- Apr 2, 2009
- 8,660
- 16
- 17,510
- Status
It’s ironic that the rule of locking the cockpit door only began, I think, after 9/11, for protection against terrorists. I don’t believe at the time anyone thought it could backfire.
I think having two people in the cockpit would be a deterrent against a suicide attempt, maybe not a guarantee, but certainly making it less likely. One of the central features of depression—I speak from experience here, I suffered from it for a while a long time ago-- is low self-esteem, a feeling of utter worthlessness. Lubitz was almost certainly well aware that what he was doing was a horrible thing for others, but since he viewed himself as a horrible person, that wouldn’t have necessarily deterred him. Killing others would have been consistent with his view of someone who didn’t deserve to live.
Also, hand-in-hand with the feeling of worthlessness is the feeling that life is pointless, that it has no meaning. That being the case, killing others is not such a big deal. It's not that he would have hated others, or taken any joy in their deaths, but that their deaths wouldn't have seemed that important to him. Nothing would seem important to him.
But if he had to overpower someone else, that would make it more difficult. Another feature of depression is lethargy, which again, goes along with low self-esttem and a feeling that life is meaningless. That being the case, there isn’t much point in making much of an effort. Locking a door and recharting the course of a plane is a very simple thing to do, it's about as easy as not doing it, but overpowering another person means going to a lot of trouble. You have to have a clear-cut goal, and regard that other person as standing in the way of that goal, and therefore worthy of being subdued. In my experience, depressed people generally don’t function that way. I'm speaking of pure depression, of course. There could have been more to his condition than that.
The real problem, though, is identifying people like this. It seems that Lubitz hid his problem, because it almost certainly would have meant termination of his job. It’s a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation. If you allow people with such problems to pilot a plane, you’re asking for trouble, but if you don’t, you’re encouraging them to hide the problem.
Today’s Quiz. Consider the following items:
a) car
b) airplane
c) knife
d) gun
1. Which of these is designed solely to kill or injure humans and other animals?
2. With which of these is killing someone easiest and least risky to the protagonist?
3. Which of these results in the most intentional deaths?
4. Which of these results in the most accidental deaths (per person-hours of use)?
5. Which of these has the least practical value?
6. Manufacture and sale for public consumption of which of these has the least benefit for the rest of the economy?
Scott, if you want to argue that people have the right to own guns and defend themselves, fine. I don't agree with that argument, but I think I understand it. But you're too intelligent and informed to pretend that guns can be rationalized in any way remotely close to the way airplanes can be. It has to be an entirely different argument.
I think having two people in the cockpit would be a deterrent against a suicide attempt, maybe not a guarantee, but certainly making it less likely. One of the central features of depression—I speak from experience here, I suffered from it for a while a long time ago-- is low self-esteem, a feeling of utter worthlessness. Lubitz was almost certainly well aware that what he was doing was a horrible thing for others, but since he viewed himself as a horrible person, that wouldn’t have necessarily deterred him. Killing others would have been consistent with his view of someone who didn’t deserve to live.
Also, hand-in-hand with the feeling of worthlessness is the feeling that life is pointless, that it has no meaning. That being the case, killing others is not such a big deal. It's not that he would have hated others, or taken any joy in their deaths, but that their deaths wouldn't have seemed that important to him. Nothing would seem important to him.
But if he had to overpower someone else, that would make it more difficult. Another feature of depression is lethargy, which again, goes along with low self-esttem and a feeling that life is meaningless. That being the case, there isn’t much point in making much of an effort. Locking a door and recharting the course of a plane is a very simple thing to do, it's about as easy as not doing it, but overpowering another person means going to a lot of trouble. You have to have a clear-cut goal, and regard that other person as standing in the way of that goal, and therefore worthy of being subdued. In my experience, depressed people generally don’t function that way. I'm speaking of pure depression, of course. There could have been more to his condition than that.
The real problem, though, is identifying people like this. It seems that Lubitz hid his problem, because it almost certainly would have meant termination of his job. It’s a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation. If you allow people with such problems to pilot a plane, you’re asking for trouble, but if you don’t, you’re encouraging them to hide the problem.
