planet which was hung out of my 5th floor office window as the massacre happened. My staff were, to a man and woman, weeping as the news came in. I, and my family, joined the million strong march immediately after June 4th which was shown all over the world. In my possession are Harrison Salisbury's book on the events AND the official Beijing government's book, which incidentally is an absolute travesty of the truth. I had, at the time, staff in Beijing who, when we met several months later wept as we sat in the bar of the Hilton Hotel in Beijing.
Don't you or any other of your fucking yank supporters ever hold the actions of the Chinese government against me you piece of miserable shit. Never.
 
Lowaicue said:
I am not sure what you mean by 'Wow' here. But, Damocles, do you and that stupid little man from Phoenix, honestly believe that I am unaware of what happened? Let me just say this: I designed and made a huge poster showing a weeping planet which was hung out of my 5th floor office window as the massacre happened. My staff were, to a man and woman, weeping as the news came in. I, and my family, joined the million strong march immediately after June 4th which was shown all over the world. In my possession are Harrison Salisbury's book on the events AND the official Beijing government's book, which incidentally is an absolute travesty of the truth. I had, at the time, staff in Beijing who, when we met several months later wept as we sat in the bar of the Hilton Hotel in Beijing.
Don't you or any other of your fucking yank supporters ever hold the actions of the Chinese government against me you piece of miserable shit. Never.
Click to expand...

Fuck off, twat.
You sit there and want to look down your nose at the US and act like you have some kind of superiority.
The once Great Britain and China are no better then the US and in some ways, both of those countries are actually worsethen the US.
I notice you completely ignore all the portests that are happening in Hong Kong, where the residents are all that happy about being under the thumb of China.
What about the Schools being required to teach the children " patriotism", which many of Hong Kong sees as nothing more then brainwashing.
Now; go pay homage to those National Chinese soldiers, that are stationed there, and then run back and hide in your gated community, you fucking hypocrite.
 
leaningright said:
So let's cut to the chase and put an end to this....you aren't budging and I'm not budging when it comes to concealed carry. You have presented no facts but a university of Chicago study (and yes, I had read your little blue cut and paste job) which I believe contains flaws itself. My final commeent on this thread to Mr. Liberal will be to again say that I do not lie...and you are hypothesizing just as much as I or any other advocate for concealed carry.
Click to expand...

leaningright, I have not followed the conversation on this thread so it is quite possible I have missed something/a lot. However from what I know I will have your back in stating that you are not a liar. It is possible you are wrong but what I appreciate about you is that you are a straight forward person who doesn't play games and says what they think. It is possible for people to disagree with you or for you to be wrong but a liar or game player you are not. I do appreciate that about you.
 
leaningright said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
\
nice try toodles, but this little gasbag of yours IGNORES THE FACTS my link pointed out with regards to Winterborn's Kleck link: Maybe Mr. Wolfgang should have read with a critical eye. Observe and learn from this excerpt:

One check on the credibility of these DGU estimates is made possible by the detailed follow-up questions included in both these surveys. In the NSPOF, respondents were asked whether they fired their guns, and if so, whether they
managed to hit the mark. The responses to this item from our 19 "genuine" defensive gun users, multiplied by our sampling weights, imply that approximately 132,000 perpetrators were either wounded or killed at the hands of armed civilians in 1994.
That number, it turns out, is just about the same as the total of all people who were shot and killed or received treatment for nonfatal gunshot wounds in an emergency room that year-yet we know that almost all of those are there as a result of criminal assault, suicide attempt, or accident. There is no trace in these official statistics of the wounded assailants.
Respondents are also asked to report the circumstances under which they were provoked into using their gun. From the NSPOF, we estimate that 322,000 used a gun to defend against a would-be rapist. But that is more than the total
number of rapes and attempted rapes estimated from the best available source, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)!6
Similar puzzles are found in Kleck and Gertz's findings [Hemenway, 19961. Our closer examination of the DGU reports in the NSPOF suggests that almost half of the incidents appear to contain some internal inconsistency, or otherwise
do not make sense. We are persuaded that surveys of this sort generate estimates that grossly exaggerate the true number of DGUs. The most likely explanation provides an important insight about the limitations of the survey method.
http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/pa...enway_2007.pdf

you make the same mistake that willfully ignorant 3rd rate gunner propagandists make... YOU didn't even read the link I provided, YOU just ran to find a source that agreed/supported with your view and posted that. But the devil is in the details, as I've shown above. So your collection of suposition and conjecture is wasted when the FACTS are analyzed (the source I provided DOCUMENTS ALL IT'S INFORMATION, not just the parts necessary to support it's theme).

