If you get that then we're 90% on the same team. Maybe help me out with the heavy lifting and explain this to Kelhus et al?

SWEET MERCIFUL ALLAH JESUS ****ING CHRIST

An article by Hans Kmoch and Fred Reinfeld entitled "Unconventional Surrender" on page 55 of the February 1950 Chess Review tells of the "... example of Nimzowitsch, who ... once missed first prize in a tournament in Berlin by losing to Sämisch, and when it became clear he was going to lose the game, Nimzowitsch stood up on the table and shouted, 'Gegen diesen Idioten muss ich verlieren!' ('That I should lose to these idiots!')".

Do you think everyone should be allowed to own a nuclear weapon?

I brought up Dylann Roof's mental illnesses in the other thread.



Once more, I brought up Dylann Roof's mental illnesses in the other thread.

He was moderately-to-severely mentally ill and self-medicated with alcohol and drugs. Among other things he was schizoid, and he was well aware. This didn't make the news because he himself wanted it suppressed. Paraphrasing, he didn't want the mental illnesses to overshadow the racism! It only came out in unsealed posttrial documents.

I know you guys never expect your bluffs to get called but here we are.

That’s just not true. But even if it were, greater access to mental health care/treatment would certainly result in a greater frequency of earlier diagnosis of at-risk individuals. https://www.apa.org/pubs/info/report...nce-prevention

As far as your last point, it’s just incoherent with the rest of your posting. You admit that reducing access to guns would reduce incidence of gun violence, but then you mention bombs, but then hedge that. Then you hedge your stance on gun reduction by saying that you’d have to remove them all and then say “that won’t happen” without an explanation why you think that (ostensibly because of the prevalence of guns in this country). You just say “this is a social issue” and claim government can’t fix it. Well, that’s nice, but you seem to get really upset when people try to use social pressure to influence bad actors. 8Chan getting dropped because of social pressure triggered you into a convoluted bout of fits over liberals discriminating based on speech. If you don’t think there is any solution, that’s fine, but just say it.

So there's nothing that anyone can do?

My post has nothing to do with your quote, I just grabbed it at random. I feel like I owe you an apology. You clearly think I am deliberately distorting your opinions to paint you as a racist or covering for racists. That was not my goal in interacting with you. I have gotten frustrated at times with your posting because from my perspective it comes across as convoluted or contradictory. For instance, in the Islam thread, it really appeared to me that you were criticizing Islam as a whole. What you thought were disclaimers or clarifying/qualifying posts, I admit I missed the first go round, but then you insisted on continuing to frame things by using that ambiguous language. I see that you think you shouldn’t have to be so precise all the time, and that you weren’t intending to attack things as a whole. I interpreted that as playing games where you could have it both ways and that colored the rest of my posting in that thread. I’m sorry for casting your views in an unfavorable and incorrect manner.

However, I’m not sure why you think I’m trying to get you banned. I can only remember a handful of people I’ve ever advocated banning, one was a guy whose screnname was the n-word spelled backwards, and the only other posts I can remember were exasperated comments made in passing. I’m fairly certain I’ve only reported one post in my entire history of posting on this site (it was one made by the dude with the racist screen name).

I generally try to figure out people’s views and point out things that are wrong with them imo. Sometimes I’m harsh, sometimes I’m not depending on the poster is and my mood, but I generally don’t care whether someone has a voice in here or not. For instance, adios is a poster I have no patience for because he has a long history on this board and he drops in and posts the same crap over and over and he has never shifted his opinions despite being shown where they were inaccurate time and again. So I’d appreciate it if you stop accusing me of trying to have you banned or censored or anything like that.

Wow. So this puts something into context that happened to me in a 7th grade chess tournament. I beat Phil Melton and he did the same thing. Man he was such a nerd

It's a social issue. We are raising our kids the wrong way. Not everyone, but significant percentage that leads to all kind bad things like racism, extremism, violence. I do not know how to fix it.

I will.

I really do not really care about guns. What I know is, you are not going to get guns banned, and confiscated, and any gun control you can implement is not going to impact much. I would not have an issue with voting someone who wanted more gun control, I would not have an issue with voting for an 2A person who did not want more gun control.

I'm convinced this stuff starts at an early age, and largely due to bad parenting. I do not know how you fix bad parenting.

How many more mass shootings have Norway and France had?

It's not that simple. The prevalence of mass shootings started to trend upward after Columbine, and gained steam after each subsequent one. That progression may, or may not occur in other countries. You guys can blame Trump, and right wing extremism, and guns, but the extent of mass shootings started increasing long before Trump, and access to guns have not markedly changed.

There were 26 mass shootings prior to Columbine in 1999, that was a total since 1982. There were 88 afterwards, up to now.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics...nes-full-data/

No one has said Trump has any responsibility for mass shootings generally, just El Paso.

Do you even think Charles Manson had any responsibility?

This is you admitting that your theory is full of ****.

How many times do I need to explain the psychology of mass shooters to you, while supporting it with information from experts? And it's not me actually explaining it, it's just me passing along science.

Repeating bull**** is still bull****.

Now do semiautomatic rifles/handguns.

That's rather arrogant. There is no other way to respond to this. Because you do not like what study, after study, says, it's bull****?

By my count you've cited a single scientific study, and it doesn't say what you want it to say.

No.

I'm not gonna do your ****ing homework for you. You don't have a coherent argument here that data could support, as best as we can tell your explanation is some sort of national parenting deficit.

Come on man, do you even own a gun? You're just lashing out at the libs for someone else's hobby, that's some deeply sad ****.

Here is a list of a few I found on this website: https://www.treatmentadvocacycenter....-mass-homicide



(well before trump)