Have we become used to or immune to mass shootings?

[tw]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

As have you and all your commie friends at CNN, MSNBC, HLN, the Washington Post, the New York Times, ...

This type person justifies assault weapons. We all need protection from such people who are so easily manipulated by Joseph McCarthy and other enemies of America. We might as well include the State Department and US Army in that commie list since that is what such logic *proved*.

Too many adults are still children. These are brown shirts so easily manipulated using soundbyte reasoning, fictional fears, and other emotions.

He demonstrates why assault weapons in the hands of civilians are so dangerous. And why killing increases with more such weapons. Thank you henry quick for making obvious the actual threat.

[henry quirk]

“Note that the previous mention of "risk" was about "sharing" it, which is the purpose of insurance.”

Yeah, that’s one interpretation.

#

“To "eliminate" risk would remove the need for insurance.”

Implants, baby.

#

“But the fact that it is impossible to eliminate risk is no reason not to decrease it.”

I’m thinkin’ you have a lower tolerance for risk than me.

##

“This type person justifies assault weapons”

Nope. I advocate for self-direction and -responsibility. You’d rob folks of that just to ‘feel safe’.

#

“enemies of America”

Me? Quite the opposite. I want a ‘free’ America where elected folks are seen as employees, where individuals can take on risk (reaping the benefits or suffering the consequences), and where where the majority understands that the pursuit of ‘safety’ is an exercise in diminishing returns.

You, you’re the enemy, not of America but of the individual. You’d see us all outfitted with one of Young’s fictional implants if you could.

Admit it, you big communitarian.

#

“Too many adults are still children”

Agreed. Such folks will gladly trade off their (and others) real autonomy for the ghost whispers of *‘safety’. Folks like you, tw.









*’course, that not really what it’s about...

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

“But the fact that it is impossible to eliminate risk is no reason not to decrease it.”

I’m thinkin’ you have a lower tolerance for risk than me.

If you view any reduction of risk as meaningless until it can reduce the risk to 0%, that's a pretty low tolerance.

If you're just using talk of the impossibility of "eliminating" risk as a distraction from any talk of reducing it, then, yay for you, I guess.

[henry quirk]

"If you view any reduction of risk as meaningless until it can reduce the risk to 0%, that's a pretty low tolerance."

Never said or implied any of this nonsense.

Just the opposite: was damn clear, ban the fuckin' guns, confiscate what you can...won't make a damn bit of difference (and I sure won't cooperate) but you'll 'feel better' (which is what all this about, yes?).

#

"If you're just using talk of the impossibility of "eliminating" risk as a distraction from any talk of reducing it, then, yay for you, I guess."

Yay for me, always. That's beside the pont which got ain't nuthin' to do with distractions. Seems to me I'm lookin' the issue ('gun' and 'gun user') square in the face.

Just waitin' on the rest of you to do the same (but not tw...he ain't capable of facin' anything not approved by the politburo).

[tw]

henry quick couldn't identify a communist even it one stabbed him in the back. Because that would be other members of his platoon.