Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Well, with access to the internet it's not so difficult any more. We still don't know what it was made of, it might have just been a pipe bomb.

True just well in a land with so many guns.
You ain't short on options if you a crazy wanting to kill people.

 jhe90 wrote:
True just well in a land with so many guns.
You ain't short on options if you a crazy wanting to kill people.

Yeah. But that whole 'someone will shoot you back' is a hell of a deterrent.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
True just well in a land with so many guns.
You ain't short on options if you a crazy wanting to kill people.

Yeah. But that whole 'someone will shoot you back' is a hell of a deterrent.

True might point to a crazy, but not a full fanatic.
There crazy ernough to wanna kill, but not wanting to be killed doing it.

Certain levels of crazy no longer care of the live.

 jhe90 wrote:
True might point to a crazy, but not a full fanatic.
There crazy ernough to wanna kill, but not wanting to be killed doing it.

Certain levels of crazy no longer care of the live.

And that's also why I prefer having the option to defend myself with lethal force from any sort of crazy person- suicidal or otherwise.

Because let's face it, cat's out of the bag and the guns aren't going anywhere.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
True might point to a crazy, but not a full fanatic.
There crazy ernough to wanna kill, but not wanting to be killed doing it.

Certain levels of crazy no longer care of the live.

And that's also why I prefer having the option to defend myself with lethal force from any sort of crazy person- suicidal or otherwise.

Because let's face it, cat's out of the bag and the guns aren't going anywhere.

Aye too many, too long, too ingrained.
They may change, they may vary but some things too deeply in the culture.

Hey is this a gun thread now?



hopefully it could not be

 jhe90 wrote:
Aye too many, too long, too ingrained.
They may change, they may vary but some things too deeply in the culture.

In the simplest explaination, it is in the culture.

We were a pioneering culture, expanding west and mostly self-reliant for hundreds of years. We didn't enjoy the protection of the law. Hell, as early as 150 years ago we were still flying by the seat of our pants when it came to justice in some areas. Guy steals a horse? Rub his groin along some splintered wood and make him walk out of town.

Fun fact, though- the 'Wild West' was actually pretty tame.

You guys across the pond, well- didn't have that issue.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
Aye too many, too long, too ingrained.
They may change, they may vary but some things too deeply in the culture.

In the simplest explaination, it is in the culture.

We were a pioneering culture, expanding west and mostly self-reliant for hundreds of years. We didn't enjoy the protection of the law. Hell, as early as 150 years ago we were still flying by the seat of our pants when it came to justice in some areas. Guy steals a horse? Rub his groin along some splintered wood and make him walk out of town.

Fun fact, though- the 'Wild West' was actually pretty tame.

You guys across the pond, well- didn't have that issue.

Yes.. Old west law passed anything from a Marshals not better than men who broke law, private land owners, judges or whatever else went on.
Town to town, totally different.

There was no one old west.

Back on topic, a bomb worryingly suggests someone might try again?
They got a vqiable device plan after all.

 jhe90 wrote:
Back on topic, a bomb worryingly suggests someone might try again?
They got a vqiable device plan after all.

To be honest, it all depends.

Let's just say it was another person of the faith that had labeled this guy an apostate, and this guy is connected to radicals... they'll probably try again.

Let's just say it was a hillbilly hate group. They'll feel satisfied their message was sent, until something really gets in their crawl and punks them out.

Let's just say it was a hoax. It'll happen again, until it's proven to be a hoax.

All of them are possible. A Muslim guy where I used to live got harassed by some weird guys at another Mosque, and they would vandalize his shop. I felt bad for the guy, and offered to check on his shop night to night, but he just got ran out of town eventually.

This isn't a gun thread, this isn't some "America is the best" thread, this is a thread about a bombing at a mosque. Keep. On. Topic.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Well, with access to the internet it's not so difficult any more. We still don't know what it was made of, it might have just been a pipe bomb.

Making bombs has never been difficult.

Making and/or using effective bombs is a very different story.

And, let us be honest here - the bomb in this instance wasn't used effectively - it was chucked through a window.

The number of people that could have made a bomb like that, in the US, is effectively equal to the number of people in the US over the age of ten. (I made one when I was eleven - so I am using myself as a benchmark. In my case, I was making something to go *BOOM!* and did not use it against anybody, just a poor tree stump what never done me no harm.)

Anybody who has access to fertilizer and fuel oil can make a bomb.

The Auld Grump - mine was ANFO in a paint can.

I'd suggest we refrain from admitting to manufacturing explosives in an online forum.

 Nostromodamus wrote:
I'd suggest we refrain from admitting to manufacturing explosives in an online forum.

To be fair, very few of us haven't done something 'kaboom'. Tannerite is legal where I'm from.

Back in my day fireworks really went boom.

 Frazzled wrote:
Back in my day fireworks really went boom.

M-80's. I remember them. And Silver Patriots.

Nowadays I can't believe my dad let me have those things. I'd be nervous about handling them now.

And I deal with explosives and firearms regularly in my line of work.

