I can't handle the Connecticut bleating on Facebook

[bdog]

Your dick must be really flat

pshhh... more like swollen. 

[Queen Victoria]

I'm not denying that – there have been massacres in Finland, too, including school shootings – but that doesn't mean it makes no difference whether or not people are allowed to carry guns or other weapons in public. The fact that mass murders may happen anyway doesn't negate efforts to minimise the risk.

How, precisely, would outlawing guns minimize the risk? It was illegal to kill those kids, too, you know. Seems like Lanza didn't much care whether or not what he was doing was against the law.

Besides, at this point, how exactly would liberals propose to round up the millions of guns in the hands of law abiding Americans? If you tried to take the guns away at this point, the people doing the taking would need to pull up in a tank. Because otherwise, they're getting shot. And, given that that would be the end of America, anyway, I would applaud all such killings.

That old adage 'you can take my guns when you pry them from my cold, dead hands' is an idea a lot of us live -- and would die -- by.

[wilan]

Gee, you Americans are crazy!  :

[Guest WJones081]

Gee, you Americans are crazy!  :

Not all of us are crazy.

[Guest flamins]

That old adage 'you can take my guns when you pry them from my cold, dead hands' is an idea a lot of us live -- and would die -- by.

Yeah, sure.  Big talk.  You'd obey any law passed lickity split.

Why?  Because when your crazy right-wing gunnut ideas mean throwing away your actual life plan - i.e. to  work your 9 to 5 job, pay the mortgage, put the kids through college, and then move to a retirement place down in Florida - you'll fold like a house of cards. 

Also, you're a moron.  Only peanut-brained Americans who've no idea how the rest of the world lives fail to understand the data-driven point that highly restrictive gun laws greatly reduce the numbers of fatal shootings.  Annual school massacres are only a feature of the USA - but because you isolationist nutcases have never been further abroad than Mexico, you haven't the faintest awareness that routine butchery of schoolkids is a uniquely American pastime and doesn't happen anywhere else.  This is what allows you to waffle on and on with the nonsensical drivel that "well, if only those five year olds had had guns, they'd all be alive now!  And if the teachers had had heavy machine guns, there would have been no masscre.  And if the principal had been armed with a 105mm howitzer we wouldn't be having this discussion!".

[Queen Victoria]

Yeah, sure.  Big talk.  You'd obey any law passed lickity split.

Not likely. But you just keep imprinting your personal weaknesses onto others because it makes you feel better. You're a coward.

Why?  Because when your crazy right-wing gunnut ideas mean throwing away your actual life plan - i.e. to  work your 9 to 5 job, pay the mortgage, put the kids through college, and then move to a retirement place down in Florida - you'll fold like a house of cards.

This has absolutely nothing to do with being a gun nut and everything to do with honoring a fundamental and imperative tenant of the U.S. Constitution -- that it is our right to bear arms. You can spit on or ignore or ridicule that right as much as you like. But, at the same time, if you ignore the intent of the law; if you ignore the even remote possibility that a government might become too corrupt or powerful to continue to lawfully govern, then you are turning your back on every ideal that men and women have fought for centuries to preserve.

We do not exist as a nation so your backwards-ass sense of self -- your fucking Toyota Prius; the wife who is secretly cheating on you; the kids you're brainwashing with an 'everyone always wins' mindset; the objects you populate your house with -- can endure without threat eternally. You cannot imagine a world where the government becomes dangerous because that reality would, in turn, imperil every little obnoxious element that you cobble together into that pitiful thing you call a life.

Of course, you wouldn't understand any of that because I'm guessing you're some piece of Eurotrash who thinks he deserves any say (har har) in our way of life. In the least, you so desperately want to be them -- to become what they are; mindless, wretched drones, willing surrendering half their income to support their monstrous, multi-tentacled nightmares of a government. But hey, those folks have 'evolved' beyond this kind of violent American thuggery, right?

Also, you're a moron.

 

Sit on it and spin, faggot.

Only peanut-brained Americans who've no idea how the rest of the world lives fail to understand the data-driven point that highly restrictive gun laws greatly reduce the numbers of fatal shootings.

 

And yet, the shootings themselves are, by-in-large, a creation of the last three decades. Yes, there has been violence committed against innocents since the beginning of mankind, but these heavily-publicized mass slayings that do nothing but shine undo glorification onto the murderer are a new thing.

