User Tag List

Page 46 of 63 FirstFirst ... 364344454647484956 ... LastLast
Results 676 to 690 of 933

Thread: 58 Dead, 500 Plus Wounded

  1. #676
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    20,249
    Thanks
    3,591
    Thanked 7,777 Times in 4,501 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147822
    Meanwhile, December is closing with 74 injuries and 16 dead from mass shootings in the most quiet and peaceful month of the year, so far.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  2. #677
    LIFETIME MEMBER Yorzhik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    2,948
    Thanks
    205
    Thanked 290 Times in 225 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    394735
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    I noted you thought so, offered that as a society any number of approaches were and had been made on them and wondered, repeatedly, what you'd do differently about them. Absent some new idea that could actually be applied I summed your position as supportive of the status quo.
    Since all these ideas have been applied in the past, and since they are ideas that have worked every time they've been tried, I'd say your objection is either poorly thought out or that you are an elitist.

    At least admit the ideas would work if they were applied.

    You've dismissed poverty as a consideration. No idea why.
    I have. But because you don't consider the ideas of people that don't agree with you you think I haven't. I have discussed "poverty" and at least I understand your side of the argument.

    Well, no. I've noted that states with stronger gun laws, like countries with stronger gun laws, experience a great deal less gun violence and mass murder from those weapons, weapons uniquely positioned to mete it out.
    Your data is horribly broad and that leads you to a bad conclusion. There is much better data that pinpoints more accurately what is happening within states. It clearly shows guns aren't the problem, but the reason you won't discuss the more accurate data is because it goes against your conclusion.

    And I've noted that as with your three concerns (black markets, gangs, broken homes) it isn't an either/or.
    Right. But as you've learned, my ideas will save a great deal more lives than yours, and mine don't introduce new problems like yours do.

    Homicides2.png

    By all means address broken homes but understand we've been trying to do that for a long time and still are, while the problem of gun violence and mass shootings increased. It's not an either/or situation.
    We've been trying to fix these problems for a long time by doing the same thing that doesn't work over and over - chiefly money transfers.

    It never worked, it makes things worse every time it's tried. And the other gifts, like money transferred directly to education facilities or housing facilities for the same people has a similar, if not worse, effect as direct money transfers. It sometimes has a worse effect because the people the money actually goes to - the schools, the housing owners, the food providers - tend to become either corrupt and/or mean themselves.

    That's not true. We've restricted welfare funding times, created jobs programs and approached the problem a number of ways. I'm absolutely open to more ideas if you or anyone has them, in particular.
    The New Deal and Great Society and programs of similar mentality has transferred many trillions of dollars to low income people. Has the poverty rate improved? At best, not much, and probably the problem has gotten worse.

    Since I already gave you good ideas, you should not just be open to them, but support them.

    To begin with, much of what is sold on the black market isn't illegal as a thing, but is merely stolen goods, from prescription drugs to guns.

    Of what's left...Prostitution, heroin, machine guns? That's your idea? Well, okay, it's an idea. I think it's a horrible one, but it's an idea.
    At least you should count the cost of which is worse before you say it's a horrible idea. The drug war has been very costly in terms of money and lives. Semi-automatic guns have not in places where their ownership is the highest.

    We have more guns than anyone else on earth and more gun violence by far than any Western democracy. Increasing the access and destructive power of what's on hand would be more of the same that wasn't working, though I'd agree it would rob organized crime of a profitable outlet.
    Not only were there zero murders in more than half the counties in the US (and that includes murder by any means, not just guns), but these are counties with higher gun ownership rates than the other less than half of the counties.

    It's absolutely wrong to say we have more guns than anyone else on earth and more gun violence by far than any Western democracy without figuring out why big cities drive up the homicide rates of the country when guns are restricted/banned.

    And another thing to note, the firepower of guns hasn't changed a great deal in the last ~75 years. It's not the guns that changed.

    What regulation? Child labor laws? Because no one is barred from working who wants to work.
    Minimum wage is a big one, and it's just the tip of the regulation iceberg. Child labor laws are another big one. Just start a business, no matter how innocent (like a lemonade stand), without dealing with the government. You'll find out quickly the tiniest regulation will not just shut you down, but punish you in proportion that will stop you from thinking about trying that again. Especially in the inner cities.

    Yeah, the problem is giving those who can't afford it on their own an education. That will really pull people out of poverty. Or maybe education without outlet is the problem. Maybe we need more industry and more trade schools?
    Unschooling and Sudbury Schools have a much better literacy rate than government schools. But that isn't why they are better.

    So, yeah, giving those who can't afford it on their own the government education we are giving them is harming them - obviously.

    Leaving off that you're wrong...no, let's not. You're blaming the mothers and leaving off irresponsible fathers? In point of fact there's enough blame to go around. Irresponsible kids having kids. I'm not going to lay the blame on the one who is actually trying to rear the children and provide some stability for them. Neither should you. So what's your solution?
    I'm not blaming single mothers. I didn't even infer that. In fact, you should go back and re-read what I did say because I said directly that fathers are the solution.

