When does Social media hate speech become a real Threat???

[Shootist Jeff 664]

Heard a really interesting article on the radio recently discussing online hate speech and how it seems to be preceding many mass murder events.

Quote

 

https://www.npr.org/2018/11/19/669361577/free-speech-or-hate-speech-when-does-online-hate-speech-become-a-real-threat

JASMINE GARSD, BYLINE: For Rochelle Ritchie, a political commentator who is frequently on television, it was obvious the man who tweeted at her, quote, "kiss your loved ones when you leave home" following a TV appearance was threatening her. But when she reported him to Twitter, Twitter sent her a reply saying it concluded that this was not an abusive tweet. Ritchie was frustrated.

ROCHELLE RITCHIE: What is offensive behavior? Do I have to be walking out of my condo building and end up being physically hurt or harmed in order for it to be taken seriously?

GARSD: Just a few weeks later, the man who threatened Ritchie is accused of sending over a dozen explosive devices nationwide. Turns out he threatened other people on Twitter, too. But online behavior isn't always this easy to define. Take the recent shooting spree at a synagogue in Pittsburgh. The alleged shooter had a history of anti-Semitic ranting on the social media site Gab. It was hateful, but...

 

What to do about it???

Quote

 

TORBA: Censorship and pushing these people into the shadows is never going to be the answer. Guns do not kill people. Social media platforms do not kill people. People kill people.

GARSD: Torba isn't the only one who thinks this. Jonathan Rauch, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, says...

JONATHAN RAUCH: My view is that minorities are better off in a society that protects hate speech than in a society that protects minorities from hate speech.

GARSD: Rauch, who is Jewish and has been active in the gay rights movement for decades, believes that confronting hate speech has been key to the advancement of civil rights in America.

RAUCH: Trying to deal with hate by repressing hate speech is like trying to deal with global warming by breaking the thermometers. The problem isn't the speech. The problem is the hate. And the way you deal with that problem is by understanding and confronting it.

 

Hmmmm.... deal with a threat that often leads to dead people by understanding and confronting the hate rather than take away the tools they use to perpetuate that hate????  Sounds radical.  Isn't prohibition always the answer?  Why don't we just prohibit social media platforms so these people can't spread their hate or become radicalized themselves from other's hate speech???

[Mike in Seattle 41]

, similar and related , 

A Seattle Council candidate suspended his campaign.

 

I had hoped that this would be a campaign of ideas, but I quickly discovered that the activists in this city have no interest in ideas. Since the campaign launch, they have harassed and threatened my family nonstop.

I was prepared to take the heat, but unfortunately, they have focused their hatred on my wife and children. They’ve made vile racist attacks against my wife, attempted to get her fired from Microsoft, and threatened sexual violence. They've even posted hateful comments on our 8-year-old son's school Facebook page. I know that as the race progresses, the activists will ratchet up their hate-machine and these attacks will intensify significantly.

 

https://www.kuow.org/stories/seattle-council-candidate-ends-campaign-over-threats-of-sexual-violence-and-racism

 

[Remodel 90]

People suck.

[Raz'r 967]

4 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Heard a really interesting article on the radio recently discussing online hate speech and how it seems to be preceding many mass murder events.

What to do about it???

Hmmmm.... deal with a threat that often leads to dead people by understanding and confronting the hate rather than take away the tools they use to perpetuate that hate????  Sounds radical.  Isn't prohibition always the answer?  Why don't we just prohibit social media platforms so these people can't spread their hate or become radicalized themselves from other's hate speech???

Taking away their ability to spew hate doesn’t make the hate go away. But you knew that and are just pushing your twisted agenda.

[Fah Kiew Tu 502]

3 hours ago, Raz'r said:

Taking away their ability to spew hate doesn’t make the hate go away. But you knew that and are just pushing your twisted agenda.

Ummm, no. He's just using the same logic as the gun prohibitionists use. The argument is exactly the same.

FKT

[Ease the sheet. 413]

The hate doesn't go away......

[Raz'r 967]

4 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Ummm, no. He's just using the same logic as the gun prohibitionists use. The argument is exactly the same.

FKT

Nope, don’t buy it. 

A guy announces he’s going to shoot up a bar, then go and shoots it up.

im sorry you can’t see the difference between saying something, and doing something.

[Bent Sailor 673]

Q: When does social media hate speech become a real threat? (childish capitalisation removed)

A: When the speech itself does harm. 

Despite Andrew Torba's* claims to the contrary - guns do kill people (or, more accurately, the bullets from them do). Speech can and does harm people, but it cannot kill them. There is an extra step between speech and mass shootings. There is an extra tool required above & beyond speech for mass shootings. We've been here before. The same logic undermines the desire to equate speech with lethal weaponry as it did the last time. 

 

 

* Torba runs Gab, "an English-language social media website, known for its far-right user base". So yeah, not the go to person for an objective view on the matter.

[Gouvernail 106]

The acceptance of socially bothersome  speech seems to bring us a step closer to a couple things:

a. The next worse level of bothersome speech 

b. Someone acting out in a bothersome manner 

Huh??

Over the last few decades there has been a push back against those who have tried to limit our toleration.