The statements you put forth in your initial response to me was a LIE, as I pointed out previously. You can't soft soap it or #% around it. My OP and subsequent responses stand.
Click to expand...

So let's cut to the chase and put an end to this....you aren't budging and I'm not budging when it comes to concealed carry. You have presented no facts but a university of Chicago study (and yes, I had read your little blue cut and paste job) which I believe contains flaws itself. My final comment on this thread to Mr. Liberal will be to again say that I do not lie...and you are hypothesizing just as much as I or any other advocate for concealed carry.
Click to expand...

Closer analysis of Kleck's research proves he was wrong in his methodology and results in his attempt to prove his forgone conclusion...and you're too much of a dishonest, intellectual coward to acknowledge this. What you "believe" isn't worth a piss in the wind when the FACTS are made available. That you maintain your belief in Kleck's erroneous report is just insipid stubborness on your part.

Again, I merely extrapolated from the scenarios folk like YOU keep pushing....givent eh FACTS, your scenarios are implausible at best....wishful thinking at it's worst. Remember, I didn't create the chain of events in Colorado...it is YOU who are trying to alter reality with the best case hypothetical situation to prove your beliefs.

The chronology of the posts shows YOU making allegations about what I wrote THAT YOU CANNOT PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF BEYOND YOUR OPINION. To not admit such makes YOU a LIAR as well.....and therefore I have no need to waste time further engaging you.
 
cawacko said:
leaningright, I have not followed the conversation on this thread so it is quite possible I have missed something/a lot. However from what I know I will have your back in stating that you are not a liar. It is possible you are wrong but what I appreciate about you is that you are a straight forward person who doesn't play games and says what they think. It is possible for people to disagree with you or for you to be wrong but a liar or game player you are not. I do appreciate that about you.
Click to expand...

You shouldn't blindly support someone until you actually know what's going on. Read the thread....your buddy made allegations that to date he cannot provide a post where I stated what he alleges beyond his ow biased interpretation. To date, he has not acknowledged his error. When you make claims that are not true, that makes you a liar.
 
Taichiliberal said:
You're just regurgitating the SOS in a new form, but with the same erroneous conclusion. If you had paid attention, my "extrapolation" was based on the scenarios YOU and your gunner buddies put forth. What resulted was a increasing "but what if" from your side in an effort to justify the insane fantasy of a CCW patron(age) would have saved the day. I'm talking about this ONE case, and how some effort should be made to red flag such personal arming off the net. I suggest you re-read the exchanges on this thread before you rehash moot points and erroneous summations.
Click to expand...
you're talking about THIS ONE CASE while POINTEDLY IGNORING the fact that BY LAW!!!!!!! legally possessed guns were PROHIBITED in this theater. Therefore, by pointedly ignoring that little fact, you can spew all kinds of crap to sound justified, but in reality all you're doing is obfuscating the issue.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
You're just regurgitating the SOS in a new form, but with the same erroneous conclusion. If you had paid attention, my "extrapolation" was based on the scenarios YOU and your gunner buddies put forth. What resulted was a increasing "but what if" from your side in an effort to justify the insane fantasy of a CCW patron(age) would have saved the day. I'm talking about this ONE case, and how some effort should be made to red flag such personal arming off the net. I suggest you re-read the exchanges on this thread before you rehash moot points and erroneous summations.
Click to expand...
you're talking about THIS ONE CASE while POINTEDLY IGNORING the fact that BY LAW!!!!!!! legally possessed guns were PROHIBITED in this theater. Therefore, by pointedly ignoring that little fact, you can spew all kinds of crap to sound justified, but in reality all you're doing is obfuscating the issue.
Click to expand...

I "ignore" nothing.....I have repeatedly pointed out that it is the foolish machinations of folk like you who keep IGNORING the FACTS of this case.

Let me dumb it down for you: you little realization changes NOTHING. I never stated, asserted, alluded to or suggested that guns were allowed in the theatre. YOU ARE STILL HYPOTHESIZING ON "WHAT IF", and trying to say that that if a CCW was on the scene, they would have saved the day. As I've demonstrated time and again throughout this thread, that gunner wet dream of yours is just that...a dream....one by which YOU stubbornly hold onto.

So much for your "got'cha", STY. If you want to keep regurgitating this hope of yours, please try a different venue. If you've got nothing new to offer, I'd say we're done here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top