Funny thing about that, though, is that we've had readily available semi-automatic weapons for decades longer. Hell, a shooter with a quick reload probably could have committed this crime with a Winchester rifle. Liberals like to tout this idea that the gun laws in America are passe because the Second Ammendment was written at a time of smooth-barreled muskets. Problem is, there is no correlation between the rise in semi-automatic or multi-shot weaponry and these crimes. The two are separated by decades.

In fact, if you want to shake a finger at something that corresponds with the onset of violence, it's the emergence of 24-hour mass media coverage, extreme violence in all forms of art, and sorrowful decrease in religious influence. Could it be that this generation of glory-seeking psychopaths might have been empowered by the very moral degradation that you, as a leftist, cherish above everything else? Oh, man, wouldn't that be a kicker, eh?

Annual school massacres are only a feature of the USA

Yeah, in Norway they just mass shoot their kids at summer camps. My bad.

- but because you isolationist nutcases have never been further abroad than Mexico, you haven't the faintest awareness that routine butchery of schoolkids is a uniquely American pastime and doesn't happen anywhere else.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FPu1csUvm0#

I can find more, if you like. There are a lot of them.

This is what allows you to waffle on and on with the nonsensical drivel that "well, if only those five year olds had had guns, they'd all be alive now!

Shameless hyperbole. Myself and others are advocating that 1-2 trained teachers (or security personnel) per school are armed, so that A) these are no longer gun-free shooting galleries, and teachers and principals are no longer given the choice of abandoning their charges and running or throwing themselves bodily at an attacker with no hope of surviving or stopping his rampage.

You, in turn, flail your arms wildly, screaming that we should 'take away all the guns! Ban all the guns! The guns are the root cause!' Well, I guess we should tell that to the 22 Chinese school children stabbed last week -- http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/news/story/2012/12/15/china-stabbing-school.html Boy oh boy -- China's ban on guns sure has solved everything! You advocate robbing millions and millions of respectable, honorable gun owners of their rights because a sociopath set out to kill as many vulnerable people as possible.

Tell me -- how would you go about taking away all those guns? Would you go door to door? Would you, being such a brave person, like to be the one to inform these people that gun owners, as a whole, must share the blame for the actions of a lone monster, and must give up a fundamental right? The kind of change you're advancing would lead to the disintigration of all law and order in the span of a few hours. Millions would die. But, hey, as long as it stops another school shooting, right brah?

And if the teachers had had heavy machine guns, there would have been no masscre.

Probably not. When was the last time you read about someone shooting up a school in Isreal, where they are so armed?

And if the principal had been armed with a 105mm howitzer we wouldn't be having this discussion!".

You, sir, are a moron. You.

[KFD]

Everybody needs to take a step back and breathe. This is an Internet forum. Again, why is nobody addressing the real issue here: A LACK OF PARENTING!!! How do you prevent a child from growing up to be a psychopath!? Not by keeping them in front of the TV in a dark basement, for starters...

[vennie]

Not likely. But you just keep imprinting your personal weaknesses onto others because it makes you feel better. You're a coward.

This has absolutely nothing to do with being a gun nut and everything to do with honoring a fundamental and imperative tenant of the U.S. Constitution -- that it is our right to bear arms. You can spit on or ignore or ridicule that right as much as you like. But, at the same time, if you ignore the intent of the law; if you ignore the even remote possibility that a government might become too corrupt or powerful to continue to lawfully govern, then you are turning your back on every ideal that men and women have fought for centuries to preserve.

We do not exist as a nation so your backwards-ass sense of self -- your fucking Toyota Prius; the wife who is secretly cheating on you; the kids you're brainwashing with an 'everyone always wins' mindset; the objects you populate your house with -- can endure without threat eternally. You cannot imagine a world where the government becomes dangerous because that reality would, in turn, imperil every little obnoxious element that you cobble together into that pitiful thing you call a life.

Of course, you wouldn't understand any of that because I'm guessing you're some piece of Eurotrash who thinks he deserves any say (har har) in our way of life. In the least, you so desperately want to be them -- to become what they are; mindless, wretched drones, willing surrendering half their income to support their monstrous, multi-tentacled nightmares of a government. But hey, those folks have 'evolved' beyond this kind of violent American thuggery, right?

