• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Police: Gunman kills two at N.J. supermarket

Harshaw said:
Did you even read the stories at the links? I doubt very much you did. Those are about mass shootings. If you're not talking about that, then you're making absolutely no sense in the slightest.

Of course, that's the same thing anyway, but what exactly do you THINK you're talking about that's different from what I posted? This seems like a tremendous dodge, for reasons which are unclear.




I already told you that it runs counter to the American experience, where this didn't happen when "individualism" was revered far more than it is now. If your "theory" were correct, that wouldn't have been the case. That's empirical.




I wouldn't have to. You have to show yours is correct, and you present absolutely no support for it whatsoever.




Oh, I think you think you do. So don't be coy -- what are they?
Click to expand...

I had read through many of them and if you actually looked at the criteria I laid out you wouldn't have wasted your time linking mass murders that have nothing to do with the topic.
 
Furiounova said:
I really don't have the patience to waste time on people ascribing some ulterior motive so your snipe hunt may continue but it will be lonely.
Click to expand...
I alwasy laugh at the people that take the time to post how they dont have time to post.
 
VanceMack said:
I alwasy laugh at the people that take the time to post how they dont have time to post.
Click to expand...

I didn't say I don't have tine to post. You appear to struggle with the actual contents of posts.
 
Furiounova said:
The fact you didn't know the basic facts of the OP story tends to disagree.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I did know the basic facts. The fact that you think you can make **** up and try to change the discussion shows how little credibility you have here.
 
Furiounova said:
I didn't say I don't have tine to post. You appear to struggle with the actual contents of posts.
Click to expand...

Thanks for taking time to post again.
 
Furiounova said:
Legislation is the last place to look and if anything, needs to be repealed on many levels because one more gun law and I will puke on a daily basis.
Click to expand...

Your inability to control your own digestive functions aside, the fact is that nobody need to worry about laws taking away gun rights. The gun lobby and the gun culture which supports it has so lopsidedly won this battle that they are akin to the Harlem Globetrotters playing the woeful Washington Generals each night. Thirty years ago when terrible tragedies occurred as a result of violence using a gun, there was a national debate in which solutions were discussed. We have so lost this debate to the gun culture that now we do not even have the discussion. No politician in DC dare bring up the subject.

We would have to have Batman movie type killings once a week for a year to turn around the psychology on this.
 
VanceMack said:
I alwasy laugh at the people that take the time to post how they dont have time to post.
Click to expand...

that is funny and I often feel that same way. Somebody who is challenged to simply provide a link to what they claim will waste ten posts telling you they already did it instead of simply linking with the first request.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
Your inability to control your own digestive functions aside, the fact is that nobody need to worry about laws taking away gun rights. The gun lobby and the gun culture which supports it has so lopsidedly won this battle that they are akin to the Harlem Globetrotters playing the woeful Washington Generals each night. Thirty years ago when terrible tragedies occurred as a result of violence using a gun, there was a national debate in which solutions were discussed. We have so lost this debate to the gun culture that now we do not even have the discussion. No politician in DC dare bring up the subject.

We would have to have Batman movie type killings once a week for a year to turn around the psychology on this.
Click to expand...

There should have never been debates about gun control because it has all been a waste of time and worse, diverted attention away from seeking causes and solutions.
 
haymarket said:
that is funny and I often feel that same way. Somebody who is challenged to simply provide a link to what they claim will waste ten posts telling you they already did it instead of simply linking with the first request.
Click to expand...

Except I didn't say I don't have time to post.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Yeah, I did know the basic facts. The fact that you think you can make **** up and try to change the discussion shows how little credibility you have here.
Click to expand...

The fact you didn't know the basic facts of the OP story tends to disagree.

Every time you ignore actual content and harp about "credibility" all you are doing is begging for rescue from other posters who know you.
 
Furiounova said:
The fact you didn't know the basic facts of the OP story tends to disagree.

Every time you ignore actual content and harp about "credibility" all you are doing is begging for rescue from other posters who know you.
Click to expand...
Actually, we've covered this. I do know the basics and I know more about these issues than you, it's been demonstrated. So bring something factual, and stop torturing criminal statute language.
 
DAMN! I was right NEAR there the other night (on Rt. 9 North, on the OTHER side of the Raritan bridge)... and my brother used to work for Path Mark.
 
Furiounova said:
Except I didn't say I don't have time to post.
Click to expand...

Yes, I was NOT referring to you with my complains about the people not wanting to provide links to their claims.
 
Furiounova said:
Uniquely American in both frequency and style.

The Norway shooting doesnt count because that was not social terrorism.
Click to expand...


I will not entertain his nonsense any further, nor indulge its continued discussion. I leave you to it.
 
Goshin said:
I will not entertain his nonsense any further, nor indulge its continued discussion. I leave you to it.
Click to expand...

The Norway shooting was traditional terrorism in that the shooter had a specific agenda against Muslims.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
DAMN! I was right NEAR there the other night (on Rt. 9 North, on the OTHER side of the Raritan bridge)... and my brother used to work for Path Mark.
Click to expand...

Changes context a bit when it is such a familiar location. Years ago I was "dating" a co worker who recently broke up with her fiance and one night we were going to go out but I canceled and she went to chi chi's with a female friend. Apparently he was out looking for her, saw her car in the parking lot and waited. When she came out he got out of his car and pulled a gun on her and her friend. At the last moment he turned the gun on his own head and pulled the trigger. We would have both been dead if we were together. She got through it okay but when it is that close.....it just forces a new perspective.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Actually, we've covered this. I do know the basics and I know more about these issues than you, it's been demonstrated. So bring something factual, and stop torturing criminal statute language.
Click to expand...

You are far more intelligent and educated than I could ever hope to be on this or any other subject. Forgive me for implying anything less. Please.
 
Furiounova said:
The Norway shooting was traditional terrorism in that the shooter had a specific agenda against Muslims.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as social terrorism. If it does not involve the “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” then it is not terrorism period.
 
Furiounova said:
I had read through many of them and if you actually looked at the criteria I laid out you wouldn't have wasted your time linking mass murders that have nothing to do with the topic.
Click to expand...

What you're doing is what everyone says you're doing -- redefining the crime into something which fits your . . . what? Agenda? Worldview?

These were mass shootings and mass murders. Seems to me you want to call some of them "social terrorism" just so you can use it to make some kind of point that the statistics simply don't bear out.

You don't get to call it something it isn't just because you like it better for your premise.
 
Harshaw said:
What you're doing is what everyone says you're doing -- redefining the crime into something which fits your . . . what? Agenda? Worldview?

These were mass shootings and mass murders. Seems to me you want to call some of them "social terrorism" just so you can use it to make some kind of point that the statistics simply don't bear out.

You don't get to call it something it isn't just because you like it better for your premise.
Click to expand...

The OP story was not a mass murder.

What I am doing is looking for the most accurate description. Terrorism doesn't fit and they are not mass murders so maybe I'm crazy for looking for accuracy.
 
jamesrage said:
There is no such thing as social terrorism. If it does not involve the “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” then it is not terrorism period.
Click to expand...

I'm saying social terrorism exists and I'm trying to explain why. Using the OP story, what would you call it? Going postal is a gloss job so come up with something substantive.
 
Furiounova said:
The OP story was not a mass murder.
Click to expand...


:rofl

Only by strict FBI numerical designation, and only because it stopped before it got to four -- mostly because the gunman was apparently incompetent.

From your own OP:

"I believe everyone in the store was a target," said Kaplan, who noted that the gunman fired 16 rounds during his attack."
Click to expand...

He apparently tried to kill more but didn't succeed.

If you're claiming it was of a piece with the other shootings, then it was a mass shooting in the same vein.

If you refuse to accept that, then you absolutely are making things up to fit whatever narrative it is you've got concocted in your head.



What I am doing is looking for the most accurate description. Terrorism doesn't fit and they are not mass murders so maybe I'm crazy for looking for accuracy.[/QUOTE]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom