Another shooting in america

[Johnsonontheleft]

A key component of being able to debate is a degree of empathy. Whilst TMQ sometimes has a marginal deficit in that regard, you have a total absence to the point that you convey a pathological condition.

You seem almost completely unable to appreciate others' points of view and perspectives on a wide range of subjects. It is a way of thinking which has lead to a great deal of suffering in this world.

Whilst I value and respect your opinion, I would point to the first paragraph of my reply to paphos_mcfc on page 56 as proof that I do appreciate others' point of view, as long as they are happy to have a sensible debate and not resort to frankly childish insults and insinuations. I'm referring to the likes of nijinsky's fetlocks, swp's back and skashion who seem intent on insulting me in reply to every post I make rather than engaging in debate. I do understand why they use this discrediting tactic - it nicely deflects attention from a post they don't agree with but can't effectively argue against, and at the same time they feel as smug as a school bully backed up by their mates. 'Right-wing nutjob; cretin; idiot; waste of oxygen' - liberal use of these means they don't have to answer tricky questions or admit to flaws in their thinking. At least the likes of Damocles, whose views are pretty much diametrically opposed to mine, has the decency to engage in sensible debate - which is what I thought this off topic forum was all about.

Roll on the next load of insults from the usual suspects. Go on SWP's back, I'm sure you can improve on your last 'procreate' jibe...

I think it is fair comment in terms of what you posted in response to paphos_mcfc, and what I said was certainly not meant as an insult, but merely an observation that in general terms you seem unable to appreciate other people's perspectives on a number of subjects.

Without wanting to sound like a lifestyle guru, it is a quality which you should try to develop more fully if you are to properly engage with others when debating with them. In fairness to NF, SWPB and Skashion empathy is a skill they display much more conspicuously than you do, imo.

I do attempt to engage in debate properly, however from these three and a few others the only thing which comes back is an ad hominem fallacy. For those not familiar with ad hominem:


An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument.[1]Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as an informal fallacy,[2][3][4] more precisely an irrelevance.[5]

 

[TheMightyQuinn]

For those not familiar with ad hominem: it's a gay club on Canal St.

 

[Skashion]

I'd shoot empathy in the face to :D

Empathy is a fucking scrote.<br /><br />-- Wed Jan 09, 2013 9:35 am --<br /><br />

For those not familiar with ad hominem: it's a gay Muslim club on Canal St.

 

[TheMightyQuinn]

For those not familiar with ad hominem: it's a gay Muslim club on Canal St that lets blacks in for free.

 

[Johnsonontheleft]

No, that's reductio ad absurdum. An equally silly debating tactic which you both also seem to have a penchant for.

 

[TheMightyQuinn]

No, that's reductio ad analdum. An equally silly sex tactic which you both also seem to have a penchant for.

You've caught us both red handed, red cheeked and red faced.

 

[BillyShears]

Has anybody heard of Kyle Bangayan? He is a kid in Los Angeles who was arrested after making repeated threats on Facebook after the Sandy Hook massacre about wanting to go out and commit similar crimes in kindergardens.

"I have the guns, I have the incentive, and I won't commit suicide at the end, I'll just go to the next f**king school and the next and the next ..."

When the cops raided his house they found in his bedroom six semi-auto handguns, two rifles and one shotgun. He was released without charge because his threats weren't specific enough.

The USA makes me very uncomfortable even if i know saying that is a generalisation.

 

[Johnsonontheleft]

Just watched the Piers Morgan interview and I have to say that Alex Morgan doesn't do the pro-gun lobby any favours with his ranting. However, can someone clarify his point about Mexico please?

He said that Mexico had a total ban on guns for civilians and the highest crime rate in the world.

Can anyone verify or disprove this from a neutral source ie not the guardian independent or daily mail?

 

[roaminblue]

Mexico does have gun laws, but they aren't enforced effectively. Guns over a certain calibre aren't legal to own, but corruption in the police and military means gang members can quite easily get hold of them.

Lower calibre weapons can be kept for personal protection, they should be registered with the government but due to lack of enforcement this process is pretty much ignored.

It's not really a good comparison to be honest

 

[Johnsonontheleft]

Mexico does have gun laws, but they aren't enforced effectively. Guns over a certain calibre aren't legal to own, but corruption in the police and military means gang members can quite easily get hold of them.

Lower calibre weapons can be kept for personal protection, they should be registered with the government but due to lack of enforcement this process is pretty much ignored.

It's not really a good comparison to be honest

Thanks.

I think it's a sound comparison given that Mexico and the US are neighbours and given the amount of Mexicans residing in the US.

If you drive guns underground then the criminals will have them and law-abiding citizens won't. As the bloke said, 74% of gun fatalities were gang-related and no amount of gun laws is going to stop gangs having access to illegal guns.