    We don't. We provide for children who otherwise wouldn't have proper healthcare or nutrition. You want to cut off that funding?
    And it hasn't worked. The rate of children with improper health care and nutrition has either barely gotten better, or more likely gotten worse depending on what study you look at. At least my solutions have made things better whenever they are tried.

    The tender years presumption that a child was better off with the mother has been off the books for a very long time. Courts place children with the party who appears to be in the best possible position to provide for the child, emotionally and otherwist. Fathers can and have won the role of primary custodian. And many have joint custody.
    50-50 joint custody is a mistake even though it is rarer that other joint custody. Most joint custody is father getting kids for the weekend at best. However, the rate that mothers get custody hasn't changed much at roughly 80%. And of the remaining, the biggest reasons they don't get custody is because they are either criminals or absent. So, no, the de facto custody always goes to the mom to this day. To fix things, this trend needs to be reversed.

    It's actually rare that you only have that little and past emergency measures you have to stand before a jaded judge and make your case. And as the only one of us with real experience in the system relating to that, I can tell you that most domestic violence comes with bruises and police reports. A lot of them with medical histories too.
    Neither bruises nor police reports add evidence in and of themselves. If a female you live with has bruises, even self inflicted, and she calls the cops on you... you will go to jail in most places in the US.

    Yeah, that's wrong. The NRA alone, over the past 20 years, has spent over 144 million dollars beyond the 13 million it pushed into gun friendly campaigns directly, on indirect pro gun copy and get the opposition ads. See: Politico
    Oh, I'm sorry. I was wrong in that I over-estimated the amount of money the NRA uses to put politicians in their pockets. Thanks for proving my point.

    And that's just the NRA.
    In the gun advocacy lobbying game, they are the 80000 lb. gorilla. That you have to shriek and point to other negligible groups shows desperation and further proves my point.

    On the consequences of strong gun law:

    Hey, you want abortion mills? Because if you shut them down you'll send some women into the arms of criminals. Is that really an argument against closing abortion mills?
    So your response that some black markets, like the black market for murdering babies, means that we should keep some black markets? I think you're on to something :sarcasm:

    And we have a great way to figure out what black markets we should keep and which we should stop. To figure out if you are evening listening to the other side, let's test to find out if you know the answer to how to figure out which black markets we should stop and which we should keep.

    If you break the law it actually is your fault.
    No. In areas where gun ownership rates are high the violence and homicide rate is very low. If there are cities that have high homicide rates, that's not the fault of the people with low homicide rates.

    Since we know about extinction events, we can and should plan accordingly. It's not an inevitability, just an understandable statistical upswing that, understanding it, we can now act to minimize while that larger good begins to work.
    The larger good never comes to fruition. The trend line just goes back to where it was before a gun ban/restriction.

    By which you mean outlaw something that wasn't prior, like cocaine. Yes, we can do that and will continue to do that where there's a compelling case. Or were you talking about slaves?
    Yes, like cocaine. Did you know that owning another person as a chattel slave would be wrong even it if were legal?

    The more we go on with this discussion the more it seems the general consensus that lawyers lose their understanding of what is right and wrong is true.

    I never said we couldn't have oral examinations or help filling out forms. Your assumption is the culprit. I'm glad you're thinking about the illiterate though, given how your position on public education will likely swell their ranks.
    It was you who said the illiterate wouldn't be able to get guns because of restrictions. I'm glad you realize what you said was absurd.

    But, please note, if my position on government education were applied, we'd have a higher literacy rate.

    I think that when you have to indulge in a paranoid Hitler fantasy without foundation in our compact's history to make your point you make a point you don't mean to.
    To be sure, anytime one mentions what happened in Germany a lot of eyes roll. But that doesn't mean the lessons should be ignored.

    And further, all leading nations die from within. You tell me, how close are we to that normal fate?

    They don't. In fact, they show the opposite, supra.
    They do. You just ignore the facts that don't suit you. It's a habit of yours that you've demonstrated throughout this discussion.

    That said, again I'm not trying talking about lowering the number, only eliminating certain types of weapons. You can own as many breech loading shotguns and single shot rifles as you like. It's your dime. But good luck trying to kill fifty people at a go with that. No, you'll be much more in the position of the man the Founders were thinking of, and your neighbor will be too.
    The mass killers will either procure guns, bombs, or use other methods. The stats won't change much.

    Rather, when I'm talking about cancer I talk about cancer, not cancer and heart disease and diabetes and dental problems. And you try to couch the elitist angle because reason won't serve you, so you lay on the rhetoric of the paranoid and emotional to drive your advance.
    Your analogy is off. To be more accurate you would have to say that in discussion about cancer, we should only talk about leukemia. And then proffer solutions that not only reduce leukemia in a small way, but creates other cancers.

    And then you get all mad at me because I say we should fund advancements in research that have been shown to help almost all cancers at the expense of your solution.

    Rather, I've spoken to gun violence and mass shootings, though my emphasis and the point of the thread was focused on the latter. I do that because we have models all around us in literally every other Western democracy, that show us a better way to go about things if the goal is to minimize the loss of life and human suffering.
    I'm curious where your mass shooting stats come from.

