View Single Post
  #126  
Old 04-18-2018, 4:25 PM
rootuser rootuser is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,018
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
Their message morphed from generic "we don't want school shootings" to "banning guns will minimize school shootings" to "banning very specific and detailed gun features that we have no idea what they mean or do will minimize school shootings" to "here is a comprehensive list of gun laws that will minimize school shootings."

What is the logical explanation for "their message" to contain calls for limits on magazine capacity when the shooter used limited capacity magazines? What is the logical explanation for "their message" in CA to contain calls for ban on "assault weapons" when they are already banned in CA?

To call this "a coincidence" is akin to having a 17 year old sponsored by tobacco industry (confirmed monetary support), flown around the country by the tobacco industry (confirmed monetary support), promoted by the tobacco industry TV (confirmed free air time) pushing message that "tobacco products are not harmful to one's lungs."

Would you call such a person "expressing his opinion," or would you call him a "paid shill?"

Same concept.
First, we have to be really honest and admit, Hogg in particular was calling for gun control from the get go, and so were some of the others. They threatened to go after the NRA and politicians and gun laws pretty much immediately (literally with a couple days after the shooting) on Face the Nation for just one example. So they started off immediately blaming all gun owners, law abiding or not. The NRA was immediately the boogeyman (again!). They were right up their own congress people's noses immediately. They didn't start with only "we don't want school shootings" that just isn't the case. Instead they immediately went at "let's use gun control to stop school shootings". They seem to still be there. The idea that any of these kids would have any exposure to what gun laws were and were not seems a stretch.

These kids have never been exposed to this subject before, at least not at an intimate level. To think it took them time to research and learn exactly what they thought might work seems reasonable. Obviously they couldn't have been too well coached if they want assault weapon bans in CA when they were already in place.

If I introduce you to a new, complex concept and your ideas don't evolve in a few weeks or months I would be extremely surprised. I assume you aren't God and thus infallible and perfect, and thus your ideas will change. As an engineer myself, I start off with a premise and then an approach and sometimes my approach has to change as I learn more and often times the premise changes. Just reality.

I don't want to defend these kids taking our rights. Contrary to Epictetus (sp?), sometimes circumstances do make the man. Hogg had the benefit of being a white kid with money from a good school. Makes him more "newsworthy" apparently. I hate to think how quickly this would have been ignored if it happened at an inner-city school.

I commonly think of a shill as a "decoy". And that in fact is the first definition by Webster, however it could mean a pitchman or promoter as well. If you mean "promoter of gun control", then sure, he is, but it seems to me you actually mean more than that and you mean it as a pejorative, which again, goes straight to the conspiracy theorists.

It's hard to admit that victims of a shooting incident might not think like we do. I've been shot at and can tell you, my immediate thought is "where's my gun". Some people however come at it the opposite and think "why does that person have a gun". I think these kids were brought up to think the later.
Reply With Quote