 

Sit on it and spin, faggot.

 

And yet, the shootings themselves are, by-in-large, a creation of the last three decades. Yes, there has been violence committed against innocents since the beginning of mankind, but these heavily-publicized mass slayings that do nothing but shine undo glorification onto the murderer are a new thing.

Funny thing about that, though, is that we've had readily available semi-automatic weapons for decades longer. Hell, a shooter with a quick reload probably could have committed this crime with a Winchester rifle. Liberals like to tout this idea that the gun laws in America are passe because the Second Ammendment was written at a time of smooth-barreled muskets. Problem is, there is no correlation between the rise in semi-automatic or multi-shot weaponry and these crimes. The two are separated by decades.

In fact, if you want to shake a finger at something that corresponds with the onset of violence, it's the emergence of 24-hour mass media coverage, extreme violence in all forms of art, and sorrowful decrease in religious influence. Could it be that this generation of glory-seeking psychopaths might have been empowered by the very moral degradation that you, as a leftist, cherish above everything else? Oh, man, wouldn't that be a kicker, eh?

Yeah, in Norway they just mass shoot their kids at summer camps. My bad.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FPu1csUvm0#

I can find more, if you like. There are a lot of them.

Shameless hyperbole. Myself and others are advocating that 1-2 trained teachers (or security personnel) per school are armed, so that A) these are no longer gun-free shooting galleries, and teachers and principals are no longer given the choice of abandoning their charges and running or throwing themselves bodily at an attacker with no hope of surviving or stopping his rampage.

You, in turn, flail your arms wildly, screaming that we should 'take away all the guns! Ban all the guns! The guns are the root cause!' Well, I guess we should tell that to the 22 Chinese school children stabbed last week -- http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/news/story/2012/12/15/china-stabbing-school.html Boy oh boy -- China's ban on guns sure has solved everything! You advocate robbing millions and millions of respectable, honorable gun owners of their rights because a sociopath set out to kill as many vulnerable people as possible.

Tell me -- how would you go about taking away all those guns? Would you go door to door? Would you, being such a brave person, like to be the one to inform these people that gun owners, as a whole, must share the blame for the actions of a lone monster, and must give up a fundamental right? The kind of change you're advancing would lead to the disintigration of all law and order in the span of a few hours. Millions would die. But, hey, as long as it stops another school shooting, right brah?

Probably not. When was the last time you read about someone shooting up a school in Isreal, where they are so armed?

You, sir, are a moron. You.

Background: Violent death is a major public health problem in the United States and throughout the world.

Methods: A cross-sectional analysis of the World Health Organization Mortality Database analyzes homicides and suicides (both disaggregated as firearm related and non-firearm related) and unintentional and undetermined firearm deaths from 23 populous high-income Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development countries that provided data to the World Health Organization for 2003.

Results: The US homicide rates were 6.9 times higher than rates in the other high-income countries, driven by firearm homicide rates that were 19.5 times higher. For 15-year olds to 24-year olds, firearm homicide rates in the United States were 42.7 times higher than in the other countries. For US males, firearm homicide rates were 22.0 times higher, and for US females, firearm homicide rates were 11.4 times higher. The US firearm suicide rates were 5.8 times higher than in the other countries, though overall suicide rates were 30% lower. The US unintentional firearm deaths were 5.2 times higher than in the other countries. Among these 23 countries, 80% of all firearm deaths occurred in the United States, 86% of women killed by firearms were US women, and 87% of all children aged 0 to 14 killed by firearms were US children.

Conclusions: The United States has far higher rates of firearm deaths—firearm homicides, firearm suicides, and unintentional firearm deaths compared with other high-income countries. The US overall suicide rate is not out of line with these countries, but the United States is an outlier in terms of our overall homicide rate.

...

By all means, keep being pro guns when over and over again reality proves you wrong

[Queen Victoria]

By all means, keep being pro guns when over and over again reality proves you wrong

I'd rather have freedom than the kind of police state you're advocating. But, by all means, keep beating that anti-American socialist drum.

[caitidee]

People still say faggot?

[Guest flamins]

By all means, keep being pro guns when over and over again reality proves you wrong

That's precisely the problem with these redneck hicks, though; they are incapable of accepting evidence-based policy. 