    Untrue on all counts.
    And, again, you neither refute my position or support your own. Your biggest contribution was saying "The legal definition." without further comment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yorzhik
    Here's an indisputable, empirical and objective truth: Counties with much higher gun ownership rates have impressively lower homicide rates than those with gun restrictions/bans.
    Objectively, demonstrably untrue. We have more guns per citizen than any nation on earth. We're dramatically less safe from gun violence than any Western Democracy in existence.
    Then let's see your county data that shows otherwise.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yorzhik
    Here's another indisputable, empirical and objective truth: If it were not for big city homicide, where guns are banned and restricted, and even certain areas inside those big cities, the homicide rate in the US would be similar to rates seen in other developed countries.
    Those other countries have big cities too. And they don't have our homicide rates and mass shooting incidents. What they do have, is tough, universal gun laws.
    But that doesn't answer why where gun ownership rates are highest, homicide rates are similar to other western democracies.

    It's not the guns. It's something else.

    What's tragically funny about that?

    So I note that countries and states with tougher gun laws have dramatically reduced gun violence and Yor says that's only true because I'm talking about guns.
    It's not funny. Homicide goes up shortly after a ban/restriction on guns, and then falls to previous trends. Even if you stop people from using guns for violence, they demonstrably don't care about that method used to hurt people.

    It's more than one thing. For those involved in the industry its money. For many it's a largely unexamined principle. The idea that a right is under siege and that uncoupled with the consideration of the right itself and both what it meant to the founders who framed it and how it functioned, how that's changed. I've noted that in particular, from the practical aspects of livelihood and frontier protection to the need for a national defense before we had a standing army, to the vast difference in what a man had and used in that and what has become of it in modern terms, how all that demands a different accounting and how irresponsible it is to see the Framer's act without considering the context and how that context is altered in our present. Why that makes a new line of demarcation both right and necessary.
    It's examined principle based on sound reason and data that leads us to the policy I advocate.

    The contrary is based on emotion that works hard to ignore reason and data.

    No one, least of all me, is disputing the right of anyone to defend themselves, just as no one is suggesting that right should allow me to carry a bazooka on my person to discourage potential criminals.
    But you are. Are you suggesting that security personnel only be allowed to carry single shot guns? Which ones should be allowed to carry more than single shot guns?

    Quote Originally Posted by Yorzhik
    And guns are the great equalizer that puts any small woman on the same level as the biggest man even with training that is no more than what she can get at the counter of a gun store.
    No, a gun doesn't do that at all. Like suggesting a paintbrush puts everyone on the same artistic level. In point of fact, if you don't know how to use a tool or aren't prepared to use it then the person who is will always have the advantage. In most cases, relating to guns, that favors the criminal.
    Yes it does. Even if in most cases a newly acquired gun with only at-the-counter training favors the criminal, that's more than the contra. And further, I'd be willing to bet that criminal will have to take new measures from then on if he has to keep running into said type of female, reducing his crimes. That's what the concealed carry laws have been doing quite clearly.
    Good things come to those who shoot straight.

    Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe

  3. #678
    Over 5000 post club Nihilo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The North & the West
    Posts
    5,388
    Thanks
    666
    Thanked 1,279 Times in 1,032 Posts

    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    278832
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    I'm not knocking it, only putting it in perspective.
    There was nothing to knock.
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    Nothing of the sort. See: why the police have special equipment and cars and you don't.
    My contention stands. Prove that I'm "just playing with words."
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    No, they supported it in their time, but in their time the people would have had access to and used weapons that were even less dangerous than the ones I'm talking about keeping.
    Every military on earth rejects the weapons that you talk about keeping, as inferior for their lowest ranks, and on up. Times change, so the fleshing out of the inherent civil right, to keep and bear arms, changes also. "In common use" precludes sawed-off shotguns and mouse guns, and includes service rifles and carbines.
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    To illustrate it a little more, sometimes we have an aggressor without cause on one side and a defender in the right on the other. That's the best case. Sometimes we have two aggressors fighting over a third thing, from land to principle.
    I don't think anything that either of us is saying bears on the latter case at all. We're discussing what the good guys should be carrying, and the divide is between standard issue rifles and carbines on my side, and presumably on your side, bolt guns, which last saw action as service rifles 100 years ago.
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    Thank you.


    Again, it's not really a complaint unless you mean to be misleading, by inferring that all I've done on a point is declare it. By way of example, I'd set out the support for that summation prior. So I'm not just declaring a thing, I'm summing a position advanced and defended prior by argument.
    You declare your conclusion, and you declare the evidence you submitted supports your conclusion. It's declarative from start to finish.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nihilo View Post
    So having been under fire yourself, your story here is that you'd have not been better off, with a selective fire carbine in that situation? I'm incredulous.
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    What I'd say is that without serious skill and training, and an understanding of how the body behaves in that sort of situation it's foolish to believe a weapon with an automatic function will make you (and especially innocent others) safer.
    So yes or no?
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    It comes through.
    I hope you understand why. If someone's life is in immediate peril, then it makes sense to be armed with what all the militaries of the world equip their lowest ranks, i.e. selective fire carbines and rifles, because that's why all the world's militaries do that, because they are excellent for when someone's life is in immediate peril.
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    It isn't what you said, which is why your check attempt failed. I'd said if more guns made you safer our nation would be the safest instead of the least safe among Western democracies. You tried the rebuttal of echoing form: "If more guns made you safe, we'd have tons of them in our militaries. Check."

    I noted that tons of guns don't make soldiers safer, they make them more efficient at killing and breaking things.
    That's why they are safer, for us. With less guns, they'd be more dangerous, because they wouldn't be able to to efficiently kill murderers and break murderers' things.
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    Except that it doesn't and hasn't which is why living here among the most guns per person in the world you're less safe than you would be in any other Western democracy.
    No, "except that" our problem here is not guns, not even tons of guns, but murderers living among us, especially, apparently, in big cities.
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    A separate question, but one that begins with armed MPs, I'd suppose.
    It makes sense to be well armed, and well armed has been defined for us all too, by all the world's militaries; service rifles and carbines with selector switches.
    THE LORD JESUS CHRIST IS RISEN. Matthew 28:6 (KJV) Mark 16:6 (KJV) Luke 24:6 (KJV)

    Romans 10:9 (KJV) 1st Corinthians 15:14 (KJV)

    Trevor: "I know how to drive, man."
    Ricky: "You also know how to be stupid."

  4. #679
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    20,249
    Thanks
    3,591
    Thanked 7,777 Times in 4,501 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147822
    Inadvertently erased the rest...
    Quote Originally Posted by Nihilo View Post
    You declare your conclusion, and you declare the evidence you submitted supports your conclusion. It's declarative from start to finish.So yes or no?
    You're making the use of the word fairly meaningless. Typically we use declaration to note an absence of support. Otherwise it's pointless to use it unless you're distinguishing a speaker in a narrative, as in, "Tom declared X."
    Last edited by Town Heretic; January 2nd, 2018 at 10:36 AM.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  5. #680
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    20,249
    Thanks
    3,591
    Thanked 7,777 Times in 4,501 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147822
    Quote Originally Posted by Yorzhik View Post
    Since all these ideas have been applied in the past, and since they are ideas that have worked every time they've been tried, I'd say your objection is either poorly thought out or that you are an elitist.
    I don't believe a single thing in that is actually true. I'm not sure what you mean by elitist, so I hold out part of it could be true. Holding a doctorate, by way of example, puts me in an academic elite. If you mean that I believe society should be led by an elite, I'd say that's true. People of superior virtue and wisdom, by way of example, would make better leaders than people with less of either.

    you don't consider the ideas of people that don't agree with you
    Well that's not true unless you confuse consideration with agreement. I've tackled any number of arguments contrary to my own from a number of people I've spoken to during the course of this thread. I'll do more of that in this post.

    Your data is horribly broad and that leads you to a bad conclusion.
    Rather, my data is objectively observable and repeatable. It's true for nations and states.

    There is much better data that pinpoints more accurately what is happening within states. It clearly shows guns aren't the problem, but the reason you won't discuss the more accurate data is because it goes against your conclusion.
    I think you can focus narrowly enough, cherry pick enough to support all sorts of contentions. But the fact remains that as with nations, so states. It's not an amazing coincidence. And it occurs even in different cultures that share the same sort of law.

    But as you've learned, my ideas will save a great deal more lives than yours
    Complete nonsense for any number of reasons offered prior including, to paraphrase, "We can't reasonably suggest that the foundation of law be scrapped for 3 guiding principles" or when I noted your plan for smashing black markets (legalizing the illegal) was problematic on two fronts: first, much of black market transactions aren't really about producing illegal goods, but selling illegally procured but otherwise legal goods and, second, that beyond that the principle invites legalizing most vice to eliminate the profit of vice by a relatively small number of people. One could and I would argue that the greater harm would be found in the impact of that legalization.

    Those examples rebut both your premise above and your claim that I don't consider different opinions.

    and mine don't introduce new problems like yours do.
    My workable solutions, tried and produced without destroying any of the Western democracies that employ them (by which I mean all of them) dramatically less gun related violence and death.

    We've been trying to fix these problems for a long time by doing the same thing that doesn't work over and over - chiefly money transfers.
    You said that before. I rebutted the presumption. I won't repeat the rebuttal.

    Since I already gave you good ideas, you should not just be open to them, but support them.
    Your opinion of your ideas was never in question. My opinion of them is in print and in particular prior.

    It's absolutely wrong to say we have more guns than anyone else on earth and more gun violence by far than any Western democracy without figuring out why big cities drive up the homicide rates of the country when guns are restricted/banned.
    I've spoken to the problems of concentrated populations, especially where there are concentrations of poor. I also noted New York state and city on the point in relation to law and effect.

    And another thing to note, the firepower of guns hasn't changed a great deal in the last ~75 years. It's not the guns that changed.
    That's a curious focus, given the founders wrote the right into our Constitution a smidge earlier and I've spoken to why and what has fundamentally changed since then.

