School Walkouts

[leilanidude]

You are simply foolish if you believe a march is going to stop all school violence. These marches may even prompt some whacked out kid to do something stupid.

[PaulW]

Marches don't change anything directly. What they do is give politicians courage to do what they know is right.
Any Congressman who stands up to the NRA now will lose their seat, but if they all stand up together then maybe
the NRA's grip on our government can be broken.

As these kids keep saying, they'll be voting in 2020. Thank goodness.

[TomK]

Leilanidude, please...

"You are simply foolish if you believe a march is going to stop all school violence."

That's one hell of a straw man argument. No one has made that claim.

[MarkD]

"You are simply foolish if you believe a march is going to stop all school violence."

Perhaps we are better off if the gun proponents underestimate what these marches signify.

[HereOnThePrimalEdge]

These marches may even prompt some whacked out kid to do something stupid.

There's a far greater chance the marches today will prompt someone, somewhere to say something stupid.

If you believe the marches will have no effect on policy and society, why bother commenting on it? Don't you then run the risk of creating your very own "leilanidude effect" on the event? It's like the Streisand Effect*, but for conservatives, so they don't get worked up when compared to Barbra.

* Steisand Effect - the unintended consequence of calling even more attention to information by trying to remove or discredit it

If you want to combine the dual pleasures of insanity and social acceptance, religion is your only choice. - Last Aphorisms

[Old Croc]

I didn't feel the need to provide sources because I know Paul will feverishly look them up to try to prove me wrong, but here's a deal: I will supply a source when I see my quote “Saying we need more guns because we have too many people with a dark pigment in their skin.” I've looked over my previous posts, but I can't find it.

[TomK]

"These marches may even prompt some whacked out kid to do something stupid."

This really is dragging the bottom of the barrel. My understanding is that the 1st ammendment allows free speech. That really needs no change. But should the 2nd ammendment be considered more important? After all, guns have become more deadly over the years, free speech hasn't.

Good on the kids trying to make a change and have their voices heard.

[PaulW]

Hey, not my fault if the few sources you quote contradict what you write. That's what sources are for, to check the facts.

While comparing the US to Australia, for the purpose of explaining why we need more guns than they do, you listed amongst your reasons:

- "Australia did not come about by a violent revolution from an authoritarian government."
- "There are over 11 million illegal aliens in the U.S. [...]"
- "There are over 40 million Africans in the U.S."

When I asked you to explain, you said:
"I would want guns to defend ourselves from these 11 million criminals in our country"
and
"Surely you've seen the statistics of how these people [African Americans] commit a disproportionate number of crimes"

So, you want guns to defend yourself against illegal aliens and black people. I know you lack reading comprehension skills, but
you can't even understand what you wrote yourself? You should be ashamed. This is 2018.

[TomK]

Old Croc wrote:

"I didn't feel the need to provide sources because I know Paul will feverishly look them up to try to prove me wrong"

1) I find that hard to believe. What about all the other people apart from Paul who would like to see the sources? In my decades of working in a field that attracts weird people who want to make their theories sound good, it tends to go downhill when you question their sources, so I'm a little skeptical.

2) From a scholarly perspective, not providing sources is the same as waving a flag and saying I'm posting nonsense. It usually means that the sources don't support your argument, which you appear to have admitted to.

3) I will also add that your initial post in this thread contained statistics without sources and was not a response to Paul. So I am now triply skeptical. So, will you post your sources/links now that someone else has asked?

Thanks in advance.

[TomK]

PS. I will add that I do not support PaulW's personal attacks.