They will keep bringing up anecdotal accounts of shootings in other countries without understanding that these are rare outlier events in other societies.  The fact that Norway had one crazy guy in a century and the UK had a single school shooting in 1997 blinds them to the fact that per capita gun deaths are orders of magnitude higher in the USA. 

The problem really is that it is the less educated, stupider portion of the US population that is insistent on unrestricted gun ownership.  The chances of convincing these people of the statistically demonstrable benefits of gun control are zero - they just aren't capable of comprehending simple stats.   

These are the sorts of people who would bring up the Chinese school attack as though it was evidence for their side of the argument when, of course, any fool can see that whilst 26 people were killed in Connecticut by a gun-wielding loon, not one of the Chinese kids was killed by the knife-wielding loon.

Sure, some cretins cling to an amendment to a piece of paper written by a bunch of slave owners two hundred years ago as though it was some sort of sacred text.  Newsflash people: it's a constitution written by the hand of man, and you can change it just as soon as you want.  There's no eternal truth contained therein.  George III isn't showing up any time soon, the South will not rise again, and there's no hope in hell that a bunch of boozed up hayseeds are going to protect the Republic from a fictional domestic tyranny using small arms.

[vennie]

I'd rather have freedom than the kind of police state you're advocating. But, by all means, keep beating that anti-American socialist drum.

Haha. That's funny. Why didn't you pick up a gun and do something when your government curtailed your so-called 'freedom' with the patriot act, or all those other decisions/laws where the American peoples freedom is perputually curtailed?

Why did you not rise up then to defend your freedom?

Because let me tell you, you live in an even bigger police state than Europeans do. Problem is just that you don't see it because you're too fixed on your right to bear arms.

All I hear is big-talk gun-toting drivel.

[Guest flamins]

Haha. That's funny. Why didn't you pick up a gun and do something when your government curtailed your so-called 'freedom' with the patriot act, or all those other decisions/laws where the American peoples freedom is perputually curtailed?

Why did you not rise up then to defend your freedom?

Because let me tell you, you live in an even bigger police state than Europeans do. Problem is just that you don't see it because you're too fixed on your right to bear arms.

All I hear is big-talk gun-toting drivel.

Vennie, vennie, vennie - don't you realise that only socialist, communist, Marxist, Bolshevik, pinko, liberal, commie, faggots would oppose the Patriot Act?!  I mean, it's called the Patriot Act ffs - who could be against that?

[vennie]

Vennie, vennie, vennie - don't you realise that only socialist, communist, Marxist, Bolshevik, pinko, liberal, commie, faggots would oppose the Patriot Act?!  I mean, it's called the Patriot Act ffs - who could be against that?

Patriot act? That was just childsplay by Bush. Obama takes the destruction of civil liberties and freedom to a whole new level and the American citizens are so in awe of his slick speeches and act that they don't even mind or register that it happens.

What about this National Defence Authorisation Act that golden boy Obama signed?

This act translates directly into the US governments ability to arrest anyone anywhere in the world and detain them indefinitely without charge or trial.

Talk about a setback in civil liberties.

And where was Queen Victoria with his treasured guns to defend the American people having yet another civil liberty taken away because, you know, freedom is so important to him?

...

Freedom is important, but to think that freedom equals to the right to bear arms just means you're insane.

[Queen Victoria]

Sure, some cretins cling to an amendment to a piece of paper written by a bunch of slave owners two hundred years ago as though it was some sort of sacred text.  Newsflash people: it's a constitution written by the hand of man, and you can change it just as soon as you want.  There's no eternal truth contained therein.  George III isn't showing up any time soon, the South will not rise again, and there's no hope in hell that a bunch of boozed up hayseeds are going to protect the Republic from a fictional domestic tyranny using small arms.

Well, I guess it's a good thing you're a powerless waste of space, eh? Nothing like someone who hates the status quo railing against it without any hope of change. But you keep at it, bucko. :thumbsup:

[gta]

How have you reacted instead then?

If you're talking about my coworker, I would not have insinuated that someone is a would-be mass murderer because they know the building well enough to make some assumptions about what happened. My coworker is a self-admitted asshole though, so it wasn't a total surprise. But bluntness does not necessarily lead to inappropriateness. It's not like I said "oh, the shooter should have gone here instead because there would be far more targets." That's blunt and offensive. Again, I phrased it like "The cafeteria makes sense because that is the waiting area for career-center buses, and it is near the main entrance of the building." That's informative bluntness. Coworkers asked, I delivered - I didn't expect the slap in the face as a thanks.

[bdog]

children die, adults get into pissing contests. 

sometimes, you guys, i begin to doubt your commitment to sparkle motion. 

[Klaus!]

There is sooooooo much tragedy in the world (16,000 children die from starvation every day) that I'm pretty much disgusted by this sudden outpouring of sympathy.  Is your head up your ass the other 99% of the year?

Wow, you're kind of an entitled asshole. Are you implying that if news networks covered children dying of starvation on a daily basis, no one would care? Perhaps people are showing an outpouring of sympathy because they're reading and hearing about a terrible event covered by national news networks. Remember last year when they got the story about Kony in Africa? Remember all the facebook "bleating" about that, then?

A lot of this is driven by what people see and hear on a daily basis. It's not a hard concept--people are busy running their lives and the only news they get, is news like this that shows up on the morning news show before they head out to work. If they were covering Sudan 24/7, there would be sympathy for that too.

Yeah, but not all of those kids are white american middle class kids.  Those ones count more when they get squished/tragically ill/shot.

Cute. Really edgy. If you apply a little bit of critical thinking, you'll find that it's pretty simple why this event has gotten a lot of media attention: 1) it's a domestic event 2) it's lethality is terrible 3) news networks cover what will get them more viewers and subscribers. Given number three, an event where a small, peaceful town was torn apart by a shooting spree is going to garner much more viewers than news stories about children in a far away place. Whether or not that's right or wrong is irrelevant.

The problem really is that it is the less educated, stupider portion of the US population that is insistent on unrestricted gun ownership.  The chances of convincing these people of the statistically demonstrable benefits of gun control are zero - they just aren't capable of comprehending simple stats.

I know we've all been pretty big on painting with as wide a brush as possible, but let's not get carried away. I have a BA in history and a MA in European history and yet I, too, am a gun owner and do not want my rifle taken away from me either. I will agree with you that unlimited access to firearms coupled with the US crime rate adds to an increase in fatalities. That's a given. However, to imply that strict gun control is the answer (strict control of ammunition would be wiser anyway), is to miss the underlying causes of the issue. We should be addressing the societal trends that are causing people to go on shooting sprees like this. We're going through some pretty large transitions here in the industrialized world that we haven't had to do since the onset of the industrial revolution. During the late 1800s, there was a large increase in bombings and assassinations associated with social change. We're going through the same thing now. We need to address the problems that make people feel like they want to shoot things, not take away their means to do so. If you look carefully, you'll see that mass knifings are actually pretty common in Chinese schools. Restrictions on firearms in China have cut down on the number of fatalities given that these attackers are using knives--however, these attacks are still taking place. Think about it.

All I hear is big-talk gun-toting drivel.

While it's all well and fun to poke fun at Americans for being backwards and ignorant, it's not quite productive. American culture regarding guns is significantly different than European gun culture. Gun ownership was considered a fundamental part of American society going back to the 1700s. The men that founded this country felt that a populace that was armed was a good deterrent to the tyranny they felt they were fleeing in Europe where few owned guns. While things have since changed in ways that they could not have foreseen, the culture of gun ownership has not. Europeans look down on Americans these days for owning guns. It's crude and backwards and all that. Interestingly enough, if you read travel diaries of Europeans in America during the 1800s, you'll note that they look down on Americans for owning horses. Horses were the prerogative of the landed class in Europe. In America, anyone could own one. Different times, different cultures. It's worth taking a step back to think about.

[Guest Atlya]

That old adage 'you can take my guns when you pry them from my cold, dead hands' is an idea a lot of us live -- and would die -- by.

Good riddance! Let me just run you over with that tank.

[Guest fittofat]

I find it curious that for some the choice is to acknowledge one tragedy or another. Why should a mass shooting in the United States be any less than one on Afghanistan. I think there is something to be said for the argument that folk are ignorant to the woes of the world the majority of the time, but that does not mean they should not be hurt by this incident. One can hope, that out of this ghastly tragedy some Americans may learn and act to try and make sure it does not happen again, but may it also open their eyes to the evils in the rest of the world (many of which have been mentioned).

When it comes to what some call over the top demonstrations of grief, the one which springs to mind for me was the death of Diana, Princess of Wales. Madness took over the country for over a week, madness and lack of reason which was to the detriment of the families involved. From this we should learn that the knumbskulled- 'this is not a tragedy because there are much bigger things in the world' approach is offensive to those who are affected, to the; mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, extended family and friends. This is a tragedy for them, and a community and a country.

[KFD]

People still say faggot?

I think the trendy kids are saying "phaggot" now...

children die, adults get into pissing contests. 

sometimes, you guys, i begin to doubt your commitment to sparkle motion. 

^Classic!!!!

[Heart and Mind]

Everybody needs to take a step back and breathe. This is an Internet forum. Again, why is nobody addressing the real issue here: A LACK OF PARENTING!!! How do you prevent a child from growing up to be a psychopath!? Not by keeping them in front of the TV in a dark basement, for starters...

Ive heard he was mentally chalenged to begin with.. How does a mother of a child like that own guns? (And of course there are inumerous flaws on that parenting..)

No longer quoting] Honestly, Guns + Bad.parenting = what you see, but keep saying these arent the problems. After all, this is almost an american problem..

[Guest Atlya]

I find it curious that for some the choice is to acknowledge one tragedy or another. Why should a mass shooting in the United States be any less than one on Afghanistan. I think there is something to be said for the argument that folk are ignorant to the woes of the world the majority of the time, but that does not mean they should not be hurt by this incident. One can hope, that out of this ghastly tragedy some Americans may learn and act to try and make sure it does not happen again, but may it also open their eyes to the evils in the rest of the world (many of which have been mentioned).

Like how the Sept 11 2001 suicide attacks lead them to things like the patriot act and erasing of civil liberties?

[Guest fittofat]

Atlya;

Well, the issue of gun control in the United States is renowned for being dotty, at least in comparison to other countries like; the UK, Germany, Canada etc.

When it came to fall out from September 11th, the Patriot act and erosion of the only good thing we left you- sections of Magna Carta, was to my mind already desired by the then administration. I would not say the Bush regime provoked September 11th (no more than usual anyway), but like Adolf Hitler and the burning of the Reichstag, it gave the regime a public reason to bring in sweeping curtailment of civil liberties- which they wanted anyway, the event, whether the burning of the Reichstag or September 11th was just an event to tack it onto.

[vennie]

While it's all well and fun to poke fun at Americans for being backwards and ignorant, it's not quite productive. American culture regarding guns is significantly different than European gun culture. Gun ownership was considered a fundamental part of American society going back to the 1700s. The men that founded this country felt that a populace that was armed was a good deterrent to the tyranny they felt they were fleeing in Europe where few owned guns. While things have since changed in ways that they could not have foreseen, the culture of gun ownership has not. Europeans look down on Americans these days for owning guns. It's crude and backwards and all that. Interestingly enough, if you read travel diaries of Europeans in America during the 1800s, you'll note that they look down on Americans for owning horses. Horses were the prerogative of the landed class in Europe. In America, anyone could own one. Different times, different cultures. It's worth taking a step back to think about.

I'm not poking fun of Americans, neither I'm saying they're all backwards and ignorant. But shit, numbers don't lie, there's way way more violence involving guns in the US as elsewhere.

Preventing shootouts like in Connecticut should be a two-pronged approach:

-Take away the root cause for the violence (better mental health care/upbringing/what have you)

-Take away the ability of those that still get an urge to kill lots of people, despite everything being done to prevent someone from developing that urge, to easily get a gun.

With that approach, you should see the percentage of violence involving guns drop down significantly to.

Since taking away the ability to get guns is by far easier, cheaper and accomplished faster everyone focuses on the gun control. It's what I would call a Quick Win, as opposed to tackling the Root Cause of people going insane, which takes alot longer and requires some real social engineering.

No excuse about how it came to be through history or differences in culture can dispute the above logic. Frankly I don't give a shit about cultural differences preventing gun control. When a people sees their children blown away by gun-toting retards, 'culture' should be last on the list of priorities. If those people are unwilling to change because of culture or history; that's the moment I would call them backwards and ignorant.

Your turn.