Scott SoCal said:
Today’s Quiz. Consider the following items:
a) car
b) airplane
c) knife
d) gun
1. Which of these is designed solely to kill or injure humans and other animals?
2. With which of these is killing someone easiest and least risky to the protagonist?
3. Which of these results in the most intentional deaths?
4. Which of these results in the most accidental deaths (per person-hours of use)?
5. Which of these has the least practical value?
6. Manufacture and sale for public consumption of which of these has the least benefit for the rest of the economy?
Scott, if you want to argue that people have the right to own guns and defend themselves, fine. I don't agree with that argument, but I think I understand it. But you're too intelligent and informed to pretend that guns can be rationalized in any way remotely close to the way airplanes can be. It has to be an entirely different argument.
- Nov 8, 2012
- 12,104
- 0
- 0
Re:
1.) none of the above.
2.)probably a toss-up between the knife and the gun. Most murders by gun involve gang members and are at close range.
3.) once you take suicides out, I'm not sure. The plane will come in 4th for sure.
4.) guns
5.). So what? How much co2 does a gun emit compared to a plane? Or car? Practical value? How much practical value does a bicycle have?
6.) two of the four will help end mankind... And it ain't the gun.
Anything used as a weapon in the hands of the deranged will likely end up with catastrophic consequences. Plane, gun, car or knife. Four times as many people in the USA are killed every year with a baseball bat than died in that plane crash. Yet I can go to any sporting goods store and buy as many baseball bats as I want.
This isn't about rationalization. This is about the complete and utter fallacy of the anti-gun argument. There are mentally ill people in this world. That is a fact. This plane crash... If nothing else... Demonstrates that mental illness is where we all should be putting our focus.
Imagine your posture if Lubitz had opened fire in a school blowing away 149. What would your knee-jerk reaction be? I know it would be and you know it know what it would be.
Merckx index said:
1.) none of the above.
2.)probably a toss-up between the knife and the gun. Most murders by gun involve gang members and are at close range.
3.) once you take suicides out, I'm not sure. The plane will come in 4th for sure.
4.) guns
5.). So what? How much co2 does a gun emit compared to a plane? Or car? Practical value? How much practical value does a bicycle have?
6.) two of the four will help end mankind... And it ain't the gun.
Anything used as a weapon in the hands of the deranged will likely end up with catastrophic consequences. Plane, gun, car or knife. Four times as many people in the USA are killed every year with a baseball bat than died in that plane crash. Yet I can go to any sporting goods store and buy as many baseball bats as I want.
This isn't about rationalization. This is about the complete and utter fallacy of the anti-gun argument. There are mentally ill people in this world. That is a fact. This plane crash... If nothing else... Demonstrates that mental illness is where we all should be putting our focus.
Imagine your posture if Lubitz had opened fire in a school blowing away 149. What would your knee-jerk reaction be? I know it would be and you know it know what it would be.
Re: Re:
What is a gun designed for other than to kill?
About five times as many murders are committed with guns as with knives. This has been a fairly consistent ratio over time, with the most recent numbers like this:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/bas ... 5MuxlKB.99
Even gun control opponents have cited these stats (as an argument against banning semi-automatic rifles). http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... red-knive/
See above.
What does C02 emission have to do with practical value? If you want to argue that the net value of cars and planes is less than zero because of C02 emission, go ahead, but that is a different issue from their practical value. Practical value is relevant because if something causes or facilitates deaths, that negative value has to be balanced against some positive value. Most people, I’m quite sure including you, think for planes and cars the practical value outweighs the deaths. I’m asking you to show me the practical value of guns that outweighs the deaths they cause.
And you continue to dodge this question, by refusing to acknowledge the blindingly obvious fact that a gun has zero value other than its ability to kill. A first grader can see the difference between cars, planes, knives and baseball bats, on the one hand, and guns on the other, while you pretend that there is no meaningful difference.
Again, you’re bringing up irrelevancies. The practical value of a bike—which, as a bike commuter, I would say is very high—is not at issue, since bikes are not dangerous weapons. Their value doesn’t have to be weighed against the deaths they cause, which are quite few and mostly limited to traffic accidents (which are usually more the fault of the driver of the car).
The bottom line is this:
If we banned all planes, the economy would collapse.
If we banned all cars, the economy would collapse.
If we banned all knives, the economy would collapse (if you doubt this, consider the food industry).
If we banned all guns, the economy would not collapse. That experiment has been tried.
Despite all your dodging of the issue, a gun is used only to kill and injure. It has no practical value other than self-defense, and that value depends on the argument that if citizens are not able to own guns, there will be more crime and the killing of defenseless citizens. Even if this is true—and there is a lot of evidence indicating it isn’t—the increased crime and deaths still have to be weighed against the increased deaths resulting from lack of gun control, from:
a) accidental shootings
b) killings by mentally ill
c) killings by individuals with a non-criminal background in the heat of the moment
d) killings by that proportion of criminals (it’s not zero) who would be deterred by gun control.
Again, you are intentionally ignoring the fact that baseball bats have a function other than killing people, not to mention the evidence, that I cited above, that they are used to kill far fewer people than guns are.
That’s why the Republicans are so busy in Congress voting for increased funds to treat the mentally ill, right? That’s why that party is at the forefront of making health care available to everyone.
It wouldn’t be knee-jerk, it would be a reaction based on a lot of careful thought and understanding of statistics. And this is a curious charge to make, given that I’m arguing that what he did was just as bad as a school mass shooting. Indeed, beyond all the deaths, he caused an enormous amount of property damage, plus a lot of money has to be spent in the search and clean-up, and who knows how much of a hit Lufthansa will take. None of these--except burial of the dead and a relatively small amount of property destruction--is collateral damage in mass shootings.
Scott SoCal said:
What is a gun designed for other than to kill?
About five times as many murders are committed with guns as with knives. This has been a fairly consistent ratio over time, with the most recent numbers like this:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/bas ... 5MuxlKB.99
Even gun control opponents have cited these stats (as an argument against banning semi-automatic rifles). http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... red-knive/
See above.
What does C02 emission have to do with practical value? If you want to argue that the net value of cars and planes is less than zero because of C02 emission, go ahead, but that is a different issue from their practical value. Practical value is relevant because if something causes or facilitates deaths, that negative value has to be balanced against some positive value. Most people, I’m quite sure including you, think for planes and cars the practical value outweighs the deaths. I’m asking you to show me the practical value of guns that outweighs the deaths they cause.
And you continue to dodge this question, by refusing to acknowledge the blindingly obvious fact that a gun has zero value other than its ability to kill. A first grader can see the difference between cars, planes, knives and baseball bats, on the one hand, and guns on the other, while you pretend that there is no meaningful difference.
Again, you’re bringing up irrelevancies. The practical value of a bike—which, as a bike commuter, I would say is very high—is not at issue, since bikes are not dangerous weapons. Their value doesn’t have to be weighed against the deaths they cause, which are quite few and mostly limited to traffic accidents (which are usually more the fault of the driver of the car).
The bottom line is this:
If we banned all planes, the economy would collapse.
If we banned all cars, the economy would collapse.
If we banned all knives, the economy would collapse (if you doubt this, consider the food industry).
If we banned all guns, the economy would not collapse. That experiment has been tried.
Despite all your dodging of the issue, a gun is used only to kill and injure. It has no practical value other than self-defense, and that value depends on the argument that if citizens are not able to own guns, there will be more crime and the killing of defenseless citizens. Even if this is true—and there is a lot of evidence indicating it isn’t—the increased crime and deaths still have to be weighed against the increased deaths resulting from lack of gun control, from:
a) accidental shootings
b) killings by mentally ill
c) killings by individuals with a non-criminal background in the heat of the moment
d) killings by that proportion of criminals (it’s not zero) who would be deterred by gun control.
Again, you are intentionally ignoring the fact that baseball bats have a function other than killing people, not to mention the evidence, that I cited above, that they are used to kill far fewer people than guns are.
That’s why the Republicans are so busy in Congress voting for increased funds to treat the mentally ill, right? That’s why that party is at the forefront of making health care available to everyone.
It wouldn’t be knee-jerk, it would be a reaction based on a lot of careful thought and understanding of statistics. And this is a curious charge to make, given that I’m arguing that what he did was just as bad as a school mass shooting. Indeed, beyond all the deaths, he caused an enormous amount of property damage, plus a lot of money has to be spent in the search and clean-up, and who knows how much of a hit Lufthansa will take. None of these--except burial of the dead and a relatively small amount of property destruction--is collateral damage in mass shootings.
- Apr 2, 2009
- 8,660
- 16
- 17,510
Re: Re:
Today's quize: AB-Normal vs. Normal brain.
Weapon's control and the force of weapons (a knife, while potentially deadly, is also a common household device for much other than as weapon) has been the normative praxis in modern, civilized Western society.
You forget the only thing that is if consequence here, and it is that a commercial airplane is not a semi-automatic weapon, nor does the commercialization of flight have anything to do with the commercialization of firearms in the US. You are the only one saying so. Nobody but you has tried to compare them, simply because nobody but you has issue with certain performed mental habits.
But who says anti-gun regulation has failed? Indeed it hasn't even been implemented in the US, because of the gun lobby's power to bring the necessary pressure to bear and so have, with vast republican support, any fortuitous legislation not pass in this regard. Now that the US already has 300,000,000 guns legally owned, many of which are of military grade, is an issue that defies mere legislation, but that of acute mental deficiency.
Scott SoCal said:
Today's quize: AB-Normal vs. Normal brain.
Weapon's control and the force of weapons (a knife, while potentially deadly, is also a common household device for much other than as weapon) has been the normative praxis in modern, civilized Western society.
You forget the only thing that is if consequence here, and it is that a commercial airplane is not a semi-automatic weapon, nor does the commercialization of flight have anything to do with the commercialization of firearms in the US. You are the only one saying so. Nobody but you has tried to compare them, simply because nobody but you has issue with certain performed mental habits.
But who says anti-gun regulation has failed? Indeed it hasn't even been implemented in the US, because of the gun lobby's power to bring the necessary pressure to bear and so have, with vast republican support, any fortuitous legislation not pass in this regard. Now that the US already has 300,000,000 guns legally owned, many of which are of military grade, is an issue that defies mere legislation, but that of acute mental deficiency.
- Jul 4, 2009
- 9,666
- 0
- 0
Re: Re:
....due to circumstances way beyond my control was really late to this thread....sooo, about this cactus thingee....does anyone know if there are still any tickets available for this much anticipated and criminally long overdue upcoming event.... or is this one of those sold-out in seconds thingees ?....
Cheers
rhubroma said:Scott SoCal said:
I wanna be there when karma a$$-f-ucks you with a cactus.
....due to circumstances way beyond my control was really late to this thread....sooo, about this cactus thingee....does anyone know if there are still any tickets available for this much anticipated and criminally long overdue upcoming event.... or is this one of those sold-out in seconds thingees ?....
Cheers
- Mar 11, 2009
- 10,526
- 3,565
- 28,180
- Jul 23, 2009
- 5,412
- 19
- 17,510
Merckx index said:
When one aircrew leaves the cockpit, the other is required to go on oxygen via a mask..maybe the guy passed out, fell forward onto the side stick controller(enough force will override the autopilot)..and down it went.
The point is nobody really knows BUT if the guy did this intentionally, like Lanza, he was insane. The next question is, if the people that do these obviously insane things are captured..what do you do? Execute mentally ill people? Revenge? Deterrent(not)..I donno...
- Jul 23, 2009
- 5,412
- 19
- 17,510
Re: Re:
Except mental health records are not scanned on the way to getting a firearm. They should be. At least a flag, a delay, to let 'somebody' examine the person BUT the AMA and NRA would swoon if this was proposed.
Scott SoCal said:
Except mental health records are not scanned on the way to getting a firearm. They should be. At least a flag, a delay, to let 'somebody' examine the person BUT the AMA and NRA would swoon if this was proposed.