Either way, I look forward to seeing this case resolved. I hope it's not another hoax, because that damages the credibility of real victims. Myself, I have already begun to take many of these claims with a grain of salt.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Well, with access to the internet it's not so difficult any more. We still don't know what it was made of, it might have just been a pipe bomb.

Keep in mind our media is highly unreliable. An AR-15 is an 'assault rifle', even though by actual definition it is not.

'case definitions change. And the definition is use is often not the technical definition. The "and AR-15 is not an assault rifle Reee" gak is pointless semantics.

So people call things that aren't fully automatic "Assault rifles". It's like complaining about clip vs magazine, pointless bickering to distract from issues.

An 'IED' could be some brickbuster that some idiot made in his garage. Literally anyone can make -some- kind of explosive, the difficult part is making sure you use it effectively. And this person didn't.

How does this make it any less bad? An iniffective IED is still and IED. It's a pretty broad definition.

Honestly probably some unemployed hillbilly.

You seem very concerned with downplaying this.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Well, with access to the internet it's not so difficult any more. We still don't know what it was made of, it might have just been a pipe bomb.

Keep in mind our media is highly unreliable. An AR-15 is an 'assault rifle', even though by actual definition it is not.

'case definitions change. And the definition is use is often not the technical definition. The "and AR-15 is not an assault rifle Reee" gak is pointless semantics.

So people call things that aren't fully automatic "Assault rifles". It's like complaining about clip vs magazine, pointless bickering to distract from issues.

An 'IED' could be some brickbuster that some idiot made in his garage. Literally anyone can make -some- kind of explosive, the difficult part is making sure you use it effectively. And this person didn't.

How does this make it any less bad? An iniffective IED is still and IED. It's a pretty broad definition.

Honestly probably some unemployed hillbilly.

You seem very concerned with downplaying this.

It's not pointless semantics. It's asking people to use proper definitions for things. If you can't be bothered to figure out the actual specifications for things you shouldn't be crying out for legal binding statutes on those things. If you are making a law, you need to know the terms that are being codified into law. That is just basic thinking.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
'case definitions change. And the definition is use is often not the technical definition. The "and AR-15 is not an assault rifle Reee" gak is pointless semantics.

Factually wrong. Without the automatic or burst fire function, it is not an 'assault rifle' It is a military-style sporting rifle.

I know it's a complex machine, and doctrinal terms are confusing to people who don't understand the tools. But don't use words you don't understand. They have meaning, and if you don't understand the tool you don't get to make demands of it.

Also, because I've responded I bet we'll get some 'intervention'.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
You seem very concerned with downplaying this.

So then would you assume it's some CEO with a suit and tie? You seem more concerned with demonizing me. Which I'm fine with, it's a tactic folks like you use when you have no argument. And then you don't know what to do when you realize that I don't care if you think I'm an donkey-cave.

I hope whoever did it is brought to swift, efficient justice.

 Bromsy wrote:

It's not pointless semantics. It's asking people to use proper definitions for things. If you can't be bothered to figure out the actual specifications for things you shouldn't be crying out for legal binding statutes on those things. If you are making a law, you need to know the terms that are being codified into law. That is just basic thinking.

But we aren't talking about laws, we are talking about a word used in the media.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
But we aren't talking about laws, we are talking about a word used in the media.

The media doesn't know what the hell they're talking about. Sorry, some reporter trying to generate buzz with scary words does not have more credibility than people in the profession of arms or the people who designed said weapons.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:

It's not pointless semantics. It's asking people to use proper definitions for things. If you can't be bothered to figure out the actual specifications for things you shouldn't be crying out for legal binding statutes on those things. If you are making a law, you need to know the terms that are being codified into law. That is just basic thinking.

But we aren't talking about laws, we are talking about a word used in the media.

Is that the line where proper definitions should not be used? That is an abysmal standard to which to hold the media.

 Bromsy wrote:
Is that the line where proper definitions should not be used? That is an abysmal standard to which to hold the media.

It's not like we need them to be accurate. We need to them to satisfy the outrage fetish of idiots.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Factually wrong. Without the automatic or burst fire function, it is not an 'assault rifle' It is a military-style sporting rifle.

What part of "not the dictionary definition" did you not get? Not every word in popular use is used in it's dictionary definition.

I know it's a complex machine, and doctrinal terms are confusing to people who don't understand the tools. But don't use words you don't understand. They have meaning, and if you don't understand the tool you don't get to make demands of it.

Mate, you don't need to talk down to me about this gak, I know how guns work, but most people don't and that's why the media uses the term "assault rifle," because people just think of black guns with detachable magazines. And so, because that's how our language works, that's what it's meaning becomes. Especially since the term for semi-auto guns like the AR-15 is "assault weapon" which people conflate with "assault rifle".

Also, because I've responded I bet we'll get some 'intervention'.

You only have to worry about being yelled at if you break the rules.

So then would you assume it's some CEO with a suit and tie?

That's not the point at all, all of your actions so far have been to downplay this attack.