George Carlin’s Seven Words routine was immensely popular not just because his presentation was entertaining but also because we are annoyed by any government agency that has the temerity to  limit our first amendment rights. 

If I want to say,  “Funk the shitty cunt cocksuckers who are pissing all over our rights,” I believe the government has no power to stop me. 

 

So... here we are years later and the Gropenfuhrer is the darling of many who are sick and tired of having endless rules governing what we are allowed to say. 

So... People are saying just a tad more offensive stuff than they dared say three years ago. 

So... People are just a tad more willing to announce their core self belief they are a little bet better than certain others. 

So.. People are just a tad more willing to let  others they don’t like know.

and... in any set of people there  are those with extreme views. 

And...there are some people who are just a little more likely to act out 

and... we are having an increase in acts by the fringe crazies. 

——-

so...

It really is about the Golden Rule.

It really is not OK to call people names, classify entire groups as evil, trash others whose religion is different from our own, fail to fulfill contracts, bully, lie, or any of that sort of stuff.

Over 60,000,000 Americans decided to overlook a man’s behavior and vote for him.

Elections have consequences. 

 

 

[Shootist Jeff 664]

13 hours ago, Raz'r said:

Taking away their ability to spew hate doesn’t make the hate go away. But you knew that and are just pushing your twisted agenda.

What twisted Agenda is that??  

Think about it, taking away their ability to spew their hate won't make the hate go away - but taking it away or severely restricting that ability will limit the amount of people they can affect in a very short amount of time, right?  Take away their social media and they can stand on a street corner and shout their hate to passersby, but the number of injured people will be far less than the millions that will see it with one click.

Isn't that the exact same argument you use for banning large capacity mags and mean looking assault weapons?  Taking away those things won't make someone not want to commit murder but they can only kill so many people with a single shot shotgun or a knife.  Right?  

Sounds to me like if its a good justification for one case, it should work in the other.  Yes?

 

[Contumacious Tom 673]

12 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

Despite Andrew Torba's* claims to the contrary - guns do kill people (or, more accurately, the bullets from them do). Speech can and does harm people, but it cannot kill them. There is an extra step between speech and mass shootings. There is an extra tool required above & beyond speech for mass shootings. We've been here before. The same logic undermines the desire to equate speech with lethal weaponry as it did the last time. 

We have indeed been there before, but there's new research on the subject of banning tools.

On0/Dogballs/2018 at 8:26 AM, dogballs Tom said:

You're probably at least a bit familiar with one of his co-authors, a Mr. Hemenway.

They've updated their research, by the way.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27842178

 

Quote

 

Findings:

In the aggregate, stronger gun policies were associated with decreased rates of firearm homicide, even after adjusting for demographic and sociologic factors. Laws that strengthen background checks and permit-to-purchase seemed to decrease firearm homicide rates. Specific laws directed at firearm trafficking, improving child safety, or the banning of military-style assault weapons were not associated with changes in firearm homicide rates. The evidence for laws restricting guns in public places and leniency in gun carrying was mixed.

 

The bolded part is likely to get them boiled in oil for heresy.

 

[Raz'r 967]

5 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

What twisted Agenda is that??  

Think about it, taking away their ability to spew their hate won't make the hate go away - but taking it away or severely restricting that ability will limit the amount of people they can affect in a very short amount of time, right?  Take away their social media and they can stand on a street corner and shout their hate to passersby, but the number of injured people will be far less than the millions that will see it with one click.

Isn't that the exact same argument you use for banning large capacity mags and mean looking assault weapons?  Taking away those things won't make someone not want to commit murder but they can only kill so many people with a single shot shotgun or a knife.  Right?  

Sounds to me like if its a good justification for one case, it should work in the other.  Yes?

 

Twist, twist and twist away.

[benwynn 967]

Let's face it.  A sizable portion of us are stupid assholes. Empowerment only makes it more obvious.  

Give enough of of us guns and we've got the empowerment to kill each other. Give enough of of us a voice to reach the world and we'll distribute hatred.

I drove hwy 178 to lake Isabella and back last weekend. It's a series of sharp blind corners through canyon walls.  Most corners are marked at 30 mph as you can't see more than 50 ft ahead. Some areas have intersecting roads.  Most cars were doing 50 mph. I found it amazing. I had cars stacking behind me, so I used the first turnout, then got with the flow of traffic by having a car just in view ahead of me to allow me to stop in time when he hit someting. A questionable strategy but it was all I had. Cars empower people to travel fast.

Empowerment only exacerbates stupid. And you can't fix stupid.

[jzk 1,507]

19 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

Q: When does social media hate speech become a real threat? (childish capitalisation removed)

A: When the speech itself does harm. 

Despite Andrew Torba's* claims to the contrary - guns do kill people (or, more accurately, the bullets from them do). Speech can and does harm people, but it cannot kill them. There is an extra step between speech and mass shootings. There is an extra tool required above & beyond speech for mass shootings. We've been here before. The same logic undermines the desire to equate speech with lethal weaponry as it did the last time. 

 

 

* Torba runs Gab, "an English-language social media website, known for its far-right user base". So yeah, not the go to person for an objective view on the matter.

I suspect that Bent meant "imminent harm."  Lot's of speech does harm.  But we allow it because banning it would cause more harm.

[Shootist Jeff 664]

5 hours ago, Raz'r said:

11 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

What twisted Agenda is that??  

Think about it, taking away their ability to spew their hate won't make the hate go away - but taking it away or severely restricting that ability will limit the amount of people they can affect in a very short amount of time, right?  Take away their social media and they can stand on a street corner and shout their hate to passersby, but the number of injured people will be far less than the millions that will see it with one click.

Isn't that the exact same argument you use for banning large capacity mags and mean looking assault weapons?  Taking away those things won't make someone not want to commit murder but they can only kill so many people with a single shot shotgun or a knife.  Right?  

Sounds to me like if its a good justification for one case, it should work in the other.  Yes?

 

Twist, twist and twist away.

I get that you cannot assail the logic behind what I say.  You could at least just admit it and move on....  I would at least respect you for that.

[Mismoyled Jiblet. 751]

35 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I get that you cannot assail the logic behind what I say.  You could at least just admit it and move on....  I would at least respect you for that.

there's logic?
 

who gives a fuck if you respect them Jeffreaux?

[Bent Sailor 673]

11 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

We have indeed been there before, but there's new research on the subject of banning tools.

You seem to be arguing with someone that thinks gun control should be limited solely to military-style assault weapons to effectively lower homicide rates. I've never made that argument. Find someone else to pester. 

[Raz'r 967]

4 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I get that you cannot assail the logic behind what I say.  You could at least just admit it and move on....  I would at least respect you for that.

Why would I bother pointing out yet another false analogy. When someone can walk into a school/church/bar/concert/shopping mall, etc and commit mass murder with a post on a web page, then you might have something...

[LB 15 2,128]

People who spew hate speech on the internet are terrible people.

These fucking festering, arse-riming, cocksucking, fuckhole, cuntbags should be bent over their keyboards and bastardized by the entire Fijian national rugby side, whilst giving head to the Indian Cricket team. They should then be pumped full of smack, given breast implants and thrown over a prison wall.

I just wish everyone could be nice to each other.

[LB 15 2,128]

YCMTSU.

[Raz'r 967]

15 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

YCMTSU.

“Not Guilty” suffers from In-Sarcastic-Impotence.

Cause by sucking on Mushrooms.

CDC has found there’s been a plague of this disease since, well, Trump.

[LB 15 2,128]

Ever heard of the expression ‘tounge in cheek’? Search for in on pornhub if you like.

[B.J. Porter 758]

16 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

YCMTSU.

You can't fix stupid.

But you can put it on ignore.

[mad 1,546]

1 hour ago, LB 15 said:

People who spew hate speech on the internet are terrible people.

These fucking festering, arse-riming, cocksucking, fuckhole, cuntbags should be bent over their keyboards and bastardized by the entire Fijian national rugby side, whilst giving head to the Indian Cricket team. They should then be pumped full of smack, given breast implants and thrown over a prison wall.

I just wish everyone could be nice to each other.

Just for one minute, stop thinking about Random on his honeymoon. I hope someone makes him a happy bride one day. 

[LB 15 2,128]

Might miss some fine hating opportunities if I put him on ignore. And some fine entertainment.

[Mark K 453]

6 hours ago, benwynn said:

Let's face it.  A sizable portion of us are stupid assholes. Empowerment only makes it more obvious.  

Give enough of of us guns and we've got the empowerment to kill each other. Give enough of of us a voice to reach the world and we'll distribute hatred.

I drove hwy 178 to lake Isabella and back last weekend. It's a series of sharp blind corners through canyon walls.  Most corners are marked at 30 mph as you can't see more than 50 ft ahead. Some areas have intersecting roads.  Most cars were doing 50 mph. I found it amazing. I had cars stacking behind me, so I used the first turnout, then got with the flow of traffic by having a car just in view ahead of me to allow me to stop in time when he hit someting. A questionable strategy but it was all I had. Cars empower people to travel fast.

Empowerment only exacerbates stupid. And you can't fix stupid.

Careful...next someone will ask if there are any practical measures, short of ending stupid, that can be taken with situations like a stupid guy in a hotel room over a concert in Vegas, stupidly equipped with an arsenal of assault rifles.   

 

 

[Ease the sheet. 413]

9 minutes ago, Mark K said:

Careful...next someone will ask if there are an practical measures, short of ending stupid, that can be taken with situations like a stupid guy in a hotel room over a concert in Vegas, stupidly equipped with an arsenal of assault rifles.   

 

 

Practical measures are not stupids strong point....

[Olsonist 352]

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of country music fans.

[Ease the sheet. 413]

1 minute ago, Olsonist said:

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of country music fans.

So tay tay's move across to pop music is a way to save her fans?

She's smarter than she looks.

[Bent Sailor 673]

8 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I get that you cannot assail the logic behind what I say.  You could at least just admit it and move on....  I would at least respect you for that.

Good thing you have been shacking up with Dogballs lately. He'd be able to work that line for years.

[Shootist Jeff 664]

9 hours ago, Raz'r said:

Why would I bother pointing out yet another false analogy. When someone can walk into a school/church/bar/concert/shopping mall, etc and commit mass murder with a post on a web page, then you might have something...

But its NOT a false analogy.  That post on a webpage has likely directly led to the commission of the act where in the absence of those postings nothing would have probably happened.  The posts are far more causal that the gun used.  The guns do not cause someone to kill others, but those social media posts likely do.  For instance, there is mounting evidence that social media such as FB and twatter are directly linked to gang shootings because gangs are using social media to taunt each other and to organize violent retaliations to those taunts.  

When you take all the gunz away and these angry, disaffected young men still find way to kill masses of people with bombs, arson, trucks and poison.... are you still going to blame the tool or are you going to wake up and address the root causes instead?  

[Shootist Jeff 664]

9 hours ago, Not guilty said:

9 hours ago, LB 15 said:

I just wish everyone could be nice to each other.

No you don't, and the hateful words you used above are proof. YOU are no better than the people you think you hate.

[Shootist Jeff 664]

8 hours ago, Mark K said:

Careful...next someone will ask if there are any practical measures, short of ending stupid, that can be taken with situations like a stupid guy in a hotel room over a concert in Vegas, stupidly equipped with an arsenal of assault rifles.   

I'm sure there are some.  I can think of a few.  What do you suggest as a practical measure for this situation, Mark?  

[Contumacious Tom 673]

9 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

8 hours ago, Mark K said:

Careful...next someone will ask if there are any practical measures, short of ending stupid, that can be taken with situations like a stupid guy in a hotel room over a concert in Vegas, stupidly equipped with an arsenal of assault rifles.   

I'm sure there are some.  I can think of a few.  What do you suggest as a practical measure for this situation, Mark?  

He's acting like he hasn't seen the press release, but someone already did propose DOING SOMETHING about the fact that some of us own squirrel guns and shoot them in our yards. Because that's very much related to a psycho murderer. In fact, ownership of guns causes those things! (I mean unless they're owned by those who wave a yuge TEAMD flag, of course.)

On 11/10/2017 at 4:46 PM, badlatitude said:

"We’re introducing an updated Assault Weapons Ban for one reason: so that after every mass shooting with a military-style assault weapon, the American people will know that a tool to reduce these massacres is sitting in the Senate, ready for debate and a vote. 

“This bill won’t stop every mass shooting, but it will begin removing these weapons of war from our streets. The first Assault Weapons Ban was just starting to show an effect when the NRA stymied its reauthorization in 2004. Yes, it will be a long process to reduce the massive supply of these assault weapons in our country, but we’ve got to start somewhere. 

“To those who say now isn’t the time, they’re right—we should have extended the original ban 13 years ago, before hundreds more Americans were murdered with these weapons of war. To my colleagues in Congress, I say do your job."

....................................................... 

Joining Senator Feinstein on the bill are Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Tom Carper (D-Del.), Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) and Bob Casey (D-Pa.).

https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=press-releases&id=8B3E8400-766E-4B5E-B59B-C800BB52A973

Try asking Mark whether he supports banning our squirrel shooters and requiring background checks before guests can shoot them in our yard. He won't answer me, since he seems to feel jocal is deserving of respectful answers but I am not. Because, you know, TeamD!

[Shootist Jeff 664]

Tom, I will let you and Mark sort out your dogballz questions directly.  Maybe you guys can even share that room that jocal has reserved but never seems to be able to get anyone to spend the night with him.

 

[Contumacious Tom 673]

2 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Tom, I will let you and Mark sort out your dogballz questions directly. 

You haven't noticed that he won't answer me directly on this subject?

Here, let me give you a demonstration:

On 6/2/2018 at 4:29 PM, Mark K said:

Not really. Discussing the question with someone who can't tell the difference between these two rounds...

 

 

...would be a discussion with either a moron or a victim of mental illness. Perhaps someone who has been horribly brain-washed, I dare not guess.  I think it best to leave such in the hands of professionals.    

Hey Mark, when legislators propose a bill that treats those the same and a nutter objects that they're not, do you agree with TeamD or the nutter?

 

[Mark K 453]

11 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I'm sure there are some.  I can think of a few.  What do you suggest as a practical measure for this situation, Mark?  

 I can't think of anything off the top of my head that equates to "more guns", which is the only politically correct answer for the NRA. Maybe the standard practice of not allowing guns, and lots of and lots of guns, being allowed in sporting events and concerts. Clearly the incident took place in a "no gun" zone. 

[Mark K 453]

10 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Tom, I will let you and Mark sort out your dogballz questions directly.  Maybe you guys can even share that room that jocal has reserved but never seems to be able to get anyone to spend the night with him.

 

 Not fixable. He's convinced himself that banning large cap mags means banning dogballs. 

[Greever 17]

7 minutes ago, Mark K said:

 Not fixable. He's convinced himself that banning large cap mags means banning dogballs. 

How exactly would we be able to enforce banning large cap mags?

[Mark K 453]

1 minute ago, Greever said:

How exactly would we be able to enforce banning large cap mags?

Another question that merely snipes at proposed actions to be taken for the problem. No reasonable discussion can take place unless there is agreement that there is a problem. Is there a problem with nuts hosing down crowds of people with high cap magged guns and high powered ammo?

  

[Greever 17]

28 minutes ago, Mark K said:

Another question that merely snipes at proposed actions to be taken for the problem. No reasonable discussion can take place unless there is agreement that there is a problem. Is there a problem with nuts hosing down crowds of people with high cap magged guns and high powered ammo?

  

Obviously.

How do you propose to ban, and confiscate large capacity magazines?

[Greever 17]

How can we ban “high powered ammo”?

[Mark K 453]

57 minutes ago, Greever said:

Obviously.

How do you propose to ban, and confiscate large capacity magazines?

What do you propose to do about the problem? 

[Mismoyled Jiblet. 751]

2 hours ago, Greever said:

Obviously.

How do you propose to ban, and confiscate large capacity magazines?

I'm always amused that the dogballs aficionados who say restricting high capacity magazines is impossible, also bitch about the restrictions on fully automatic weapons that make them expensive and more tedious to own in the US. They understand the reality - that it is possible - but their fauxbertarianism doesn't see it as possible. Or they are just bullshitting morons.

[Greever 17]

1 hour ago, Mark K said:

What do you propose to do about the problem? 

Like nuclear weapons, I think the Genie is out of the bottle, and there is nothing you can do to put it back in.

What do you propose?

[Mismoyled Jiblet. 751]

2 minutes ago, Greever said:

Like nuclear weapons, I think the Genie is out of the bottle, and there is nothing you can do to put it back in.

You are saying non-proliferation efforts have been utterly useless? 

[Greever 17]

Just now, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

You are saying non-proliferation efforts have been utterly useless? 

See North Korea.

[Mismoyled Jiblet. 751]

4 minutes ago, Greever said:

See North Korea.

If non-proliferation were really a failure they'd have more nukes and missiles than they do now. And the weapons would be reliable. 

South Africa would still have nukes, there'd be more in the middle east than just Israel. I could go on with the successes of nonproliferation but, judging by your posts, I see you are just another dogmatic perfectionist.

[Ease the sheet. 413]

10 minutes ago, Greever said:

Like nuclear weapons, I think the Genie is out of the bottle, and there is nothing you can do to put it back in.

What do you propose?

More bombs?

[Mark K 453]

22 minutes ago, Greever said:

Like nuclear weapons, I think the Genie is out of the bottle, and there is nothing you can do to put it back in.

What do you propose?

OK, you believe nothing should be done about the problem. 

 Everybody agrees thermonuclear weapons and a heck of a lot of other stuff should not be considered protected by the second amendment, even though that cat's out of the bag. All we are doing is deciding where the line should be drawn on "arms".  I'd draw it at high cap mags myself, and also consider some restrictions on military grade ammo, the latter being  a tricky concept, granted.  

[Raz'r 967]

16 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

But its NOT a false analogy.  That post on a webpage has likely directly led to the commission of the act where in the absence of those postings nothing would have probably happened.  The posts are far more causal that the gun used.  The guns do not cause someone to kill others, but those social media posts likely do.  For instance, there is mounting evidence that social media such as FB and twatter are directly linked to gang shootings because gangs are using social media to taunt each other and to organize violent retaliations to those taunts.  

When you take all the gunz away and these angry, disaffected young men still find way to kill masses of people with bombs, arson, trucks and poison.... are you still going to blame the tool or are you going to wake up and address the root causes instead?  

Social Media is as much to blame as cell phones were 20 years ago, and as much as the teenage runners in the '70s

Just another Jeffreaux FAIL

[Contumacious Tom 673]

6 hours ago, Mark K said:

16 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Tom, I will let you and Mark sort out your dogballz questions directly.  Maybe you guys can even share that room that jocal has reserved but never seems to be able to get anyone to spend the night with him.

 

 Not fixable. He's convinced himself that banning large cap mags means banning dogballs. 

No, actually it's not fixable because Mark refuses to discuss the actual reason my wife's gun is subject to that ban (the adjustable stock) and always deflects to magazine capacity bans. But won't address whether "large" should mean 5 rounds, as in Puerto Rico, 7 rounds, as in FL and other states, 10 rounds, as in DiFi's legislation, or some other number.

I think the magazine capacity bans are stupid too, but they are unrelated to the words "regardless of caliber" in DiFI's bill. Those are the words that make me think the ban applies to ordinary squirrel caliber weapons.

We've been here before and I hope you now see what I mean about his refusal to discuss actual proposals from actual legislators and actual magazine capacity limits in places like Puerto Rico.

[Mismoyled Jiblet. 751]

On 11/22/2018 at 4:48 PM, Bent Sailor said:

* Torba runs Gab, "an English-language social media website, known for its far-right user base". So yeah, not the go to person for an objective view on the matter.

Can we stop calling them the "far right" and call them antisemites and racists instead? And point out Torba advertised Gab specifically to them? That's a little more accurate I think. 

[Shortforbob 572]

an Idea..take away the anonymity on social media...then say away. 

If you post on SM anything you'd not say aloud or reveal to the whole world..dont post it.

[Contumacious Tom 673]

5 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

an Idea..take away the anonymity on social media...then say away. 

If you post on SM anything you'd not say aloud or reveal to the whole world..dont post it.

My sockpuppet, if I had one, would be named Publius and I might even take the trouble to log out and log back in just to have him downvote your post.

But that's a lot of trouble and someone already took that screen name anyway, so consider yourself anonymously downvoted by me.

[Shortforbob 572]

9 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

My sockpuppet, if I had one, would be named Publius and I might even take the trouble to log out and log back in just to have him downvote your post.

But that's a lot of trouble and someone already took that screen name anyway, so consider yourself anonymously downvoted by me.

not so long ago there was no such thing as SM, now there are great benefits from SM, but I don't see why people have to be anonymous.

Used to be a paper would not publish letters to the editor without a real name attached and verified...explain to me exactly what purpose is served by having the "freedom" of anonymity" 

And don't cite "whistleblowing" their information is never completely anonymous to everyone.  

[Contumacious Tom 673]

12 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

not so long ago there was no such thing as SM, now there are great benefits from SM, but I don't see why people have to be anonymous.

Used to be a paper would not publish letters to the editor without a real name attached and verified...explain to me exactly what purpose is served by having the "freedom" of anonymity" 

And don't cite "whistleblowing" their information is never completely anonymous to everyone.  

I hadn't thought of whistleblowing but some protection is better than none so I disagree on that one.

You should probably ask some of those who don't reveal their real names but my impression is that they don't want an easy connection between what they say here and their offline lives. Sometimes for family reasons, work reasons, whatever reasons.

As for my namesakes, they wanted to speak as "a citizen" and not under their real names because they were known and somewhat polarizing political figures. An early attempt to stifle messenger attacks, which worked so well they're now extinct.

[AJ Oliver 147]

This is how the gun fetishists think . . 

 

[Greever 17]

9 hours ago, Mark K said:

OK, you believe nothing should be done about the problem. 

 Everybody agrees thermonuclear weapons and a heck of a lot of other stuff should not be considered protected by the second amendment, even though that cat's out of the bag. All we are doing is deciding where the line should be drawn on "arms".  I'd draw it at high cap mags myself, and also consider some restrictions on military grade ammo, the latter being  a tricky concept, granted.  

What would your limit be on magazine capacity?

How would we get rid of the tens of millions that are in circulation?

I am not trying to play a gotcha game with you. You are a smart guy, and I wonder how you think such bans would be enforced.

[Mickey Rat 57]

On 11/23/2018 at 4:34 AM, Ease the sheet. said:

The hate doesn't go away......

Mostly it's old white men that can't get laid. They hate everybody. 

[Contumacious Tom 673]

1 hour ago, Greever said:

How would we get rid of the tens of millions that are in circulation?

This unanswered question has resulted in "scores of thousands" of felons in possession in CT. And thousands of felons in possession in Canada.

And millions of Uncooperative Californicators.

There are other examples, but the point is that grabbers don't have an answer to Uncooperative gun owners who don't simply surrender their property when told to do so. That's why Mark won't answer.

[Greever 17]

He might. I just posted the question a few hours ago...

[Contumacious Tom 673]

8 minutes ago, Greever said:

He might. I just posted the question a few hours ago...

It would be awesomely ironic if an American had a practical suggestion that helped Canadians end their ongoing felon in possession problem. But I'm not holding my breath.

[Shootist Jeff 664]

18 hours ago, Mark K said:

Another question that merely snipes at proposed actions to be taken for the problem. No reasonable discussion can take place unless there is agreement that there is a problem. Is there a problem with nuts hosing down crowds of people with high cap magged guns and high powered ammo?

  

I absolutely agree there is a problem.  But the problem is nuts hosing down crowds of people, not the high cap mags or high powered ammo.  BTW, as you are well aware - the 5.56mm NATO round is not particularly "high power".  I'm betting if he were shooting with a 7.62 mm rifle, there would have been a LOT more dead people.  Good luck banning that round though as the .308 Winchester is probably THE most ubiquitous hunting round in NA.  But I digress........

The long term solution is "Nut control", not high cap mag control.  How long did the nut have in his "hide" to shoot unmolested?  He could have easily changed 10 or 20 round mags just as easily as he did the 30s.  How many of his 20 rifles he had in the room did he actually shoot?  My recollection was only a handful.  

And I'm ALL for banning Bump Stockas..... but fortunately that device likely saved lives that night.

Clamp down harder on the ability to keep nutz from accessing firearms and I think there you will find your greatest synergy in terms of public safety.  It will require a bit of erosion of the 4th amendment though to do so, but isn't public safety and kid's lives the only real concern?  

[Mismoyled Jiblet. 751]

5 hours ago, Greever said:

How would we get rid of the tens of millions that are in circulation?

I am not trying to play a gotcha game with you. You are a smart guy, and I wonder how you think such bans would be enforced.

Making them illegal would immediately decrease the number in circulation, and slowly decrease the number outstanding.

[Greever 17]

1 hour ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Making them illegal would immediately decrease the number in circulation, and slowly decrease the number outstanding.

What would you propose for the limit on the number of rounds a magazine can hold?

I recall the AWB of 1994 capped the limit to ten rounds.

[Contumacious Tom 673]

50 minutes ago, Greever said:

What would you propose for the limit on the number of rounds a magazine can hold?

I recall the AWB of 1994 capped the limit to ten rounds.

It's easier to see why you won't get an answer if you just rephrase the question:

Have the grabbers gone too far in Puerto Rico with their 5 round limit?

When a question begins with those six words, it hardly matters what follows. If you get an answer, it will be no.

[Raz'r 967]

1 minute ago, dogballs Tom said:

It's easier to see why you won't get an answer if you just rephrase the question:

Have the grabbers gone too far in Puerto Rico with their 5 round limit?

When a question begins with those six words, it hardly matters what follows. If you get an answer, it will be no.

Seems to me the locals have found their answer. Since you can’t vote there, don’t take your kid-killer with you if it doesn’t fit in the law.

[Mark K 453]

15 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

No, actually it's not fixable because Mark refuses to discuss the actual reason my wife's gun is subject to that ban (the adjustable stock) and always deflects to magazine capacity bans. But won't address whether "large" should mean 5 rounds, as in Puerto Rico, 7 rounds, as in FL and other states, 10 rounds, as in DiFi's legislation, or some other number.

I think the magazine capacity bans are stupid too, but they are unrelated to the words "regardless of caliber" in DiFI's bill. Those are the words that make me think the ban applies to ordinary squirrel caliber weapons.

We've been here before and I hope you now see what I mean about his refusal to discuss actual proposals from actual legislators and actual magazine capacity limits in places like Puerto Rico.

All you have to do to support your assertion that dogballs are being banned is cite someone of somethiing specifically banning dogballs. Please do that. 

[Mark K 453]

2 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I absolutely agree there is a problem.  But the problem is nuts hosing down crowds of people, not the high cap mags or high powered ammo.  BTW, as you are well aware - the 5.56mm NATO round is not particularly "high power".  I'm betting if he were shooting with a 7.62 mm rifle, there would have been a LOT more dead people.  Good luck banning that round though as the .308 Winchester is probably THE most ubiquitous hunting round in NA.  But I digress........

The long term solution is "Nut control", not high cap mag control.  How long did the nut have in his "hide" to shoot unmolested?  He could have easily changed 10 or 20 round mags just as easily as he did the 30s.  How many of his 20 rifles he had in the room did he actually shoot?  My recollection was only a handful.  

And I'm ALL for banning Bump Stockas..... but fortunately that device likely saved lives that night.

Clamp down harder on the ability to keep nutz from accessing firearms and I think there you will find your greatest synergy in terms of public safety.  It will require a bit of erosion of the 4th amendment though to do so, but isn't public safety and kid's lives the only real concern?  

The bumpstocks allowed a high rate of fire. If that is not desired when hosing down a crowd of people, how do you explain assault rifles becoming standard issue for ALL military rifle companies world effin' wide? 

  

[Mismoyled Jiblet. 751]

1 hour ago, Greever said:

What would you propose for the limit on the number of rounds a magazine can hold?

I recall the AWB of 1994 capped the limit to ten rounds.

10 rounds for the general populace, 5 rounds for NRA members, no guns at all for dogballs and Jeffreaux.

[Raz'r 967]

5 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

10 rounds for the general populace, 5 rounds for NRA members, no guns at all for dogballs and Jeffreaux.

eminently reasonable

[Shootist Jeff 664]

3 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Making them illegal would immediately decrease the number in circulation, and slowly decrease the number outstanding.

It's interesting.... I start a thread about social media and the rest of you turn it into a gun thread.  Well fucking done..

[Ishmael 1,752]

1 hour ago, Shootist Jeff said:

It's interesting.... I start a thread about social media and the rest of you turn it into a gun thread.  Well fucking done..

Nice try. You started it as a gun thread.

[mad 1,546]

It’s the road that most threads end up traveling down, Trump, Hilary etc are also useful ways to mis direct the OP. 

[Mismoyled Jiblet. 751]

23 minutes ago, mad said:

It’s the road that most threads end up traveling down, Trump, Hilary etc are also useful ways to mis direct the OP. 

oh comeon. jeff wanted it to be that way, and now is playing his feigned indignant bullshit against people he doesn't like because jeff's an asshole.

[Greever 17]

4 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

10 rounds for the general populace, 5 rounds for NRA members, no guns at all for dogballs and Jeffreaux.

[Contumacious Tom 673]

6 hours ago, Mark K said:

All you have to do to support your assertion that dogballs are being banned is cite someone of somethiing specifically banning dogballs. Please do that. 

Is this a trick question? I've done it enough times to annoy the mods, apparently, but here we go again:

I posted about the subject in the appropriate thread and posted the section of law banning scary guns and this excerpt from the exemptions to that ban:

On 2/19/2018 at 7:43 AM, dogballs Tom said:

There is also a list of exemptions for various models of rimfire rifles. It says, in part:

Quote

‘‘Ruger 0/Dogballs  Autoloading  Carbine  (w/o folding stock)
‘‘Ruger0/Dogballs Compact
‘‘Ruger0/Dogballs Sporter
‘‘Ruger0/Dogballs Target

The bolded part is the problem. My wife put a telescoping stock on her gun, indicating her disdain for the lives of children.

That's pretty specific. It describes the make and model of my wife's gun and the objectionable feature that makes it a weapon of war that must be banned. And yes, her gun fires that round on the right in the picture you posted. That's not the reason for banning it, the folding stock is.

[Contumacious Tom 673]

6 hours ago, Mark K said:

The bumpstocks allowed a high rate of fire. If that is not desired when hosing down a crowd of people, how do you explain assault rifles becoming standard issue for ALL military rifle companies world effin' wide? 

  

Assault weapons like the one my wife owns were deemed too lethal for the IDF.

On 3/26/2018 at 6:40 AM, dogballs Tom said:

On 3/25/2018 at 8:38 AM, badlatitude said:

Did you tell them that the Israeli Army uses them for sniper weapons? 

Operator armed with the Ruger0/Dogballs Suppressed sniper rifle during the Israeli-Palestinian clashes in the Occupied Territories, October 2000. Note that the sniper has a Sig Sauer handgun tacked in his vest.

I guess badlat must have forgotten to include his source.

http://ruger1022.com/docs/israeli_sniper.htm
 

Quote

 

...the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) searched for a 0dogballs caliber accurate rifle that will be used to take out the key protest leaders by shooting them in the legs.

The Ruger0/Dogballs, fitted with a X4 day optic, a full length suppressor and a Harris bipod was selected for this role and was due to be issued to all infantry oriented units, including both special and conventional forces. However, as often happens in the shoestring budget IDF, financial problems prevented the weapon’s mass distribution, and it was mainly issued to Special Forces (SF) units. Moreover, instead of using the rifle as a riot control weapon, as originally intended, the Israeli SF deployed the Ruger0/Dogballs more as a “Hush Puppy” weapon used to silently and effectively eliminate disturbing dogs prior to operations.

In the recent Israeli-Palestinian clashes began in 2000, the Ruger resumes it’s original role as a less lethal riot control weapon. However, it’s usage in this role was rather controversial this time. After several incidents involving the death of Palestinians by the Ruger fire, the IDF conducted a field experiment in the Ruger at the IDF Sniper School in Mitkan Adam under the supervision of the IDF Judge Advocate General (JAG). The test showed that the Ruger was more lethal then thought especially in upper body injuries. Also, since it’s suppressed and was considered less lethal by the troops, the soldiers were much more likely to use the Ruger loosely then intended.

As a result of this test, the JAG reclassified the Ruger as a lethal weapon. As a lethal weapon, the usage of the Ruger in riot control is much more limited today. In the IDF Center Command it was completely prohibited to use and the IDF South Command it’s deployment was cut down dramatically.

 

So it turns out that guns like my wife's are actually too dangerous for the IDF! Yikes! It's really weird that it's so darn popular in Canada. Bloodthirsty, eh?

 

[Mark K 453]

4 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

Is this a trick question? I've done it enough times to annoy the mods, apparently, but here we go again:

I posted about the subject in the appropriate thread and posted the section of law banning scary guns and this excerpt from the exemptions to that ban:

That's pretty specific. It describes the make and model of my wife's gun and the objectionable feature that makes it a weapon of war that must be banned. And yes, her gun fires that round on the right in the picture you posted. That's not the reason for banning it, the folding stock is.

 A simple " I can't!" would have sufficed. Instead you are talking stocks and Izz dogballs. I suppose in a few days you will pretend I haven't responded to this, you may expect to be ignored.   

[Contumacious Tom 673]

14 hours ago, Mark K said:

All you have to do to support your assertion that dogballs are being banned is cite someone of somethiing specifically banning dogballs. Please do that. 

I guess I misunderstood what "cite someone of somethiing specifically banning dogballs" meant.

It's not quite English, but I took it to mean "cite a specific ban covering guns that fire the censored caliber."

So I did.

Obviously, it did not mean what I thought.

Can you translate your version of my assertion into English? Or, better still, just quote "my assertion" because I have a feeling it's another that you invented, not one I made.

[Contumacious Tom 673]

17 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

22 hours ago, Greever said:

How would we get rid of the tens of millions that are in circulation?

I am not trying to play a gotcha game with you. You are a smart guy, and I wonder how you think such bans would be enforced.

Making them illegal would immediately decrease the number in circulation, and slowly decrease the number outstanding.

Actually, the immediate effect of these kinds of bans is a YUGE increase in sales as people buy before the cutoff date.

I know that's how I'd respond.

They do wear out over time, so if I wanted to slowly increase my number outstanding after the ban, I'd have to go another way.

[Contumacious Tom 673]

19 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

19 hours ago, Greever said:

He might. I just posted the question a few hours ago...

It would be awesomely ironic if an American had a practical suggestion that helped Canadians end their ongoing felon in possession problem. But I'm not holding my breath.

Hope you were not holding your breath either.