[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

A single incident doesn't make a very good case. And someone who's trained to use a weapon?

It makes the case that semi-automatic weapons (and virtually all guns in civilian use are semi-automatic) no matter the size or appearance, have rapid fire capability. And have what you called similar "killing power" in close quarters such as a school room.

Nobody has said people kill simply because of looks. But to argue there isn't a cult like following around deadly weapons that has an influence is crazy.

You're trying to make your "case" by throwing in an unproven supposition, and one which is not the reason for mass killings. A sort of pile on technique used to strengthen a weak argument.

This is just a bunch of circling nonsense. It's a systems problem, you can't cherry pick single elements in an effort to discredit the entire thing.

You throw in a single element (which if taken out of the "system" would not alter the result) and then accuse me of cherry picking. Actually, you are cherry growing, throwing in as many elements that might color your argument as more full, but in actuality it clutters your thesis with irrelevant odds and ends.

Yea, let's go back to a time when women knew their place, gays stayed in the closet, the poor starved and minorities knew better than to mingle with the white folk.

Fess up. Is detbuch really Jeff Sessions?

Every time and place has its good and bad, even the wonderful world of here and now. The subject is mass killings. It is the now, the today, not the pre-1960's that causes us to fear mass school shootings. Throwing out the baby with the bathwater doesn't make for a better world. Your oversimplified and slanted view of another time overlooks what was once good and what is now bad. And worse, it overlooks similarities. What fundamentally motivated people then, and what basically motivates us now. Why did people kill then, why now. What glue held society together then, what does so now. Are we a more cohesive people now than then? Has our "diversity" fragmented us or made us more united? And what is it that will unify us more as a society, or "village."? And will that unification be one of consent or coercion?

There are basic, fundamental problems involving human nature that will go a lot farther if solved than bickering about what a gun looks like. Changing or eliminating guns does not change human nature.

Funny, most real progressives I know, and I don't know a lot of them believe in a democracy and liberty.

Apparently, the whole world, today, believes in democracy. Whoopee!! But Progressives view of liberty . . . well . . . let's put it this way . . . Progressives have a new view or definition of the old language. Liberty is, like all other words, what Progressivism says it is. The historical record and current practice of Progressive ideology says that "liberty" is whatever government and its experts allows it to be.