snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > SLC Central > Rantidote

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 10 April 2018, 05:34 PM
Alarm's Avatar
Alarm Alarm is offline
 
Join Date: 26 May 2011
Location: Nepean, ON
Posts: 5,717
Default

I find that line of thought funny, because it's also a "well known fact" that a lot of serial killers are "quiet people, you wouldn't have expected of him"
You know, the kind of trite things neighbours say almost every time someone snaps and goes on a rampage.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 11 April 2018, 03:29 AM
Mouse's Avatar
Mouse Mouse is offline
 
Join Date: 11 July 2003
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 7,424
Mouse

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenYus234 View Post
Point a) is especially pertinent as several of the mass shooters had no convictions for major (or any) crimes prior to the shooting.
While I don't know if this is true of the Parkland asshole, most of the mass shooters turn out to have domestic violence charges in their background. Battered lovers and battered kids are the canaries in the coal mine when it comes to these NFBSKers. The asshole who shot up a church in Texas not only had beaten up his lover, he had been charged with beating his toddler stepson so badly, he fractured the kid's skull. Yet he had no difficulty in getting guns.

There's also problems thanks to what has been called the Boyfriend loophole. Most states have laws that keep someone who has been charged with domestic abuse from getting guns. Clearly, they don't always work, but they exist.

The thing is, that said laws only cover couples who were married. If a man and woman were just dating or if they were keeping it casual, abusive jerk can still get all the guns he/she wants, because they didn't put a ring on it; therefore it's not abuse.

We have imposed limitations on the first and fourth amendments of the Constitution, yet for some reason, the second is sacrosanct and we can't have discuss it, never mind regulating it.

When people use the "Guns don't kill people. People kill people" meme, I respond with, "Technically you are right. Just as planes don't fly people across the Atlantic Ocean, people do, people do kill people. It doesn't change the fact that just as planes make it a whole lot easier for people to cross the Atlantic Ocean, guns make it a whole lot easier for people to kill people."

But no matter what you say to some NRA shit, they'll just be "But mah guns!" which is why I've come to advocate that the NRA just be shut out of these discussions entirely.

We know that their response will be "More guns would solve this," because that's their solution to everything, including all the stuff mentioned in Alanis Morissette's "Ironic." So why do we need to quote one of them? Just shut those NFBSKers out of the discussion. Don't put their spokesmen on TV.

If you can't shut them out of it entirely, maybe just do a one-line, "An NRA spokesman said that more guns would have solved this," and move on. No names, no faces, no soundbites. There's no reason to put any of those glib sociopaths on TV, because it's very unlikely that they will say anything besides, "More guns!" meaning that it's pretty much not news.

Though I could point out that during the sixties, when the Black Panthers were encouraging Blacks to arm themselves, the NRA and the Right were suddenly in favor of gun control, but I'm sure there's nothing racist about their stance. I'd say that maybe we could get some laws passed if we encouraged Black people to start buying guns en masse and posting pictures of themselves posing with their weapons, but since Black people can get shot for standing in their own backyard, that's probably a horrible idea.

Another thing that bugs me about the gun nuts: they use the "standing up to government tyranny!" justification, while collectively worshipping the police and the military which are, whether you like it or not, representatives of state power.

Philando Castile is the type of case that the NRA should have been loudly speaking out about, because it's exactly what they fear: a law-abiding citizen being gunned down for peacefully exercising his rights as a citizen. Yet the NRA was oddly silent about Philando Castile, while the Left (which tends to be more in favor of gun control) were the ones who spoke against all this. But again, I'm sure there's a totally non-racist reason for this and I'm being horrible for insisting otherwise.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 11 April 2018, 10:52 AM
kitap's Avatar
kitap kitap is offline
 
Join Date: 20 January 2001
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 9,834
Whalephant

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alarm View Post
I find that line of thought funny, because it's also a "well known fact" that a lot of serial killers are "quiet people, you wouldn't have expected of him"
You know, the kind of trite things neighbours say almost every time someone snaps and goes on a rampage.
Years ago, back when Johnny Carson hosted the Tonight Show he had an occasional bit about things he'd like to hear-something like that, anyways. Once he said (paraphrasing) "One day I'd like to hear a neighbor say 'I'm not surprised he was a serial killer; he always was a mean son of a b*tch.'"
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 11 April 2018, 01:05 PM
Lainie's Avatar
Lainie Lainie is offline
 
Join Date: 29 August 2005
Location: Suburban Columbus, OH
Posts: 74,479
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mouse View Post
There's also problems thanks to what has been called the Boyfriend loophole. Most states have laws that keep someone who has been charged with domestic abuse from getting guns. Clearly, they don't always work, but they exist.

The thing is, that said laws only cover couples who were married.
Do you have a cite for that? IDK what the law is in Ohio re: domestic violence offenders owning guns, but IMU Ohio domestic violence laws apply whether you're married to the person you battered or not.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 11 April 2018, 01:35 PM
Beachlife!'s Avatar
Beachlife! Beachlife! is offline
 
Join Date: 23 June 2001
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 28,569
Default

The law that's usually mentioned [18 U.S.C. ß 921(a)(32)] uses the term domestic partner and defines it as
Quote:
...with respect to a person, the spouse of the person, a former spouse of the person, an individual who is a parent of a child of the person, and an individual who cohabitates or has cohabited with the person.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 11 April 2018, 03:29 PM
DawnStorm's Avatar
DawnStorm DawnStorm is offline
 
Join Date: 11 March 2003
Location: Montgomery County, MD
Posts: 16,667
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mouse View Post
Philando Castile is the type of case that the NRA should have been loudly speaking out about, because it's exactly what they fear: a law-abiding citizen being gunned down for peacefully exercising his rights as a citizen. Yet the NRA was oddly silent about Philando Castile, while the Left (which tends to be more in favor of gun control) were the ones who spoke against all this. But again, I'm sure there's a totally non-racist reason for this and I'm being horrible for insisting otherwise.

Reason had a great article about this very thing.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 11 April 2018, 05:33 PM
Alarm's Avatar
Alarm Alarm is offline
 
Join Date: 26 May 2011
Location: Nepean, ON
Posts: 5,717
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beachlife! View Post
The law that's usually mentioned [18 U.S.C. ß 921(a)(32)] uses the term domestic partner and defines it as
Quote:
...with respect to a person, the spouse of the person, a former spouse of the person, an individual who is a parent of a child of the person, and an individual who cohabitates or has cohabited with the person.
Which leaves people who have no children together, are not spouses/ex-spouse, or do not/have not co-habitated, out
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 12 April 2018, 06:18 AM
Mouse's Avatar
Mouse Mouse is offline
 
Join Date: 11 July 2003
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 7,424
Mouse

Exactly my point, Alarm. If they were just dating, abusive jerk can get all the guns he likes. The immortal Samantha Bee has a segment on the Boyfriend Loophole for those interested.

Given that so many of these mass shooters have domestic violence charges in their background, it does further reiterate that if they are suffering from a mental illness, it's one called an Overwhelming Sense of Entitlement. They feel they deserve whatever they want, because they want it, and if someone doesn't give it to them, they have every right to throw lead-filled tantrums about it.

It's one of many reasons as to why the Mental Illness dodge that gun nuts use to weasel out of gun control debates, really pisses me off.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 05 June 2018, 06:25 PM
smittykins's Avatar
smittykins smittykins is offline
 
Join Date: 27 December 2003
Location: Seneca Falls, NY
Posts: 2,685
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kitap View Post
Years ago, back when Johnny Carson hosted the Tonight Show he had an occasional bit about things he'd like to hear-something like that, anyways. Once he said (paraphrasing) "One day I'd like to hear a neighbor say 'I'm not surprised he was a serial killer; he always was a mean son of a b*tch.'"
In one of his routines, Jeff Foxworthy said that just once, he'd like to hear "You know what, my mama was great, my daddy was great, I'm just an asshole."
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 06 June 2018, 05:57 PM
DawnStorm's Avatar
DawnStorm DawnStorm is offline
 
Join Date: 11 March 2003
Location: Montgomery County, MD
Posts: 16,667
Ponder

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mouse View Post

Philando Castile is the type of case that the NRA should have been loudly speaking out about, because it's exactly what they fear: a law-abiding citizen being gunned down for peacefully exercising his rights as a citizen. Yet the NRA was oddly silent about Philando Castile, while the Left (which tends to be more in favor of gun control) were the ones who spoke against all this. But again, I'm sure there's a totally non-racist reason for this and I'm being horrible for insisting otherwise.

I remember posting a link to a Reason article that wondered about the same thing. He did all of the right things, all the responsible things, sadly he's killed, and the NRA doesn't say diddly squat.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 20 June 2018, 09:12 PM
smittykins's Avatar
smittykins smittykins is offline
 
Join Date: 27 December 2003
Location: Seneca Falls, NY
Posts: 2,685
Jaded

"Democrats have been promoting abortion for 40 years, and NOW they're concerned about children being ripped from their mothers' arms?"
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 20 June 2018, 09:17 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 26,270
Default

Promoting? And words.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 20 June 2018, 09:18 PM
Sue's Avatar
Sue Sue is offline
 
Join Date: 26 December 2011
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 9,210
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smittykins View Post
"Democrats have been promoting abortion for 40 years, and NOW they're concerned about children being ripped from their mothers' arms?"
Of course it doesn't occur to the genius who wrote this, and the idiots passing it along, that they're actually saying ripping children from their mother's arms is wrong. So why aren't they in the forefront of those protesting this action? I can't imagine.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 20 June 2018, 11:43 PM
smittykins's Avatar
smittykins smittykins is offline
 
Join Date: 27 December 2003
Location: Seneca Falls, NY
Posts: 2,685
Default

Because unborn babies are more important than born ones. Duh.

[/sarcasm]
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 21 June 2018, 03:53 AM
Mouse's Avatar
Mouse Mouse is offline
 
Join Date: 11 July 2003
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 7,424
Mouse

I know Iím preaching to the choir, but this section of the board is for incoherent ranting and Iím going to use.

The ďpolitical outsiderĒ or whatever you call it, really pisses me the NFBSK off, so much so that I worry that Iím going to snap and start screaming on street corners.

In nearly every other job, having knowledge of the job you want is, well, THE MOST BASIC REQUIREMENT OF THE JOB! except when it comes to politics, apparently. Only in politics is being completely inexperienced about the job, is a plus. In any other field, we would be appalled by the idea of hiring someone completely inexperienced for the job. If someone needed a plumber, would they seek out Max, a licensed plumber who has been plumbing toilets for decades, or would they go with Joe, who has never plumbed a toilet, but has used tons of them, which is the same thing, am I right?

Also only in politics can you get hired by complaining loudly about how much you hate the job you are applying for and talk about how if given the job, you will do everything you can to bring down the company youíve applied for, from within. Walmart wouldnít hire someone who spent the entire interview, ranting about how Walmart is concentrated evil in corporate form, even though the prospective employee is right on the money, because Walmart is the worst. Why in whatever DOYC do we elect people who hate the government into the government?!
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 21 June 2018, 03:56 AM
Cervus's Avatar
Cervus Cervus is offline
 
Join Date: 21 October 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 21,167
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mouse View Post
Why in whatever DOYC do we elect people who hate the government into the government?!
That's what I don't understand about the existence of the Libertarian party.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 21 June 2018, 04:30 AM
crocoduck_hunter's Avatar
crocoduck_hunter crocoduck_hunter is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Roseburg, OR
Posts: 12,737
Default

The Libertarian Party becomes more understandable if you just assume that their entire shtick is doing whatever they want while deliberately screwing things up for everyone else.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 21 June 2018, 11:07 AM
Richard W's Avatar
Richard W Richard W is offline
 
Join Date: 19 February 2000
Location: High Wycombe, UK
Posts: 26,294
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cervus View Post
That's what I don't understand about the existence of the Libertarian party.
Similar to UKIP in the European Parliamentary elections in the UK as well. Their basic policy was that they weren't going to do their jobs - just take subsidies and sit there - as a form of protest vote. Because the anti-EU people were more motivated to vote than average, quite a lot of UKIP MEPs ended up being elected.

And then the UKIPpers used our poor representation in the European Parliament as an argument that it was undemocratic and we were being unfairly disregarded. No, it was YOUR JOB to represent us, and you deliberately weren't doing it! That's an argument against you, not the EU!
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 22 June 2018, 04:11 AM
Mouse's Avatar
Mouse Mouse is offline
 
Join Date: 11 July 2003
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 7,424
Mouse

Quote:
Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter View Post
The Libertarian Party becomes more understandable if you just assume that their entire shtick is doing whatever they want while deliberately screwing things up for everyone else.
Iíve assumed that Libertarians are just Republicans who like pot. They have no problem with the GOPís militarism or their racism, and you hardly hear a peep from them about the Republicans trying to interfere with citizensí health care, but they like to smoke pot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard W View Post
And then the UKIPpers used our poor representation in the European Parliament as an argument that it was undemocratic and we were being unfairly disregarded. No, it was YOUR JOB to represent us, and you deliberately weren't doing it! That's an argument against you, not the EU!
Another thing to add to my semi-coherent rant: if you elect people who loudly disparage government and talk endlessly about how it doesnít work, once they are in office, they will do everything they can to prove it true. You wouldnít take your dog to a vet who wonít stop yelling about how much they hate animals, so donít elect someone who hates government into the government.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 22 June 2018, 07:57 AM
crocoduck_hunter's Avatar
crocoduck_hunter crocoduck_hunter is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Roseburg, OR
Posts: 12,737
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mouse View Post
Iíve assumed that Libertarians are just Republicans who like pot. They have no problem with the GOPís militarism or their racism, and you hardly hear a peep from them about the Republicans trying to interfere with citizensí health care, but they like to smoke pot.
It's also rare for them to make significant noise about government regulation of women's reproductive rights or voting restrictions.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Memes that annoy you WildaBeast Rantidote 1078 29 March 2018 05:21 PM
What would Stone Age memes have looked like? DawnStorm Fun House 58 10 August 2017 06:46 AM
Memes that annoy you Little Pink Pill Rantidote 13 10 March 2016 02:07 AM
Memes that annoy you Amigone201 Rantidote 1020 22 February 2016 01:05 PM
Memes that annoy you Amigone201 Rantidote 1000 04 August 2014 11:45 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.