Forums - Politics Discussion - Santa Barbara Massacre: To Hell With Facts

Shadow1980 said:
the2real4mafol said:

It honestly wouldn't surprise me if he didn't know what socialism is to be honest. Easier to believe the propaganda on TV than question it, always. Alot of people who claim to hate socialism don't understand it nor bother to find out about it in depth.


 

Most people don't know what "socialist" really means. Much like how George Orwell bemoaned how even in his time the word "fascism" had been devalued into a cheap insult, so too do we see in today's discourse the term "socialist" get devalued to a mere slur. Any person, group, or policy perceived to be to the left of Reagan is immediately denounced as "socialist," and sometimes even "communist" or "Marxist," as if those terms were completely interchangeable, which they're not (besides, I doubt those who use "Marxist" as their term of choice have probably never even read a synopsis of the Manifesto or the ponderous tome that is Das Kapital, much less the actual works themselves). But socialism is not progressive taxation, business regulations, the minimum wage, or liberalism or any of the other things conservatives hate. In the most general sense, "socialism" is defined as public ownership of the means of production, either directly (e.g., cooperatives, worker-owned factories) or by the state. There are many different varieties and sub-varieties (e.g., libertarian socialism, anarcho-socialism, democratic socialism, market socialism, Marxism & its offshoots), but public ownership is the single unifying element. Last I checked, liberals and Democrats weren't exactly pushing for every business to become a co-op, much less calling for outright nationalization of the whole economy. Even in the most liberal states in the Union, or even in that supposed bastion of socialism that is Europe, private businesses thrive. Point being, if anybody uses "socialist" to describe anything other than public ownership of the means of production, they're using it wrong, no ifs, ands, or buts.

I used to think socialism was the first bit you said but the more i looked into the subject the more i realise that it is not. However, i still agree with the idea that workers should control there industries for their own benefits. It worked in Argentina on a small scale, why can't it work on a international level? (a key part of most socialisms). I guess the welfare state and regulations of business are social democratic or liberal ideas. Stuff that wouldn't be needed in a socialist system.  

But it's nice to see an American know what socialism is. Due to all the lies about it from countries like Russia which falsely used the term, to it's use as an insult like you said. It is greatly misunderstood. 



Xbox One, PS4 and Switch (+ Many Retro Consoles)

'When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called the people's stick'- Mikhail Bakunin

Prediction: Switch will sell better than Wii U Lifetime Sales by Jan 1st 2018

Around the Network

I'm not sure which is sadder, the fact that someone got friendzoned so badly they decided to kill 6 people and take their own lives or that the media in places has jumped on this 1/6billionth of the population of the planet as the way that all men think or act.

It is exactly that type of thinking the "paint everyone with the same brush as the absolute worst aspects of a group" that leads to things like sexism and horrible treatment of certain groups, how people can preach so loudly they don't hear what they're actually causing is beyond me.

That said, horrible horrible tragedy which I'm sure will effect tons of people since 7 family's have lost their loved ones.



Fancy hearing me on an amateur podcast with friends gushing over one of my favourite games? https://youtu.be/1I7JfMMxhf8

SocialistSlayer said:
Dragon246 said:
Hypothesis-
Case 1 - Give a psychopath a knife/sharp object and see how many people he could kill before being apprehended.
Case 2 - Now give him a gun (any lethal gun would do) and see how many people he could kill.

Most of the world except USofA are fine without "right to killing with guns". And dear US still cannot afford to change a centuries old law that is probably one of the most obsolete laws in any big democratic constitution.

wait, are you telling me the rest of the world has a right to kill each other with means other than a gun?

No, its just that they are saner than US by not allowing most of the population to own something called "firearms" because a sane society doesnt need everyone armed with a weapon which allows people to kill each other at whims.



Dragon246 said:
SocialistSlayer said:
Dragon246 said:
Hypothesis-
Case 1 - Give a psychopath a knife/sharp object and see how many people he could kill before being apprehended.
Case 2 - Now give him a gun (any lethal gun would do) and see how many people he could kill.

Most of the world except USofA are fine without "right to killing with guns". And dear US still cannot afford to change a centuries old law that is probably one of the most obsolete laws in any big democratic constitution.

wait, are you telling me the rest of the world has a right to kill each other with means other than a gun?

No, its just that they are saner than US by not allowing most of the population to own something called "firearms" because a sane society doesnt need everyone armed with a weapon which allows people to kill each other at whims.

you can kill someone with your bare hands at a whim, a sane society should perfectly be able to own whatever they want and use it responsibly. Do you want to ban water because we can drown in it?



Fancy hearing me on an amateur podcast with friends gushing over one of my favourite games? https://youtu.be/1I7JfMMxhf8

ganoncrotch said:
 

you can kill someone with your bare hands at a whim, a sane society should perfectly be able to own whatever they want and use it responsibly. Do you want to ban water because we can drown in it?

You might want to re-read what he said earlier:

Case 1 - Give a psychopath a knife/sharp object and see how many people he could kill before being apprehended.
Case 2 - Now give him a gun (any lethal gun would do) and see how many people he could kill.

When you respond ''do you want to ban water because we can drown in it?'', you are missing the point of his argument and using faulty logic.



Around the Network
badgenome said:
He also killed half of his victims with a knife. Who's up for some knife control?

Previous post also applies to you.



Luck said:
ganoncrotch said:
 

you can kill someone with your bare hands at a whim, a sane society should perfectly be able to own whatever they want and use it responsibly. Do you want to ban water because we can drown in it?

You might want to re-read what he said earlier:

Case 1 - Give a psychopath a knife/sharp object and see how many people he could kill before being apprehended.
Case 2 - Now give him a gun (any lethal gun would do) and see how many people he could kill.

When you respond ''do you want to ban water because we can drown in it?'', you are missing the point of his argument and using faulty logic.

Did I reply to his earlier comments or just this one? This person in fact has 141 posts on this forum, I replied to one of them, if you enjoyed his earlier posts that is fine but those are not reflected in what I replied to.

Besides your 2 cases are rather weak here, you suggest that if I was mental enough I couldn't go into a local school / hospital / store where there would be no one prepared for any sort of attack and not kill more people with a knife than a round of bullets for most guns would hold? I assure you in the wrong hands any weapon will kill a lot of people. What is needed is a lot more reportability from people who deal with those who are mentally unwell, right now in Ireland there is a lot of cases where husbands have killed their familys and during investigations it's turned out that they had confessed desires to do that to their doctors / psychiachchrist in confidence.

Only thing sadder than hearing about children being murdered is to find out that it could have been avoided if people were aware of what was known about a persons mental health.

Thinking more about the case in point btw, he used a car to kill one of six of the people, you can't try to impose car control based on this one case tho.



Fancy hearing me on an amateur podcast with friends gushing over one of my favourite games? https://youtu.be/1I7JfMMxhf8

How to best deal with mentally unstable individuals is a debate in his own and I am not pretending to give a solution to that problem.

All I am saying is that it's not a rationally sound argument to rebut gun control by pointing out that you can also kill someone with a car, knife, chair or whatever object you can come up with. The fact is: put yourself in the shoes of someone that is targeted by an individual who wants to commit mass murder, would you rather him to come at you with a gun or some other object ? I think the answer is pretty obvious to anyone.

Again, this doesn't mean that gun control is the solution to unstable individuals, only that you can't rebut the gun control position by simply saying: "Hey, a knife can kill people too." It makes for a nice sounding comeback, it's easy to say, it's catchy, but there's no solid rational foundation to it.



Ignore xD



If the gun control nuts think crime is bad now just wait when all the guns are gone from civilians, and only the criminals have them. Our neighbor to the south is a pretty good example of what awaits.