The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Profile: Lotje1000
About
User Name: Lotje1000
Forum Rank: Advanced Member
Occupation:
Interests:
Gender: None Specified
Home Page
Statistics
Joined: Monday, November 3, 2014
Last Visit: Sunday, August 18, 2019 8:46:34 AM
Number of Posts: 1,029
[0.11% of all post / 0.59 posts per day]
Avatar
  Last 10 Posts
Topic: The reasons for the recent mass shootings
Posted: Saturday, August 17, 2019 9:55:16 AM
FounDit wrote:
Lotje1000 wrote:
Just for the record then, where is that evidence I'm not paying attention to? I checked all your posts in this thread and other than the one article that you wrongfully used to support your demonized opinion on abortion (and the one example BobShilling pointed out,) they're all evidence-less.

Demonized? I don't know what you are talking about. What is "demonizing" about stating a fact: that women demand the right to abort their babies whenever they choose? I pointedly named Roe vs. wade. It is a law here in the U.S.


1) "Where is that evidence I'm not paying attention to?" You haven't answered my question.
2) Demonized: See BobShilling's response. Roe vs Wade does not give women the right to abort their babies whenever they choose. It also does not let them do it whenever the babies are "inconvenient", to use your demonizing language. There is a law in the U.S. You're just misinterpreting it.


FounDit wrote:
Lotje1000 wrote:
Evidence from other threads teaches me that you'll turn to more ad hominems, strawman arguments and deflection through some variation of "you people are so HILARIOUS, which really means I don't have to explain myself, somehow".

Even when I do explain myself, you all choose to ignore it and claim no evidence. There are none so blind...etc.


You have not explained yourself. You have continuously misinterpreted U.S. law on the subject of abortion and demonized women in the process. You've also not provided any of the evidence I have asked about. When you get to the point when you can't even provide evidence for the claim you have evidence, you're not doing to well debating things, FounDit. Feel free to claim we're blind, but if you have nothing to present, it doesn't really matter whether if I have mental or actual scotoma.
Topic: The reasons for the recent mass shootings
Posted: Friday, August 16, 2019 3:39:58 AM
FounDit wrote:
Lotje1000 wrote:
Lotje1000 wrote:
It seems FounDit is taking a page out of President Trump's book: While he has us all responding to his posts and many unfounded accusations, he still hasn't provided a single shred of evidence that:
No, I haven't taken any pages out of Trump's book. All thoughts and opinions are my own.

- Democrats hate America, the Constitution etc (full list here)
- Hope supports illegal immigration
- Far more people die of car accidents than they do gun violence
- Women who want to kill their own kids before or at birth are hypocrites for having empathy for kids in cages
- Women who want to have an abortion essentially want to kill their child when it has become inconvenient
(I read FounDit's one article about abortion at birth, I also read the act it refers to and it says "24 weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or at any time when necessary to protect a patient's life or health." - so essentially, not at birth unless the mother is going to die or if the fetus isn't viable anyway. So hardly because it's inconvenient.)
- Having empathy for kids in cages means you want the US to let in any immigrant, illegal or otherwise
- Donald Trump is a good president
- All of us with different opinions to FounDit's are Leftists
- Hope and I are clairvoyant


I'd like to add to the list:
- Supreme Court has made foolish decisions
- The Democrats hope to be able to interpret the Constitution as they wish (and, presumably, the Republicans have the True Interpretation)
- Trump and his supporters have saved the republic.
- The socialists are assaulting the republic.

So far, though, not a single shred of evidence.

Then you simply haven't been paying attention, or choose not to see. Your mental scotoma is not my problem to solve.


Just for the record then, where is that evidence I'm not paying attention to? I checked all your posts in this thread and other than the one article that you wrongfully used to support your demonized opinion on abortion (and the one example BobShilling pointed out,) they're all evidence-less.

Evidence from other threads teaches me that you'll turn to more ad hominems, strawman arguments and deflection through some variation of "you people are so HILARIOUS, which really means I don't have to explain myself, somehow".
Topic: The reasons for the recent mass shootings
Posted: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 3:35:09 AM
FounDit wrote:
But that is simply stating facts. It's called Roe vs. Wade, and women do demand the right to kill/terminate their babies growing within them. Just a fact. If it isn't true, perhaps you could show us the law that forbids it.

Roe vs Wade says nothing about women happily killing their kids when convenient - those are your subjective opinions. It is a document about the right of women to decide to have an abortion, that is an objective fact.