    Child labor laws are another big one.
    Arguing against child labor laws doesn't really require a rebuttal. I just wanted you on the record.

    Unschooling and Sudbury Schools have a much better literacy rate than government schools.
    True of almost any alternative given public schools must take any student who is enrolled. The less selective your process the lower the mean. And if you have a hospital that refuses trauma victims you're going to have a much better survival rate, comparatively, to those who take them in.

    So, yeah, giving those who can't afford it on their own the government education we are giving them is harming them - obviously.
    Anyone who believes that education harms someone is in need of additional education.

    I'm not blaming single mothers. I didn't even infer that.
    You literally wrote: "For broken families, you've already identified that the problem is almost entirely single mothers."

    So I agree that you didn't infer it.

    In fact, you should go back and re-read what I did say because I said directly that fathers are the solution.
    No, you misstated the present reality, a long vanquished tender years presumption in favor of the mother and suggested that same legal mistake should be vested in the fathers, which underscores your blaming mothers, by the way.

    On health and nutrition programs for poor children.
    And it hasn't worked.
    It actually has worked. Every time. Providing proper nutrition and healthcare for poor children does precisely what it is aimed at doing. It isn't meant to do else.

    50-50 joint custody is a mistake even though it is rarer that other joint custody.
    Absent a compelling reason relating to the safety and well being of the child joint custody, which isn't rare at all, is a sensible solution.

    Most joint custody is father getting kids for the weekend at best.
    That's not true. The standard visitation order in most states, even without joint custody, is better than that. And most visitation is worked out between parties without court mandate at all, but I'll come back to that. Primary physical custodianship is in the child's best interest, providing a stable base and the standard order relating to visitation can be arranged as suits the parties, with an eye to respecting that stability, especially during school months. It works well when both parents cooperate and focus on the kids instead of themselves.

    However, the rate that mothers get custody hasn't changed much at roughly 80%.
    Actually it varies, though mothers do tend to be the primary custodian more often than not. Overwhelmingly by choice and agreement of both parents. A Pew study in 2012 looked at it and found mothers spending twice as much time, prior to divorce, in direct roles with the children of divorce. That same study noted that a great many fathers don't use the time allotted them. And 27% have no contact with their children post divorce.

    DivorcePeers looked at the problem and noted that only around 9% of custody arrangements are actually imposed by the court system.

    Now back onto our regularly scheduled topic.

    So, no, the de facto custody always goes to the mom to this day. To fix things, this trend needs to be reversed.
    Your foundational assumptions are simply wrong. Your remedy is as wrong as reverse discrimination.

    Neither bruises nor police reports add evidence in and of themselves.
    Sure they do. And most of that sort carry histories. By the time I was involved as a VAWA lawyer in the process the chances were good that I could find a laundry list of police involvement with the parties and frequently a litany of hospital visits. I always spoke with the police first, then a family doctor or admitting physician about the sorts of wounds inflicted and what they had witnessed or could reasonably, professionally infer. Most of the time it was clear enough.

    If a female you live with has bruises, even self inflicted, and she calls the cops on you... you will go to jail in most places in the US.
    Sure. Because most women are just evil liars who beat themselves then call the cops so they can send the other person they moved in with or married to jail. That makes sense as a rule...if you're nuts. Or, as a rule, people who claim to have been beaten by someone and who have the marks to demonstrate it aren't crazy, lying, or attempting to manipulate the system. I've caught people trying to do that, but they were the exception to a sad, tragic rule.

    Oh, I'm sorry. I was wrong in that I over-estimated the amount of money the NRA uses to put politicians in their pockets. Thanks for proving my point.
    That's just not true, so I'll leave the reader to go back and read what I actually set out.

    That you have to shriek
    Which apparently means to note facts contradicting your presumptions.

    and point to other negligible groups shows desperation and further proves my point.
    I actually didn't, only noted that the enormous amount of indirect capital poured into the political realm by the NRA was substantive before you got to any of the industry players and other groups with a vested interest and their own direct and indirect contributions.

    So your response that some black markets, like the black market for murdering babies, means that we should keep some black markets? I think you're on to something :sarcasm:
    I noted two things. First, you don't appear to realize that most of the black market activity is about stolen goods and secondly that if you applied your logic on how to pull the teeth of criminal gain (by legalizing the activity) you'd end up with a worse problem.

    Did you know that owning another person as a chattel slave would be wrong even it if were legal?
    Sure. Doesn't impact the point even a little though.

    The more we go on with this discussion the more it seems the general consensus that lawyers lose their understanding of what is right and wrong is true.
    Nah. That's just another attempt to appeal to emotion and create/interject a point of bias unsustained by reason.

    It was you who said the illiterate wouldn't be able to get guns because of restrictions.
    Where did I write that again? By which I mean you should quote that one.

    But, please note, if my position on government education were applied, we'd have a higher literacy rate.
    Eliminating public education would raise the literacy rate? Do tell.

    To be sure, anytime one mentions what happened in Germany a lot of eyes roll. But that doesn't mean the lessons should be ignored.
    The lessons need to be applicable to the consideration. This one wasn't a decent parallel, as I noted long ago and in particular when it was first used by another poster before you tried to reform it.

    The mass killers will either procure guns, bombs, or use other methods. The stats won't change much.
    I'm guessing that you're playing again, because you understand mass shooters are a statistically small portion of homicides and that eliminating them entirely wouldn't greatly alter the statistical trend overall, even though it would have a great impact on the hundreds of victims, wounded and killed otherwise, and in terms of the ripples those deaths and maimings cause.

    Your analogy is off. To be more accurate you would have to say that in discussion about cancer, we should only talk about leukemia. And then proffer solutions that not only reduce leukemia in a small way, but creates other cancers.
    No, I'm saying that where the discussion is gun violence and mass shootings, talking about deaths by other means is off topic.

    And then you get all mad at me
    I've simply rejected your advanced. This is a tactic of yours that lacks traction, as it did when you accused me of emotional appeals without citing anything in support and I responded by actually quoting you doing precisely what you charged me with.

    I'm curious where your mass shooting stats come from.
    Of course you are. When you can't reject it, attempt to taint it, by inference where possible. I've looked at a number of sources, but I prefer using the Mass Shooter Tracker, because it breaks each incident down into date, the injured, and the murdered while citing to sources through links that allow for a closer look into reporting on each incident and because it uses the FBI definition of mass shooting as its litmus.

    Then let's see your county data that shows otherwise.
    I haven't said anything about counties beyond noting that the larger data pool is superior and that states with stronger gun laws (states which have rather large cities in them, like New York) have appreciably fewer deaths from gun violence than states with looser laws, something that we also observe in nations. I use states and nations because the greater populations are more reliable for statistical analysis.

    Even if you stop people from using guns for violence, they demonstrably don't care about that method used to hurt people.
    It doesn't matter if they care. It matters that they find the means. It's easy to procure and use a gun to accomplish that end. It's much harder to find a viable alternative.

    Are you suggesting that security personnel only be allowed to carry single shot guns? Which ones should be allowed to carry more than single shot guns?
    What do you mean by security personnel? The police, certainly. A mall cop? No.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Town Heretic For Your Post:

    Arthur Brain (December 28th, 2017),Rusha (January 14th, 2018)

  7. #681
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    20,249
    Thanks
    3,591
    Thanked 7,777 Times in 4,501 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147822
    Meanwhile, tack on another mass shooting to close December, as one deputy is killed and 6 others wounded in a Denver mass shooting. This brings December's still comparatively peaceful tally to:

    24 murdered
    108 injured

    in 28 mass shooting incidents this year.

    Mass Shootings by month, deaths - injuries:

    Jan. 62 - 138
    Feb. 44 - 109
    Mar. 58 - 92
    Apr. 46 - 176
    May 30 - 100
    June 60 - 149
    July 42 - 179
    Aug. 34 - 154
    Sept. 32 - 126
    Oct. 94 - 548
    Nov. 63 - 129
    Dec. 24 - 108

    Total for 2017 to date:

    589 killed
    2,008 injured

    2017: 589 - 2,008
    2016: 606 - 1,781
    2015: 469 - 1,387
    2014: 364 - 1,213
    2013: 467 - 1,176
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  8. #682
    Over 5000 post club Nihilo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The North & the West
    Posts
    5,388
    Thanks
    666
    Thanked 1,279 Times in 1,032 Posts

    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    278832
    http://theologyonline.com/showthread...98#post5160998

    Quote Originally Posted by Nihilo View Post
    So yes or no?
    THE LORD JESUS CHRIST IS RISEN. Matthew 28:6 (KJV) Mark 16:6 (KJV) Luke 24:6 (KJV)

    Romans 10:9 (KJV) 1st Corinthians 15:14 (KJV)

    Trevor: "I know how to drive, man."
    Ricky: "You also know how to be stupid."

  9. #683
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    20,249
    Thanks
    3,591
    Thanked 7,777 Times in 4,501 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147822
    Quote Originally Posted by Nihilo View Post
    You declare your conclusion, and you declare the evidence you submitted supports your conclusion. It's declarative from start to finish.So yes or no?
    You're making the use of the word fairly meaningless. Typically we use declaration to note an absence of support. Otherwise it's pointless to use it unless you're distinguishing a speaker in a narrative, as in, "Tom declared X."
    Or, no, that would be an unconventional, poor, and misleading use of the term. Rather, I set out argument in parts, along with supportive data. I can declare anything, from fact to fiction. Argument doesn't really belong in the declared usage.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  10. #684
    LIFETIME MEMBER Yorzhik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    2,948
    Thanks
    205
    Thanked 290 Times in 225 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    394735
    I'll get to the rest of the post later.

    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    I've simply rejected your advanced. This is a tactic of yours that lacks traction, as it did when you accused me of emotional appeals without citing anything in support and I responded by actually quoting you doing precisely what you charged me with.
    The general rule is to meet dialectic with dialectic and rhetoric with rhetoric. You've been a mix of both, so I have too. But I'm seeing a problem with this in that it confuses you, and thus, one should stick with the lowest common denominator, meaning rhetoric, if one is to discuss a topic at all if there is rhetoric to be answered.

    So it's been my mistake in that regard. A good debater would have switched to rhetoric completely with you. But I'm not entirely interested in a discussion with you, per se, but finding out the truth of the matter for myself.

    And the truth of the matter continues to gain support as this thread drags on. Your argument that we can take these people's stuff over here because those evil people over there use similar tools for evil is not a good argument.

    Further, we know it won't work because other countries have tried it and it doesn't change existing trends.

    And beyond that, even when you are shown reversible solutions that scale very well, you doggedly pursue non-reversible solutions with religious fervor. That should be a big red flag to anyone who was considering trusting your ideas. A reasonable person would be saying "Before we jump off this cliff, let's take your path and see if it doesn't take us to the water and if it doesn't we'll go back and jump."
    Last edited by Yorzhik; January 6th, 2018 at 09:07 AM.
    Good things come to those who shoot straight.

    Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Yorzhik For Your Post:

    way 2 go (January 5th, 2018)

  12. #685
    Over 5000 post club Nihilo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The North & the West
    Posts
    5,388
    Thanks
    666
    Thanked 1,279 Times in 1,032 Posts

    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    278832
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    Or, no, that would be an unconventional, poor, and misleading use of the term. Rather, I set out argument in parts, along with supportive data. I can declare anything, from fact to fiction. Argument doesn't really belong in the declared usage.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nihilo View Post
    So having been under fire yourself, your story here is that you'd have not been better off, with a selective fire carbine in that situation? I'm incredulous.
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    What I'd say is that without serious skill and training, and an understanding of how the body behaves in that sort of situation it's foolish to believe a weapon with an automatic function will make you (and especially innocent others) safer.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nihilo View Post
    So yes or no?
    THE LORD JESUS CHRIST IS RISEN. Matthew 28:6 (KJV) Mark 16:6 (KJV) Luke 24:6 (KJV)

    Romans 10:9 (KJV) 1st Corinthians 15:14 (KJV)

    Trevor: "I know how to drive, man."
    Ricky: "You also know how to be stupid."

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to Nihilo For Your Post:

    Yorzhik (January 5th, 2018)

  14. #686
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    20,249
    Thanks
    3,591
    Thanked 7,777 Times in 4,501 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147822
    Quote Originally Posted by Yorzhik View Post
    The general rule is to meet dialectic with dialectic and rhetoric with rhetoric. You've been a mix of both, so I have too. But I'm seeing a problem with this in that it confuses you
    Hokay. If you're feeling better about yourself let's get on with it.

    So it's been my mistake in that regard. A good debater would have switched to rhetoric completely with you.
    Then let me step over it and cement it to an actual argument or two. No, a skilled debater who couldn't meet the substance would have tried to use rhetorical devices to offset. But ultimately it won't serve.

    Why? Because even you don't believe you. Your camp talks about unfettered right, but none of you believe in it. You create your own artificial impediment to self arming, making a line for reasons that make sense to you or to prop up your present position. So Nihilo talks about the Court's holding on citizen soldiers and you talk about a weapon being discriminatory in its aiming (though in the hands of the untrained, a thing I think you'd balk at mandating, an AK might as well be a bazooka for all the discriminatory aiming that will go on as its used) but all both of you really accomplish with that is to support my contention that there is no unfettered and absolute right and that as with any we restrict it using reason and considering BOTH our collective and individual interests.

    It won't serve you because anywhere we have universal and tough gun laws we have dramatically decreased levels of gun related violence and mass shooting.

    That sort of thing.

    And the truth of the matter continues to gain support as this thread drags on. Your argument that we can take these people's stuff over here because those evil people over there use similar tools for evil is not a good argument.
    And it won't serve you because you're forced to do this sort of thing and most people aren't stupid. So when you have to try to make it about theft of property and some other evil people, instead of what it is actually about, you're going to raise a real red flag. It's about everything from limiting unintended harm (gun safety laws most of you resist) to registering weapons to make them easier to track and individual stock piling easier to note (ditto) to taking weapons capable of mass destruction out of the stream of commerce and as a result out of the hands of the sometimes mentally unstable, sometimes emotionally overcome, and sometimes simply willfully evil people who empirl the rest of us.

    And what it doesn't do is end the right or stop anyone from defending their homes and person. It puts them, in point of fact, in a better position to defend themselves and their property than any citizen soldier had when the founders framed the right.

    Further, we know it won't work because other countries have tried it and it doesn't change existing trends.
    Actually, we know that countries with those universal gun laws have dramatically fewer incidences of gun related violence, and we see that even in states within our own nation.

    The rhetorical slight of hand you repeatedly attempt to use to counter that is to say that violence overall doesn't change when we manage those laws. The response is that mass shootings, horrific as they are, aren't anything like the rule, so they won't dramatically impact the overall arc of violence in this or any nation. Similarly, if I could cure Parkinson disease it wouldn't appreciably impact deaths from disease, but that's no argument against the cure absent a rational argument to leave off. And in the case of weapons that argument can't be, "Because the founders said I could have them." They also said you could have slaves. Else, supra.

    And beyond that, even when you are shown reversible solutions that scale very well, you doggedly pursue non-reversible solutions with religious fervor.
    Nothing in that is true. It's just a big, rhetorical flourish without parts.

    That should be a big red flag to anyone who was considering trusting your ideas.
    They aren't and never have been my ideas. From the start I noted that we have had decades of evidence in testing out what every other Western democracy has (while differing to one extent or another) done to impact gun violence and all of them have been dramatically more successful than our own "more guns equals safer" nonsense.

    A reasonable person would be saying "Before we jump off this cliff, let's take your path and see if it doesn't take us to the water and if it doesn't we'll go back and jump."
    A reasonable person wouldn't characterize laws that would save lives as jumping off a cliff. And that's another problem you have.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  15. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Town Heretic For Your Post:

    Arthur Brain (January 6th, 2018),Rusha (January 14th, 2018)

  16. #687
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    20,249
    Thanks
    3,591
    Thanked 7,777 Times in 4,501 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147822
    Quote Originally Posted by Nihilo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Nihilo View Post
    So having been under fire yourself, your story here is that you'd have not been better off, with a selective fire carbine in that situation? I'm incredulous.
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    What I'd say is that without serious skill and training, and an understanding of how the body behaves in that sort of situation it's foolish to believe a weapon with an automatic function will make you (and especially innocent others) safer.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nihilo View Post
    So yes or no?
    And you can't just slide that quote around. If you tell me what you're unclear about I'll be happy to clarify. Other than that I'll tell you what I told Trad years ago, you can ask for an answer, you can ask for illustration, you can ask for context or clarification, but you can't tell me how to answer.

    One of the things you learn as a trial lawyer is that yes or no demands are almost always made when the person asking for them isn't served by a fuller rendering.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  17. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Town Heretic For Your Post:

    Arthur Brain (January 6th, 2018),Rusha (January 14th, 2018)

  18. #688
    TOL Legend Arthur Brain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Precariously balanced on top of a mineshaft
    Posts
    14,809
    Thanks
    8,990
    Thanked 7,073 Times in 4,708 Posts

    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2147749
    Quote Originally Posted by Yorzhik View Post
    I'll get to the rest of the post later.


    The general rule is to meet dialectic with dialectic and rhetoric with rhetoric. You've been a mix of both, so I have too. But I'm seeing a problem with this in that it confuses you, and thus, one should stick with the lowest common denominator, meaning rhetoric, if one is to discuss a topic at all if there is rhetoric to be answered.

    So it's been my mistake in that regard. A good debater would have switched to rhetoric completely with you. But I'm not entirely interested in a discussion with you, per se, but finding out the truth of the matter for myself.

    And the truth of the matter continues to gain support as this thread drags on. Your argument that we can take these people's stuff over here because those evil people over there use similar tools for evil is not a good argument.

    Further, we know it won't work because other countries have tried it and it doesn't change existing trends.

    And beyond that, even when you are shown reversible solutions that scale very well, you doggedly pursue non-reversible solutions with religious fervor. That should be a big red flag to anyone who was considering trusting your ideas. A reasonable person would be saying "Before we jump off this cliff, let's take your path and see if it doesn't take us to the water and if it doesn't we'll go back and jump."
    Your mistake here has been to attempt to obfuscate with condescension. That type of tired and passive aggressive tactic is completely transparent. Also, I've read through the exchanges on this thread for a while and I've yet to see you outline any actual solutions. A load of spiel wrapped in all sorts of verbiage but solutions, set out in clear and straightforward terms?

    Nope.

    Might wanna get on that.
    Well this is fun isn't it?


  19. The Following User Says Thank You to Arthur Brain For Your Post:

    Rusha (January 14th, 2018)

  20. #689
    Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    17,373
    Thanks
    322
    Thanked 10,603 Times in 7,735 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147826
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Brain View Post
    Your mistake here has been to attempt to obfuscate with condescension. That type of tired and passive aggressive tactic is completely transparent. Also, I've read through the exchanges on this thread for a while and I've yet to see you outline any actual solutions. A load of spiel wrapped in all sorts of verbiage but solutions, set out in clear and straightforward terms?

    Nope.

    Might wanna get on that.


    Arthur's brain.
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    When the world is a monster
    Bad to swallow you whole
    Kick the clay that holds the teeth in
    Throw your trolls out the door

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

  21. #690
    TOL Legend Arthur Brain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Precariously balanced on top of a mineshaft
    Posts
    14,809
    Thanks
    8,990
    Thanked 7,073 Times in 4,708 Posts

    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2147749
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post


    Arthur's brain.
    Yay, Captain Emoticon "Stripes" again!

    Ya pompous loon ya!

    Well this is fun isn't it?


  22. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Arthur Brain For Your Post:

    Rusha (January 14th, 2018),Town Heretic (January 14th, 2018)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us