You seem more concerned with demonizing me.

I don't see how saying you are downplaying this is "demonizing" you. I mean unless that's what disagreeing with you means to you.

Which I'm fine with, it's a tactic folks like you use when you have no argument.

And what sort of people would that be?

And then you don't know what to do when you realize that I don't care if you think I'm an donkey-cave.

When did I say I cared what you think?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
But we aren't talking about laws, we are talking about a word used in the media.

The media doesn't know what the hell they're talking about. Sorry, some reporter trying to generate buzz with scary words does not have more credibility than people in the profession of arms or the people who designed said weapons.

Lol, really trying to steer the conversation are we?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bromsy wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:

It's not pointless semantics. It's asking people to use proper definitions for things. If you can't be bothered to figure out the actual specifications for things you shouldn't be crying out for legal binding statutes on those things. If you are making a law, you need to know the terms that are being codified into law. That is just basic thinking.

But we aren't talking about laws, we are talking about a word used in the media.

Is that the line where proper definitions should not be used? That is an abysmal standard to which to hold the media.

What that they use the definition that are accepted in common use but not technical use? I'm sure you complain just as much every time a spider is called an insect.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
What part of "not the dictionary definition" did you not get? Not every word in popular use is used in it's dictionary definition.

Then you are using the word wrong. Factually wrong.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Mate, you don't need to talk down to me about this gak, I know how guns work, but most people don't and that's why the media uses the term "assault rifle," because people just think of black guns with detachable magazines. And so, because that's how our language works, that's what it's meaning becomes. Especially since the term for semi-auto guns like the AR-15 is "assault weapon" which people conflate with "assault rifle".

Which is, by definition, 'wrong'. Just because a lot of people are wrong doesn't suddenly change a definition.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
You only have to worry about being yelled at if you break the rules.

And you disagree with a leftist. Most of you guys can't survive with people who disagree with you, so you need that policed up. Tells me all I need to know about most of your beliefs. Tools that break under stress are poor tools and should be discarded.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
When did I say I cared what you think?

When you replied.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Lol, really trying to steer the conversation are we?

It's okay, you can admit you're wrong.

EDIT - cut as off topic.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
And you disagree with a leftist. Most of you guys can't survive with people who disagree with you, so you need that policed up. Tells me all I need to know about most of your beliefs. Tools that break under stress are poor tools and should be discarded.

Uh, no, you do not get yelled at just for disagreeing with "leftists". I'm about as left-wing as you can get and I've been banned plenty of times for yelling at conservatives. If you want disagreement and yelling and the moderators want to give you an open thread to do it in, I'll yell and disagree right back at you. But until that point the forum has rules, and you're clearly going beyond them.

Edit- cut as off topic.

We've gotten way off track in several threads - as someone who only looks in OT for rules violations, I can vouch that we are only interested in people discussing their views politely - not in what those views are.

Remember that this is primarily a site for discussing wargaming - if topics cannot be discussed here politely, then they simply won't be allowed to be discussed on Dakka.

So let's start over here, please, and no more accusations of simply being "wrong" - if you want to argue a point, do so politely, support it, and most of all do NOT resort to name calling. If someone is doing so, just hit the yellow triangle "mod alert" button, and do not respond in kind.

Thanks all

Edit: NVM, saw the mod warning about the gun control tangent.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
So then would you assume it's some CEO with a suit and tie? You seem more concerned with demonizing me. Which I'm fine with, it's a tactic folks like you use when you have no argument. And then you don't know what to do when you realize that I don't care if you think I'm an donkey-cave.

You are wrong that anyone thinks of you enough to spend any time at all trying to figure out if you're an donkey-cave. You're just some guy on the internet, no-one cares enough to pass moral judgement.

But you are right that people on the left don't know what to do. That's correct. But it is nothing to do with moral judgement and everything to do with facts. The left, for the most part, deals with facts like most people have through modern history. The new right plainly does not give a gak about facts. It used to be that they cared about the perception of facts, but the last 12 months have removed even that pretense.

And the left has no idea what to do about that. It was pointed out that Sebastian Gorka suggested this might be a conspiracy coming from the left, you dismissed that as being any random on the right, completely ignoring that the guy is a Deputy Assistant with a direct line of reporting to the president.

After you claimed that rabid bigotry only exists in left wing areas, jmurphy did the good work of producing 16 reported incidents from the last year and a half. You replied with an argument that bigotry doesn't happen if there's no arrests. This argument made no sense because the original act that you called 'rabid bigotry' didn't produce an arrest, the event described wasn't even a crime ("people lost their minds"). It's an obvious fig leaf.

And now, just one page later, you're sounding off about culture war standards ("demonising me", "Most of you guys can't survive with people who disagree with you, so you need that policed up"). These are claims that came out of nowhere, and had no relation to anything said in the thread.

But they're what we get in response to attempts to actually bring facts in to the conversation.

So you are right. We are floundering. We genuinely have no idea what to do to debate people who just don't give a gak about reality.