- Nov 8, 2012
- 12,104
- 0
- 0
Re: Re:
1. Guns are certainly weapons. Funny how the extreme majority of gun owners don't use them to kill anything. They are used for recreation by millions and millions. Pretty much like those that buy baseball bats.
2. Take the gang violence out then re-examine your numbers.
3. Practical value? How many other whole goods can you think of that have little to no practical value? Is this the new standard? Video game consoles have zero practical value yet may have had devastating effect on Lanza. Where does this nonsense end and who's in charge of determining practical value?
4. The function a baseball bat is designed for has no practical value. Ban baseball bats and the economy will not collapse.
5. I don't speak for the Republican Party. It wasn't too long ago dems were in total control and yet mental illness and treatment thereof is still a problem.
6. My point is that if the anti gun crowd were consistent in their thinking the initial uproar would have been directed at the plane, not at the perp.
Merckx index said:
1. Guns are certainly weapons. Funny how the extreme majority of gun owners don't use them to kill anything. They are used for recreation by millions and millions. Pretty much like those that buy baseball bats.
2. Take the gang violence out then re-examine your numbers.
3. Practical value? How many other whole goods can you think of that have little to no practical value? Is this the new standard? Video game consoles have zero practical value yet may have had devastating effect on Lanza. Where does this nonsense end and who's in charge of determining practical value?
4. The function a baseball bat is designed for has no practical value. Ban baseball bats and the economy will not collapse.
5. I don't speak for the Republican Party. It wasn't too long ago dems were in total control and yet mental illness and treatment thereof is still a problem.
6. My point is that if the anti gun crowd were consistent in their thinking the initial uproar would have been directed at the plane, not at the perp.
- Nov 8, 2012
- 12,104
- 0
- 0
- Nov 8, 2012
- 12,104
- 0
- 0
Re: Re:
Nope. I'm merely pointing out the inconsistency of the anti-gun crowd.
I do find it encouraging that you did not immediately come out and blame the plane. That was my original remark and the only comparison was the lack of blaming the plane (versus what your reaction certainly would have been had a gun been involved).
rhubroma said:
Nope. I'm merely pointing out the inconsistency of the anti-gun crowd.
I do find it encouraging that you did not immediately come out and blame the plane. That was my original remark and the only comparison was the lack of blaming the plane (versus what your reaction certainly would have been had a gun been involved).
- Nov 8, 2012
- 12,104
- 0
- 0
Re: Re:
This comment qualifies as a shining example of the "anyone who disagrees with my perspective is a dolt" leftist, intolerant mish-mash of shallow thinking.
frenchfry said:
This comment qualifies as a shining example of the "anyone who disagrees with my perspective is a dolt" leftist, intolerant mish-mash of shallow thinking.
- Sep 10, 2009
- 5,663
- 0
- 0
Re: Re:
Fact is that unlike Lubitz, a Lanza is perfectly acceptable to you.
And again, actual steps will be taken to try and prevent another Lubitz from happening. Unlike after Sandy Hook, where you folks opposed any changes whatsoever. I haven't seen any changes in psychological screening of gun owners since Sandy Hook, Scott, have you? The airlines are already responding by implementing a two-in-cockpit policy at all times, but I haven't seen any changes in gun magazine limitations, have you, Scott? You cons opposed them all.Scott SoCal said:
Fact is that unlike Lubitz, a Lanza is perfectly acceptable to you.
- Nov 8, 2012
- 12,104
- 0
- 0
Re: Re:
I think Alpe corrected you on this already. As to psych screening for gun owners, don't you mean buyers? Or was that a slip? Round 'em all up. Best of luck to you.
It's 10 in my State, so yeah, I have.
Filthy and unsurprising coming from you. Your debating techniques are vile... but worse than that they are stale and boring. I don't see anybody stating Lanza and that outcome is acceptable... but stawman away.
VeloCity said:
I think Alpe corrected you on this already. As to psych screening for gun owners, don't you mean buyers? Or was that a slip? Round 'em all up. Best of luck to you.
It's 10 in my State, so yeah, I have.
