Harris lies about Vance.

[Hammster]

no you don't you make 50000 threads about harris and complaining abnout stuff trump does. That IS defending him, as your trying to make harris look like the worse canidate, when guess what, the alternative is worse on every metric.

People are free to make Trump threads. I’m not a huge fan of his. My point is that the whataboutisms aren't effective since I don’t post positively about him.

 

[loveofourlord]

People are free to make Trump threads. I’m not a huge fan of his. My point is that the whataboutisms aren't effective since I don’t post positively about him.

no but you are deflecting from trumps issues by pretending harris has them.

 

[Hammster]

no but you are deflecting from trumps issues by pretending harris has them.

No, I’m not. I’m clear on that. Feel free to start all the Trump threads you want, though. This isn’t one of them.

 

[iluvatar5150]

It’s in the OP.

No, it isn’t. That white flash at 00:22-23: that’s an edit. Right before he talks about the “fact of life.”

 

[Hank77]

No, it isn’t. That white flash at 00:22-23: that’s an edit. Right before he talks about the “fact of life.”

 

[iluvatar5150]

View attachment 354254
For the full quote….

x.com

x.com

Ok, now that we have the whole clip, what he says is that it’s a “fact of life” that schools are soft targets vulnerable to “psychos” and that gun laws won’t fix anything.

How is that substantively different than what Harris said?

There are ways to interpret Harris’ quoting of him that could lead one to infer something incorrect about his tone, so there’s probably a case to be made that she could’ve been more specific. But he’s still arguing that it’s “a fact of life” that psychos will try to shoot up vulnerable schools. He proposes greater security which is both extremely expensive, hardly a guarantee of anything, and purely reactionary. Presumably, Harris’ proposal would be more preventive. It seems to me that it’s better to avoid a gunfight altogether than just hope you can win it.

 

[Hammster]

Ok, now that we have the whole clip, what he says is that it’s a “fact of life” that schools are soft targets vulnerable to “psychos” and that gun laws won’t fix anything.

How is that substantively different than what Harris said?

There are ways to interpret Harris’ quoting of him that could lead one to infer something incorrect about his tone, so there’s probably a case to be made that she could’ve been more specific. But he’s still arguing that it’s “a fact of life” that psychos will try to shoot up vulnerable schools. He proposes greater security which is both extremely expensive, hardly a guarantee of anything, and purely reactionary. Presumably, Harris’ proposal would be more preventive. It seems to me that it’s better to avoid a gunfight altogether than just hope you can win it.

School shootings are a fact of life vs it’s a fact that schools are soft targets. If you cannot see the difference, I cannot help.

 

[iluvatar5150]

School shootings are a fact of life vs it’s a fact that schools are soft targets.

…”soft targets” where psychos will try to shoot people.

What’s the difference?

If you cannot see the difference, I cannot help.

Yeah, I know. Helping would require actually articulating the difference.

 

[Hammster]

…”soft targets” where psychos will try to shoot people.

What’s the difference?


Yeah, I know. Helping would require actually articulating the difference.

Okay, I’ll try.

The Harris Machine made it sound as if Vance was saying that school shootings were a fact of life, and we should just accept it.

Vance said that it’s a fact of life that schools are soft targets and we shouldn’t accept it.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Okay, I’ll try.

The Harris Machine made it sound as if Vance was saying that school shootings were a fact of life, and we should just accept it.

That was one of the interpretations to which I referred. They didn’t say that, but it was easy to interpret their post that way.

Vance said that it’s a fact of life that schools are soft targets and we shouldn’t accept it.

Not quite. He more or less did say that we ought to accept that “shooters gonna shoot”. What he said was that we ought to respond to that “fact of life” with more security.

IMO, it’s correct to respond by saying that we don’t have to accept the shootings (or the attempts at such) as a fact of life, that we can take preventative measures rather than being solely reactive as Vance and other conservatives would have us be.

 

[Hammster]

To be clear, he didn’t say school shooting are just a fact of life. And that’s what he was accused of saying. The video shows what he said. Not sure why it’s difficult to admit that.

 

[iluvatar5150]

To be clear, he didn’t say school shooting are just a fact of life. And that’s what he was accused of saying. The video shows what he said. Not sure why it’s difficult to admit that.

Because it's a distinction without much difference. According to Vance, what is a fact of life is that schools are soft targets and psychos will try to shoot them up.

What he described was a school shooting. Or if you want to split hairs, what he described as a "fact of life" is a situation that will inevitably result in a school shooting.

It would be incorrect to say that Vance is flippant about school shootings, but it is correct to say that his position treats them as inevitable.

To put it in another context: It is a "fact of life" that people will keep going outside in the sun, and the sun causes skin cancer. In Vance's world, that skin cancer will keep happening, so our best option then is to train up more doctors to cut out the skin cancer. In Harris' world, we teach convince people to use sun screen.

 

[Hammster]

According to Vance, what is a fact of life is that schools are soft targets and psychos will try to shoot them up.

No, it’s not what he said. But since that’s what you are going to hear, then I’m moving on.

 

[iluvatar5150]

No, it’s not what he said.

Yes, it is.

You already said that his "fact of life" is that schools are soft targets. He also said that gun laws don't make a difference. And he said that if a psycho wants to shoot up a school, they can.

This is just a case of 1 + 1 + 1 = 3. In his math, soft targets + ineffective gun laws + psychos == school shootings; and his proposed solution treats that formula as a given.

FWIW: listening to it again, it's not clear whether his "fact of life" was that schools are soft targets or that gun laws don't help. Ultimately, it doesn't really matter, because his entire message was that shootings are inevitable, therefore we need more security. Harris' response is that they aren't inevitable - that we can prevent at least some of them with better gun laws.

 

[probinson]

Harris' response is that they aren't inevitable - that we can prevent at least some of them with better gun laws.

Politicians say all kinds of things, but without specifics, it's just hot air.

So what "better" gun laws could prevent some school shootings?

Here's what her website says:

As President, she won’t stop fighting so that Americans have the freedom to live safe from gun violence in our schools, communities, and places of worship. She’ll ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, require universal background checks, and support red flag laws that keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. She will also continue to invest in funding law enforcement, including the hiring and training of officers and people to support them, and will build upon proven gun violence prevention programs that have helped reduce violent crime throughout the country.​

I'm not opposed to "better gun laws", but I fail to see how anything in that paragraph above would prevent any school shootings.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Politicians say all kinds of things, but without specifics, it's just hot air.

So what "better" gun laws could prevent some school shootings?

Here's what her website says:

As President, she won’t stop fighting so that Americans have the freedom to live safe from gun violence in our schools, communities, and places of worship. She’ll ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, require universal background checks, and support red flag laws that keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. She will also continue to invest in funding law enforcement, including the hiring and training of officers and people to support them, and will build upon proven gun violence prevention programs that have helped reduce violent crime throughout the country.​

I'm not opposed to "better gun laws", but I fail to see how anything in that paragraph above would prevent any school shootings.

The ban on assault weapons and high capacity mags could maybe nibble at it.

 

[probinson]

The ban on assault weapons and high capacity mags could maybe nibble at it.

How so? First, one would have to actually define the term "assault weapons", and then how would one "ban" them? I mean, I guess you could ban the sale of any more "assault weapons" but what about the innumerable "assault weapons" that are already in the hands of people?

 

[iluvatar5150]

How so? First, one would have to actually define the term "assault weapons", and then how would one "ban" them? I mean, I guess you could ban the sale of any more "assault weapons" but what about the innumerable "assault weapons" that are already in the hands of people?

Mass shootings are facilitated, in part, by the ability to put a large number of rounds on a target quickly. There are ergonomic features of some weapons that make this easier to do, e.g. high-cap magazines, semi-auto fire mode, grips and other designs that increase accuracy and reduce recoil. It's going to be much harder and slower to squeeze off 30 rounds with a 6-shot revolver or a lever-action Winchester w/ an 8-round internal mag, than it is with something like an AR or a modern semi-auto handgun. When you limit the amount of rounds a shooter fire in a single volley, you give victims more time to escape and responders more time to intervene.

Historically, it was handguns that could rounds off more quickly than rifles, but handgun rounds were less lethal. The lethality of these mass shootings is increased further by enabling the shooter to get off larger rifle rounds more quickly.

FWIW, I'm not optimistic about an assault weapon ban, either in its efficacy or in the feasibility of getting one passed again in the first place. Assuming we did get one in place, and that it could remove all of the assault weapons (however you define that) from circulation, that's how I imagine it would work.

 

[eleos1954]

Yes, unfortunately there’s a “downside” to absolute free-speech…not quite knowing where the truth is.
This is not a good place for a society to find itself living through.
But we’ll manage, we always have!

How well we will manage is another question. I suppose it's good to be optimistic ... however .... it's becoming more and more difficult to discern what the truth is with many things that happen in our world. The moral decline has always been going on .... more people the more evident it becomes ... and withe the onset of technology we are made more and more aware of it ... sadly it will continue.

 

[durangodawood]

The fact of life comment about Vance from Harris is fair in context.

Schools are soft targets (Vance)
Psychos will try to shoot them up (Vance) [and also just really angry kids (me)]
We will brook no attempt to make guns actually hard to acquire (assumed about Vance)

Its the last part where Harris has to make a leap. But its fair. Given the longstanding GOP attitude, its on Vance to say if hes ready to break from that.