FounDit wrote:
The Constitution does not permit the Federal Government to perform this function. It is unconstitutional. To do so would require a federal registry which would give the government the power to permit, or forbid, obtaining a firearm, which is in violation of the 2nd Amendment. This is a power forbidden to the Federal government.

That is one interpretation that BobShilling already pointed out, just like he pointed out the options for amendments. There are also other interpretations that say it wouldn't be unconstitutional.

FounDit wrote:
Lotje1000 wrote:
Things like stricter background checks (which President Trump got rid of and is now looking to reestablish), mandatory firearms training, regular refresher courses on that training, optional psychological support for people who have had to fire a weapon, restriction on the types of weapons that become available, etc.
[...]
The only thing I would "presume" to know is that you don't think about these things. And it turns out I'm right, because even when I explain my thoughts on gun control, you still think I am talking about controlling people.

That's right, because that is what gun control is all about. Tell me how you control guns without controlling people.

I literally just did in that paragraph. That's no more "people control" than it's people control to make similar requests of people when they want to drive a car.

FounDit wrote:
Automatic weapons are already illegal, and no one is permitted to have one. But you deflect again. Saying the whole population is affected by rules is completely different than forbidding the whole population from obtaining a vehicle when someone misuses one, and that is exactly what is being proposed when countries who have banned possession of arms are used as examples of what is desired.


- Semi-automatic rifles were banned for a while, but the ban expired and attempts to renew it have failed.
- Laws sometimes include rulings forbidding people from doing or having stuff. Like forbidding them from owning or dealing drugs. Or forbidding them from driving a car without a license or registration. That's usually in place because someone once did something that was seen as bad (buy/use/deal drugs, buy a car but not know how to drive it, etc.) and a law was made to stop that from happening. So yes, the whole population is affected by rules and sometimes those rules forbid the population from obtaining something (if they don't tick the required boxes).


FounDit wrote:
There has NOT been hundreds of mass shootings. But there have been thousands of people killed by vehicles and drugs and yet there is no outcry for restricting people's ability to obtain one. The problem isn't the gun, it's the nut case using it and none of the laws already passed, or being proposed, would have prevented the last two shootings.

There have been hundreds of mass shootings this year already. I gave you two sources on the subject above. There is no accepted definition of mass shootings, but whichever way you want to define them, there have been more then there have been vehicle related mass attacks. Each of the following pages describes their own criteria:
- As of July 31, 2019, 248 mass shootings have occurred in 2019
- The two shootings, first in El Paso, Texas, and then in Dayton, Ohio, are the latest instances of deadly mass shootings in 2019, bringing the total number of such incidents up to at least 17 — an average of one every 12.7 days this year.
- 256 mass shootings in 2019 (by 14 August)


FounDit wrote:
And no laws will. Laws have no meaning to crazies and criminals.
[...]That's a lie. We DO have background checks on people when then purchase a gun. And we just discovered the mother of one of the shooters notified the police about her son and his behavior prior to the shooting, but nothing was done about it. This is because we don't punish people until they COMMIT a crime. We do not yet have "thought police", but this seems to be what is being advocated.


- BEFORE people commit a crime, they are stopped because there are laws in place that remind them that what they want to do is a crime, and what consequences they might face if they go through with it. So having laws stops wannabe-criminals.
- BEFORE people commit a crime, laws can stop them from accessing the items they need to commit such a crime, such as the background checks on mental illness that President Trump got rid of. That would stop "the crazies" as you call them.
- AFTER people commit a crime, they are brought to justice, serving as an example for anyone else. Thus stopping them from doing it again.
- AFTER people commit a crime, they have that crime added to their criminal record. If that record is checked, it can stop them from doing something dangerous again - like, say, purchasing a gun.

Not regulating guns as strictly as the country regulates non-weapons (such as cars) is giving means and opportunity to the "crazies and criminals".


FounDit wrote:
And that is already being done. And none of that prevented what happened. Background checks do not stop someone from acting in the future. The shooter passed a background check.

- There was no ban in place on semi-automatic rifles that stopped shooters from obtaining them
- There are still ways of obtaining a gun without a background check: 22% of current U.S. gun owners who acquired a firearm within the past 2 years did so without a background check
- President Trump, apparently, wants to strengthen background checks
- McConnell and Trump have also signaled that they would also consider discussing new “red flag” laws, which would allow authorities to take guns away from people who are believed to be dangerous.
- For the specific Dayton case: It is currently unclear if the alleged shooter in El Paso was subjected to a background check when purchasing his firearm. That's a problem in and of itself. But even if it wouldn't have prevented this one, that doesn't make it not a good solution to other mass shootings for the future.


Quote:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

FounDit wrote:
Exactly. You will notice that it is the militia that is well regulated, not the arms they use. That is a job forbidden to the Federal Government by the Constitution.


- Whether it's constitutional has already been argued above, and by BobShilling
- You will also notice that one of the Second Amendment interpretations is that it's the militia that has a right to keep and bear arms, rather than people in general. Maybe it's time to clear up this ambiguity. After all:
FounDit wrote:
Are laws "vague"? No. The explicitly say what is, or is not, permitted behavior. The are black and white.
Topic: The reasons for the recent mass shootings
Posted: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 2:18:20 AM
Lotje1000 wrote:
It seems FounDit is taking a page out of President Trump's book: While he has us all responding to his posts and many unfounded accusations, he still hasn't provided a single shred of evidence that:

- Democrats hate America, the Constitution etc (full list here)
- Hope supports illegal immigration
- Far more people die of car accidents than they do gun violence
- Women who want to kill their own kids before or at birth are hypocrites for having empathy for kids in cages
- Women who want to have an abortion essentially want to kill their child when it has become inconvenient
(I read FounDit's one article about abortion at birth, I also read the act it refers to and it says "24 weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or at any time when necessary to protect a patient's life or health." - so essentially, not at birth unless the mother is going to die or if the fetus isn't viable anyway. So hardly because it's inconvenient.)
- Having empathy for kids in cages means you want the US to let in any immigrant, illegal or otherwise
- Donald Trump is a good president
- All of us with different opinions to FounDit's are Leftists
- Hope and I are clairvoyant


I'd like to add to the list:
- Supreme Court has made foolish decisions
- The Democrats hope to be able to interpret the Constitution as they wish (and, presumably, the Republicans have the True Interpretation)
- Trump and his supporters have saved the republic.
- The socialists are assaulting the republic.

So far, though, not a single shred of evidence.
Topic: The reasons for the recent mass shootings
Posted: Monday, August 12, 2019 3:33:39 AM
It seems FounDit is taking a page out of President Trump's book: While he has us all responding to his posts and many unfounded accusations, he still hasn't provided a single shred of evidence that:

- Democrats hate America, the Constitution etc (full list here)
- Hope supports illegal immigration
- Far more people die of car accidents than they do gun violence
- Women who want to kill their own kids before or at birth are hypocrites for having empathy for kids in cages
- Women who want to have an abortion essentially want to kill their child when it has become inconvenient
(I read FounDit's one article about abortion at birth, I also read the act it refers to and it says "24 weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or at any time when necessary to protect a patient's life or health." - so essentially, not at birth unless the mother is going to die or if the fetus isn't viable anyway. So hardly because it's inconvenient.)
- Having empathy for kids in cages means you want the US to let in any immigrant, illegal or otherwise
- Donald Trump is a good president
- All of us with different opinions to FounDit's are Leftists
- Hope and I are clairvoyant
Topic: The reasons for the recent mass shootings
Posted: Monday, August 12, 2019 2:53:47 AM
FounDit wrote:

I demonize no one. As I said to BobShilling, the issue is about whining over the treatment of children at the border while demanding the right to kill them before, or even at, birth. It's the hypocrisy I detest.

Maybe you should stop saying that women are only too happy to kill their children when convenient, then. Otherwise people will get the wrong impression on where you stand with regards to abortion rights.

FounDit wrote:
There is no such thing as "gun control". It's people control. The only "gun control" is the satirical joke about being able to hit your target.

There could be such a thing as "gun control". You could institute the same requirements as are already in place with regards to cars. You could require a license, a registration, formal training, regular check-ups etc.
I see now why you are so afraid of the Left, if you believe gun control is people control.


FounDit wrote:
Lotje1000 wrote:
Things like stricter background checks (which President Trump got rid of and is now looking to reestablish), mandatory firearms training, regular refresher courses on that training, optional psychological support for people who have had to fire a weapon, restriction on the types of weapons that become available, etc.

I never said anything about those points, yet you presume to know my mind about those things. Have you developed clairvoyance, too?

You're right, you never said anything about those points. I did, it's my response to your comment 'You don't say how you would do that. Are you advocating punishment for "thought crimes"?".
The only thing I would "presume" to know is that you don't think about these things. And it turns out I'm right, because even when I explain my thoughts on gun control, you still think I am talking about controlling people.


FounDit wrote:
And once again, you deflect from the point. No one suggests restricting the whole population from obtaining vehicles, or any particular vehicle, simply because someone misuses one, but that is what is being promulgated by the "gun control" crowd.

Mentioning car regulations and restrictions is not deflecting from the point. It's a point you brought up to begin with and continue to bring up.
And yes, the regulations in place do affect the whole population. The restrictions just aren't as strict as with guns, because cars are not weapons of destruction. Yet for something that isn't a weapon of destruction, they are more heavily regulated than guns - a point which you keep ignoring, no matter how many times we bring it up.

FounDit wrote:
I'm saying no one suggests restricting the whole population from obtaining vehicles, or any particular vehicle, simply because someone misuses one, but that is what is being promulgated by the "gun control" crowd. There is the so-called "assault rifle". There is no such thing. It is simply a rifle. No different in function that any other rifle. That's deliberate demagoguery.

As said, the whole population is affected by rules that determine whether someone can obtain a car or not - a far more thorough check than is placed on gusn for the moment. Feel free to argue the semantics of assault rifles all you want, but maybe save it for another thread. I never used that term, I was talking about automatic weapons.

FounDit wrote:
And yet, far more people die from vehicles, stabbings, clubs, etc. than from guns with no outcry for "control" of those things.

And yet, as I have said multiple times in this thread, those things aren't used for nearly as many mass attacks. You managed to name five recent-ish attacks with a vehicle, yet ignore the hundreds of mass shootings this year alone. Feel free to provide some sources about the number of mass stabbings or mass clubbings.

FounDit wrote:
And there are far more guns in the hands of law-abiding people who don't misuse them, even without training. That's because most people have enough common sense to respect the power guns provide, and use them judiciously. It is the criminal element that has no respect for other people.

Did you miss the sources on the number of mass shootings in your country in this year alone? I'm glad those people you mention know what they're doing, but it isn't stopping all the others from committing their atrocities.

Funny thing about criminals is that usually people aren't criminals until they've committed their first crime. If their first crime turns out to be a mass shooting, then it's a little too late for your demonization of the 'criminal element'. Even if it isn't their first crime, you have no background checks and enforcement in place top stop the 'criminal element' from obtaining weapons.

FounDit wrote:
To take a prescription, yes, but to be able to visit a physician and obtain a prescription, no. We don't restrict the whole of society simply because someone else abuses them.

I'm not sure where you're getting this from but I'm not inclined to stop people from visiting a shop and seeing if they can obtain a gun. I'm just talking about restricting people from actually obtaining the gun they shop for. You know, the bit where the shop owner (physician) checks the purchaser (patient)'s background (medical background), because some weapons (medication) should only be available to people if they're allowed to have it (prescription).

Honestly, I'm surprised there's so much worry about regulation when it's all there in your second amendment anyway (emphasis mine):
Quote:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Topic: The reasons for the recent mass shootings
Posted: Thursday, August 8, 2019 3:22:19 AM
FounDit wrote:
Exactly when did I say I wanted government to impose control on women's bodies? uh...never.

You certainly don't seem very kind to people who want women to have a choice in what happens to their bodies. You prefer to refer to them as demanding "the right to kill them when they are convenient"
So you demonise women who want to be able to have an abortion, but claim you don't want the government to impose control on women's bodies. So where do you stand on the matter?


FounDit wrote:
You don't say how you would do that. Are you advocating punishment for "thought crimes"?

I thought it was obvious. Gun control. You know, the thing you don't want people to even consider. Things like stricter background checks (which President Trump got rid of and is now looking to reestablish), mandatory firearms training, regular refresher courses on that training, optional psychological support for people who have had to fire a weapon, restriction on the types of weapons that become available, etc.

FounDit wrote:

Lotje1000 wrote:
Doesn't seem that hard, that's what you do with cars already.

No it isn't.

Yes it is. You say it below, there's training on how to use them. You need a license, registration and license plate, proof of purchase. There are far more checks involved with cars than there are with guns currently.

And again, that's for a mode of transportation that might kill someone if misued - not a tool deliberately designed to kill.


FounDit wrote:
Lotje1000 wrote:
Yet there are restrictions to ownership and ability to drive a car.

Not for the whole population simply because someone misuses one. We advocate training for the use of them, just as we do for guns.

Are you saying training is optional? That the whole population doesn't need driver's ed or a license to have a car? Or that road laws are more like road guidelines?

FounDit wrote:
Lotje1000 wrote:
Additionally:
- There aren't that many mass murders happening with a car, where 1 person deliberately ends the lives of so many.

Did you miss these events?

No, I didn't. That's why I specifically said "that many mass murders". You named 5 events. Compare that to the Mass shootings archive's list for 2019. Mass shootings also have their own wikipedia page.

FounDit wrote:

Exactly. When your life is threatened, or those of your family, you want something designed to produce death for your attacker: knife, gun, club, sword, etc.

And, I would hope, you'd want to have the training and support to do that properly. There are far more checks in place to ensure people know how to drive their car according to the law than there are for people's purchase and use of guns.

FounDit wrote:

Once again you miss the point, deliberately so, I think. The whole of society isn't restricted to obtaining prescriptions simply because someone abuses them. Illogical argument.

The whole point of prescriptions is that you need the doctor's authorization to be allowed to take certain medication. People's access to that medication is restricted in order to prevent abuse.
Topic: The reasons for the recent mass shootings
Posted: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 3:13:38 AM
FounDit wrote:
Ah, once again you hide behind a supposed care and concern for "the children". But as I said before, you don't get to crow about how "concerned" you are for the children and at the same time demand the right to kill them when they are convenient. Well, you can, but you come across looking like a fool, or a hypocrite.
[...]
I would suggest using some common sense, but...


I will never stop being amazed at how FounDit is against government regulation on anything that might impact him - yet seems perfectly fine with the government imposing control on women's bodies.

Wait, no, let me use common sense here... Yeah, thinking about it now, that's entirely in character for FounDit. Nevermind!


FounDit wrote:
But,yes, I applaud the Founders for giving us the right to defend ourselves with arms. You will notice - well, you probably won't, but clear-eyed folks will notice - that it is a always a good guy/gal with a gun that stops a bad guy/gal with a gun.


But not before the bad guy/gal with a gun has shot up a lot of people first, evidently. If only there was a way of stopping them before they could do that.

FounDit wrote:
Crazies will always be with us - always have been, always will be. But you cannot take away the rights of everyone else in the country because of one, two, or even a dozen mentally disturbed persons.


Doesn't seem that hard, that's what you do with cars already.

FounDit wrote:
Hundreds each day die in auto accidents from drunk drivers, and they aren't even mentally disturbed, but there is no call to restrict ownership of autos for everyone in the country.


Yet there are restrictions to ownership and ability to drive a car.
Additionally:
- There aren't that many mass murders happening with a car, where 1 person deliberately ends the lives of so many.
- Cars aren't designed to be death machines. Guns are. Automatic weapons especially so.


FounDit wrote:
Hundreds, and even thousands, die each year from prescription drug overdoses, and neither are they mentally disturbed, but there is no call to restrict the rights of everyone else over obtaining prescriptions.

The US government spends a fraction of the amount on gun violence that it does on researching drug-related deaths.
Additionally:
- There aren't that many mass murderers happening with drugs where 1 person deliberately ends the lives of so many.
- Prescription medicine, by definition, is regulated. So people's rights are already restricted precisely because of what can go wrong.
- Drugs aren't designed to be death machines. Drugs are. Automatic weapons especially so.

So, I guess, thanks for providing two examples for how government regulation actually helps save lives.
Topic: The reasons for the recent mass shootings
Posted: Tuesday, August 6, 2019 6:04:58 AM
Mental illness is one of the reasons Trump quotes for the recent massacres.

Quote:
President Donald Trump responded to the El Paso and Dayton mass shootings by insisting Monday that “mental illness pulls the trigger not the gun,” but shortly after taking office he quietly rolled back an Obama-era regulation that would have made it harder for people with mental illness to buy guns.


Quote:
"If the president truly believed that those with mental illness should not have access to weapons of war, he would not have reversed Obama's executive order to remove social security recipients with mental illness from the NICS background system," Po Murray, Chairwoman, Newtown Action Alliance said in a statement. "But the fact is that only 4 percent of violent crimes are committed by those with mental illness. Donald Trump continues to push the NRA rhetoric that scapegoats mental illness in an effort to deflect from the real issue ... the dire lack of common-sense legislation that could end the epidemic of gun violence in our country."


Source.
Topic: A price Americans are willing to pay
Posted: Tuesday, August 6, 2019 5:51:13 AM
FounDit wrote:


Btw, BobShilling, does completely and falsely misrepresenting the First Amendment to the Constitution serve as evidence in my list under:

“they hate the Constitution;”? (if they loved it, wouldn’t they quote it accurately?)
Does calling the country “God-forsaken” count as evidence in my list under my last point:

“Apparently, even the very existence of the country annoys them?” (If they loved it, wouldn’t they praise it for the freedoms it provides?)

You probably won’t accept that as evidence, so I won't be surprised if you verify that.


So you're basing your analysis of the entire democratic party on the posts of one person on a language subforum? That's your evidence? Moreover, your evidence is grounded entirely on subjective concepts like love and annoyance.

... No, I don't think anyone would accept that as evidence.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2019 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.