Filthy and unsurprising coming from you. Your debating techniques are vile... but worse than that they are stale and boring. I don't see anybody stating Lanza and that outcome is acceptable... but stawman away.
- Jul 9, 2009
- 7,870
- 1,279
- 20,680
Re: Re:
I have seen the statement maybe not from you but from the crazies and gun manufacturers that you support to the effect that mass shootings are really bad but not as bad as messing with American right to bear arms.
Question: does the new quote button really suck or am I just too stupid to figure it out? Every time I try to quote the last post I get a huge pile of quotes and a message that I am only able to quote 5 per post.
I have seen the statement maybe not from you but from the crazies and gun manufacturers that you support to the effect that mass shootings are really bad but not as bad as messing with American right to bear arms.
Question: does the new quote button really suck or am I just too stupid to figure it out? Every time I try to quote the last post I get a huge pile of quotes and a message that I am only able to quote 5 per post.
- Apr 2, 2009
- 8,660
- 16
- 17,510
Re:
A couple of things. Yes, the two people in the cockpit rule was a response to 9/11, but Europe has not taken up the new protocal (probably it will now).
Secondly, I'm sorry about your former bout with depression and I wish you well, however, from what I understand from the expert analysis I provided above, the diagnosis of "depression" seems to be imprecise, as we were probably dealing with a psychotic personality for the reasons that were indicated. The latest reports would only seem to confirm this.
I don't know how things have been reported in US media, but in Italy and Europe news of what the black box recorded has been made known and is horrifying.
At take-off at Barcellona the plane was twenty minutes behind schedule, for which in the mix the captain Patrick Sonderheimer was apparently unable to go to the bathroom. After take-off, in fact, Sonderheimer mentioned to Lubitz that he wasn't able to even use the bathroom. Lubitz responded with "Go then." There was only silence.
At 10:27 Sonderheimer told Lubitz to prepare for the initial descent and landing at Dusseldorf. Lubitz responds with somthing like: "I hope. We'll see." Then he adds: "Now you can go to the bathroom." Sonderheimer gets up and leaves the cockpit.
Hour 10:29: The plane begins its descent.
Hour 10:30: French air traffic control realizes that something not normal is happening.
Hour 10:33: Sonderheimer has returned and finds the door locked.
At 10:34: Sonderheimer yells: "For the love of God, Lubitz, open the door." In the background you can hear the passangers screaming.
Hour 10:35: Sonderheimer is violently striking the door with an axe.
Hour 10:36: The plain is at 5,000 meters altitude.
Hour 10:37: "Open this f-ucking door!"
Hour 10:37: You hear Lubitz breathing. In the background there is screaming.
Evidently Lubriz had an eye problem, detatched retna, which would have prevented him from becoming a Lufthansa captain. At his parents home where he frequently slept, Lubitz bedroom was covered with Lufthansa posters. At another flat used by him, police found formidable amounts of heavy, addiciton causing psyche drugs, prescribed by several independent doctors. This apparently helped him to fly under the airline's medical radar.
Lastly his girlfriend, with whom it has been reported he broke up just two days before, is rumored to be pregnant with Lubitz's child.
This isn't a case of simple depression, but psychosis.
Merckx index said:
A couple of things. Yes, the two people in the cockpit rule was a response to 9/11, but Europe has not taken up the new protocal (probably it will now).
Secondly, I'm sorry about your former bout with depression and I wish you well, however, from what I understand from the expert analysis I provided above, the diagnosis of "depression" seems to be imprecise, as we were probably dealing with a psychotic personality for the reasons that were indicated. The latest reports would only seem to confirm this.
I don't know how things have been reported in US media, but in Italy and Europe news of what the black box recorded has been made known and is horrifying.
At take-off at Barcellona the plane was twenty minutes behind schedule, for which in the mix the captain Patrick Sonderheimer was apparently unable to go to the bathroom. After take-off, in fact, Sonderheimer mentioned to Lubitz that he wasn't able to even use the bathroom. Lubitz responded with "Go then." There was only silence.
At 10:27 Sonderheimer told Lubitz to prepare for the initial descent and landing at Dusseldorf. Lubitz responds with somthing like: "I hope. We'll see." Then he adds: "Now you can go to the bathroom." Sonderheimer gets up and leaves the cockpit.
Hour 10:29: The plane begins its descent.
Hour 10:30: French air traffic control realizes that something not normal is happening.
Hour 10:33: Sonderheimer has returned and finds the door locked.
At 10:34: Sonderheimer yells: "For the love of God, Lubitz, open the door." In the background you can hear the passangers screaming.
Hour 10:35: Sonderheimer is violently striking the door with an axe.
Hour 10:36: The plain is at 5,000 meters altitude.
Hour 10:37: "Open this f-ucking door!"
Hour 10:37: You hear Lubitz breathing. In the background there is screaming.
Evidently Lubriz had an eye problem, detatched retna, which would have prevented him from becoming a Lufthansa captain. At his parents home where he frequently slept, Lubitz bedroom was covered with Lufthansa posters. At another flat used by him, police found formidable amounts of heavy, addiciton causing psyche drugs, prescribed by several independent doctors. This apparently helped him to fly under the airline's medical radar.
Lastly his girlfriend, with whom it has been reported he broke up just two days before, is rumored to be pregnant with Lubitz's child.
This isn't a case of simple depression, but psychosis.
- Dec 7, 2010
- 8,770
- 3
- 0
Re: Re:
I can't figure out the quote crap either. I tried to shorten the amount of quotes and just have the last one but it just leaves [qoute] andHugh Januss said:
Re: Re:
[quote="Scott SoCal]
About 90% of homicides are committed with handguns. Handgun use is a very small proportion of recreational use; banning them would have very little effect on recreation.
Also, there's a big difference between an item like a bat, originally developed for a specific non-violent purpose, being put to use for violence by a small proportion of people, and guns, originally developed for violence, and only later being used for recreation. It would be possible to hunt without guns, and it would be possible to take target practice with non-lethal guns. It would not be possible to play baseball--which is no longer just recreation, but a multi-billion dollar business--without bats.
Not to mention that any of us would feel far safer if all we ever had to worry about on the streets or in our home was someone armed with a bat. Anyone would trade bats for guns.
AFAIK, gang murders are < 25% of the total, so taking them out doesn't affect the numbers much. If you have different stats, you're welcome to post them.
Well, this is interesting. A conservative arguing that something that superficially appears harmless might actually have lethal effects if we examine it statistically over a long period of time. Sort of like climate change, or industrial pollution. If you can provide the numbers to back up this notion, and maybe you can, I might get on board with you. But I doubt the numbers will be anywhere near as convincing as they are for guns.
Well, a professional baseball player would certainly disagree with you. As I noted before, baseball is a billion dollar business. Banning bats and ending the game might not result in economic collapse, but the effects would be far more devastating than those from banning guns. And again, about twenty times more murders are committed with guns than with bats. As always, you dodge the point that guns are meant to kill, bats are not. The fact that after guns were invented, people discovered they could be used recreationally doesn't change that. It would be possible to have the same kind of recreation without guns, or without lethal guns.
You speak for it quite a bit on the forum. And you've definitely been a major critic of ACA. I never noticed you had any interest in mental health until suddenly that became a buzzword for those who want to deflect criticism of guns. As you know, I think mental health is part of the problem, but it isn't anywhere near all of the solution.
You have a strange notion of consistency. There is nothing consistent about putting guns in the same category as planes. Even if I took seriously your diversionary tactics and talked about banning baseball bats and video games, planes are still an entirely different matter.
[quote="Scott SoCal]
About 90% of homicides are committed with handguns. Handgun use is a very small proportion of recreational use; banning them would have very little effect on recreation.
Also, there's a big difference between an item like a bat, originally developed for a specific non-violent purpose, being put to use for violence by a small proportion of people, and guns, originally developed for violence, and only later being used for recreation. It would be possible to hunt without guns, and it would be possible to take target practice with non-lethal guns. It would not be possible to play baseball--which is no longer just recreation, but a multi-billion dollar business--without bats.
Not to mention that any of us would feel far safer if all we ever had to worry about on the streets or in our home was someone armed with a bat. Anyone would trade bats for guns.
AFAIK, gang murders are < 25% of the total, so taking them out doesn't affect the numbers much. If you have different stats, you're welcome to post them.
Well, this is interesting. A conservative arguing that something that superficially appears harmless might actually have lethal effects if we examine it statistically over a long period of time. Sort of like climate change, or industrial pollution. If you can provide the numbers to back up this notion, and maybe you can, I might get on board with you. But I doubt the numbers will be anywhere near as convincing as they are for guns.
Well, a professional baseball player would certainly disagree with you. As I noted before, baseball is a billion dollar business. Banning bats and ending the game might not result in economic collapse, but the effects would be far more devastating than those from banning guns. And again, about twenty times more murders are committed with guns than with bats. As always, you dodge the point that guns are meant to kill, bats are not. The fact that after guns were invented, people discovered they could be used recreationally doesn't change that. It would be possible to have the same kind of recreation without guns, or without lethal guns.
You speak for it quite a bit on the forum. And you've definitely been a major critic of ACA. I never noticed you had any interest in mental health until suddenly that became a buzzword for those who want to deflect criticism of guns. As you know, I think mental health is part of the problem, but it isn't anywhere near all of the solution.
You have a strange notion of consistency. There is nothing consistent about putting guns in the same category as planes. Even if I took seriously your diversionary tactics and talked about banning baseball bats and video games, planes are still an entirely different matter.
Re:
Planes were not engineered, or created to kill people or other living things. I hear this type of comment from NRA supporters, and honestly wonder if critical thinking is just a bridge too far for them.
Scott SoCal said:
Planes were not engineered, or created to kill people or other living things. I hear this type of comment from NRA supporters, and honestly wonder if critical thinking is just a bridge too far for them.
Re: Re:
What was the purpose behind the 2nd Amendment Scott?
The right to bear arms, as it relates to a constitutional right, has EVERYTHING to do with a weapon's ability to kill another, and the threat to government inherent in that ability. You don't even understand your argument. Any man can kill another man with his bare hands or some other weapon, but firearms are particularly efficient at doing so, which is why they were afforded special protection.
BTW, following the quoted post, Merckx handed you your ass in a way that was incredibly satisfying to read. I'm sure you still think you won the debate, but I would suggest you're the pigeon in this meme:
Scott SoCal said:
What was the purpose behind the 2nd Amendment Scott?
The right to bear arms, as it relates to a constitutional right, has EVERYTHING to do with a weapon's ability to kill another, and the threat to government inherent in that ability. You don't even understand your argument. Any man can kill another man with his bare hands or some other weapon, but firearms are particularly efficient at doing so, which is why they were afforded special protection.
BTW, following the quoted post, Merckx handed you your ass in a way that was incredibly satisfying to read. I'm sure you still think you won the debate, but I would suggest you're the pigeon in this meme:
Re: Re:
Holy ***, do you know why people practice with firearms? Evidently, reality is simply something you are incapable of admitting in this scenario. I've been shooting since I was 5 years old, and every day at the range was to sharpen my skills with a weapon, so that in the event I needed to use that weapon in a hunt or to defend myself, I would be more adept at doing so. I don't understand someone like you who cannot admit, much less recognize reality.
Scott SoCal said:
Holy ***, do you know why people practice with firearms? Evidently, reality is simply something you are incapable of admitting in this scenario. I've been shooting since I was 5 years old, and every day at the range was to sharpen my skills with a weapon, so that in the event I needed to use that weapon in a hunt or to defend myself, I would be more adept at doing so. I don't understand someone like you who cannot admit, much less recognize reality.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
World Championship 2025: Men’s RR, September 28- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 2K
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 36K
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 41K
-
Il Lombardia 2025, monument, October 11- Started by Krzysztof_O
- Replies: 792
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 13K
-
European Championship 2025: Men’s RR, October 5- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 854
-
Latest posts
-
Teams & Riders The Red Bull - Bora - Hansgrohe team thread- Latest: red_flanders
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram