Over at "Common gunsense"

First I will say it with there is no common sense there.

japete said...

--quote:
See anonymous above about arming airline passengers. Wow. " but aided and abetted by those who require passengers and pilots to be unarmed. A single armed passenger or crewman could have stopped the terrorists from taking over the plane, or significantly helped in preventing continued use of the plane." Are you sure you want that in writing? You have no idea if a single armed passenger could have stopped those terrorists- conjecture on your part and not fact.
--close quote

This is faulty on so many levels. Horribly so and an insult to those passengers of flight 93 and the three other aircraft that day.

At 09:28:17, Hijackers took over flight 93 with presumed intent of crashing in the Washington DC Captital area with one of the major government sites being targeted.

Due the the availability of flight recorder, radio communications and more than 10 cellphone calls the course of that flight was clear. The passengers did attempt to overtake the hijackers and interrupted their plan. We do know the crash was the result of the passengers attempting to take back the aircraft by physical force but were unable to do so before the hijackers crashed it rather than fail completely.

As such The people of Flight 93 exhibited the valor we expect of heros, they acted to the fullest extent rather than die in vain. To say it another way they were trying to be responsible and prevent a tragedy of greater proportions and possibly save their lives as well. This is not speculation.

Had one or several passengers a weapon of any effectiveness such as a firearm their capability to overcome the 4 hijackers would have have a higher probability of success. To deny they could have possibly had a better chance if armed is remarkable.

Japete's comment is a off hand dismissal without critical consideration. I would submit she believes that is because a firearm/gun is only evil and therefor cannot be of assistance. This is a failure of thought, counter to the initial precept of "an open mind.." and indicative of the underlying belief system. To wit, all guns cause death and therefor are evil. This is not fact it is belief. At this point we cannot have discourse as the initiator has made clear if it does not support her position all other positions are to be denied, derided, dismissed, suppressed and in the most most disingenuous ways to hide from a presented argument. This is corrupt to the fullest extent. Though the answers given to her have been met with a clear and consistent pattern of deceit and deception and obfuscation.


To this I call bullshit!
You are a liar, disingenuous and employ obfuscation in the conversation, it's not name calling is a clear use of descriptive terms regarding your acts.

Liar: a person who tells lies, falsehoods are lies.

Disingenuous: lacking in candor; also : giving a false appearance of simple frankness : calculating

Obfuscation: the concealment of intended meaning in communication, making communication confusing, intentionally ambiguous, and more difficult to interpret.

late update:
Thank You Joe Huffman:

Cognitive dissonance, when there are two ideas in conflict and they cannot be resolved and can manifest as cognitive distortions. This would form a cogent basis for the failed attempt to communicate where the belief system is confronted. See Wikipedia Cognitive distortion for more detailed analysis.

Your "Japete" actions are a ruse intended to present your view and only that and by doing so attract an audience. I firmly believe you have achieved attracting an audience but have failed in the most unattractive way to present an unbiased stance. I'm sure you got your faithful club members that believe your truth as they are also incapable of critical thought and willingly accept bankrupted thinking. Unfortunately for you you have attracted the curious and those that oppose failed thinking as well as those that believe in th right to own firearms for lawful use and I fully believe [but without any facts on my part to support it] that is the larger audience and they are clearly displeased with your tragic denial of anything that does not fit your paradigm. So you filter as a defense mechanism any answer that would not meet the ridding of evil guns criteria and it comes from the only violence you know.

Gun violence is a subset of violence. Any critical thinker can explain that but you cannot accept it. The converse, that is all gun violence is a superset of violence is patently false. You have asserted that position. By logic we conclude that removing guns does not remove violence and your thinking is defective. End game, discourse is not possible as the end result is only two sides delivering their position and there is no exchange possible.

Regarding compromise:

The end this discussion is in USA, our Constitution article 2 makes clear firearm ownership is a right. One that is being abridged incrementally without due consideration. When good citizens are forced to pay outrageous fees, climb all manner of bureaucratic walls, submit to regulations that are a minefield then the laws invoked are defective and must be struck. The courts have been presented with cases that clearly show the line is being crossed and have ruled that was so. We have no need to present arms to compel the government as it is still legitimate and the judiciary is still functional.

When compromise has the effect of suppression or submission without serving a greater good it is corrupt. We have seen compromise, the greater good is that common citizens are frustrated when they attempt to use the tools of self defense. That is broken.

To the uncritical thinkers:

I have gone past compromise and I find I near nothing left. You are whistling in the wind, ignoring reality and are the very wolf at the door. I have a low tolerance of varmints, be gone.


Everyone else; heads up, look ahead, look right, look left and check your six.


Eck!