Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Mass Shooting Las Vegas...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by TheWall View Post
    Cardbord box intensifies.
    what?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
      Guess again.

      That's factually false - only a few had law degrees or were lawyers.

      Worse, it's a DUMB point. Of course they worded the thing carefully - but it's insane to believe they could have foreseen the firepower of WWI - the guys that fought that war weren't ready for it. Heck, that was a major issue in the Civil War as well - firepower began to outstrip military theory by a wide margin.

      The Founding Fathers weren't soothsayers.

      Sorry but your link doesn't seem to support your claim. You might want to point out where it does instead of arguing by weblink.

      If you want to go through this list of the Framers of the Constitution you will find most are lawyers. of the 55 framers, 32 were lawyers, including James Madison.
      https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/founding-fathers

      https://www.usconstitution.net/constframedata.html


      So you think the founding fathers were idiot who didn't assume weapons would be better in the future? That cannons would be bigger and stronger? That guns would be able to shoot more accurately and faster?

      Last edited by Sparko; 10-16-2017, 10:35 AM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
        No, it isn't - it's been part of jurisprudence literally since the time of Moses. See Leviticus. The owner is responsible for properly securing potentially dangerous property - in Leviticus, it's livestock. But the principle is a common one in jurisprudence.
        I'm not familiar with the passage you have in mind. Can you point me to it?

        Is it about securing your cattle against potential thieves?

        I can certainly understand liability for your cattle wandering onto someone else's property and being a nuisance, destructive, or dangerous. And you want to secure your cattle so they can't do that. It would be a different thing to secure them against a malicious person who intentionally lets them out and perhaps also drives them onto someone else's property or stampedes them, etc. The latter is the kind of thing we are talking about with a thief.

        I grew up on a farm, on which we raised cattle. And have been on farms and ranches of neighbors, friends, and family. Everyone tries to secure their cattle with a cattle-proof fence. I never saw anyone with a malicious-person-proof fence. Not even a malicious-person-resistant security. I'm not even sure what that would consist of.

        Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
        A burglar is far less likely to remove a secured safe.
        I mentioned before that burglars specifically target safes, and that I have a friend who had a safe that was stolen by burglars.

        A secret location might be more safe from burglars than in a safe. In which case a requirement to be in a safe could reduce safety.

        And with safes you have varying degrees of security. They have different strengths, different thicknesses, different degrees of security of lock(s).

        And you can secure the safe to varying degrees. You could bolt it to a wood floor. You could bolt it to a concrete floor. You could have the whole safe embedded into a concrete foundation. Different locations could be more or less susceptible to different removal techniques, like chaining it to the back of a truck.

        The safe itself could be hidden somehow.
        You could have a home security service of various degrees of protection.

        And so on. Another way to put my question to you is: According to what criteria do you determine what degree of security is necessary? You say a person is responsible to protect from thieves, and that not just any locked enclosure is sufficient. So it seems you'd need to be specific about what degree is required, and why.


        Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
        Yes, I am stating that just like a back yard fence is insufficient security for a pool,
        I'm not familiar with a requirement beyond that, so that example doesn't help me. Can you explain further?
        Are you talking about the kind of thing where a burglar hurts themselves on your property and then a court finds you liable for their injury? I'm not so sure what I think about those kinds of cases.

        and I don't really think 'if we do X, someone will want Y' is a good argument - it borders on the slippery slope fallacy.
        I didn't mean that as a slippery slope. I meant: Some people in this thread say that a locked home is sufficient. You say being in a safe (of some unspecified degree of security) is required. Other people no doubt would like to require a higher degree of security than you are suggesting. If we ask 100 people, we may get 100 different opinions. My point was not to worry about a slippery slope, but to ask how do we resolve the disagreement. By what objective criteria do we say that you are advocating the correct degree, and the others are suggesting incorrect degrees, whether too high or too low?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
          It's a false argument, however. The Court may err - yes - but part of how we determine if they have erred is looking at case law. The early case law doesn't support this open ended, unlimited Second Amendment interpretation - quite the opposite. Now, either you (general) happen to read better than ANY of the justices that ruled on those early cases - which are closest to the time of ratification and therefore less likely to be in error due to misinterpretation - or you are incorrect about how the Second was intended. I think the latter far more likely.

          When case law supports the Court's findings, the chances of error are reduced - not eliminated. Complete adjudication does not guarantee perfect results. But if you are going to state the Courts repeatedly erred then you need to show in the case law where those errors are occurring.
          I'm not arguing that the early case law on the 2nd Amendement is in error. I'm not familiar with it, and don't know whether their arguments were valid. Rather, I've seen people argue that early case law in general (not regarding the 2nd Amendment) contains serious errors, on crucial matters, some of which errors have set the U.S. down the wrong path ever since. (As an example I referred to the "necessary and proper" clause) This leads me to be wary even of early case law.

          I suppose someone could argue that we should compartmentalize different areas of the Constitution, so that if early case law erred on the "necessary and proper" clause, that that doesn't reduce the degree to which we should trust case law on other parts, like the 2nd Amendment, or in general. But it doesn't seem likely that the early Court's ability to avoid error was compartmentalized like that. And errors on more-crucial matters reduces my blind trust of their judgement in general.

          You would like me to start quoting specific errors in early case law. But I'm not an expert. I'm getting my information second-hand. And it is certainly possible my sources are the ones who are unreliable, rather than early case law. And should keep an open mind there. But it seems enough to be reasonable to not have a blind trust in early case law either.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Roy View Post
            It does not qualify as a mass shooting under the criteria you used to determine there were no recent mass shootings in Australia. This is your argument, not mine. You are laughing at yourself.The point of the exercise is to get you to re-examine and retract your false claim. Until you do, you are doing your cause more harm than good, because anyone who might have been swayed by rational argument will instead be repulsed by your deceptive use of statistics.
            You can't see the wood for the trees. The point being made is that “No other developed nation comes close to the rate of gun violence in America”.

            https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...s-gun-violence

            Leaving aside the shootings of less than four killings as cited by the Guardian, the Las Vegas mass shooting alone more than makes the point...especially, given the umpteen mass shootings with four plus killings as listed here”:

            http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/16/us...cts/index.html

            By contrast Australia has had none in the past 21 years using the same criteria of four plus deaths. Hence the argument for tight gun controls.
            “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
              You can't see the wood for the trees. The point being made is that “No other developed nation comes close to the rate of gun violence in America”.
              My point is that you are making your point using false comparisons, and until you retract them you are repelling rather than convincing.

              Your previous comparison used different definitions of "mass shooting". Your latest one uses a different timescale: 1949-2017 vs 1997-2017. Neither takes account of different population sizes.

              If you can't make your point without fudging the data, then SHUT UP. There are valid arguments for gun control, but they're being drowned out by your incessant idiocy.
              Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

              MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
              MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

              seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Roy View Post
                If you can't make your point without fudging the data, then SHUT UP. There are valid arguments for gun control, but they're being drowned out by your incessant idiocy.
                I think, in all honesty, the gun debate would be a bit more difficult for conservatives if the anti-gun crowd were to stick with actual facts instead of hysteria.
                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Roy View Post
                  My point is that you are making your point using false comparisons, and until you retract them you are repelling rather than convincing.

                  Your previous comparison used different definitions of "mass shooting". Your latest one uses a different timescale: 1949-2017 vs 1997-2017. Neither takes account of different population sizes.

                  If you can't make your point without fudging the data, then SHUT UP. There are valid arguments for gun control, but they're being drowned out by your incessant idiocy.
                  Get a grip, Roy.

                  I am making my point using figures of the number of fatal mass shootings in the USA in recent decades (which are numerous...32 being within a 21 year time scale) and comparing these figures with the mass fatal shootings in Australia in the same period... which is rather straightforward given that there were none.

                  There were fatal mass shootings in Australia before the gun buy-back and the introduction of stringent gun laws...there have been none since. It’s not a difficult concept to grasp; gun control makes a difference.
                  Last edited by Tassman; 10-17-2017, 05:22 AM.
                  “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                  Comment


                  • Study Finds Mass Killings Not On The Rise Over Past Decade

                    CHICAGO (CBS) — Research by of University of Illinois professor has revealed a surprising trend about mass murder in the United States.

                    Contrary to what you might think, mass murders are not on the rise, according to computer science professor Sheldon Jacobson.

                    Jacobson said there were 323 such killings – in which four or more people are killed in one incident – between January 2006 and October 2016. The mass killings appeared to be evenly distributed over that time, meaning their rate remained stable over the past decade, and did not spike during any particular season or year.

                    “The data doesn’t lie. The rate of these events just is not increasing as the perception is given in the media. This is just what it is,” he said.

                    The professor used a decade’s worth of data from USA Today that was cross-checked by the FBI. He said his analysis also found public shooting sprees like the Las Vegas massacre are not the most common type of mass killing.

                    http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2017/10/...sity-illinois/
                    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                    Comment


                    • An Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll shows that the Las Vegas shooting did not change Americans' opinions about guns and gun control.

                      http://www.breitbart.com/california/...-vegas-attack/
                      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                      Than a fool in the eyes of God


                      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                        An Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll shows that the Las Vegas shooting did not change Americans' opinions about guns and gun control.

                        http://www.breitbart.com/california/...-vegas-attack/
                        A poll done by POLITICO/Morning Consult showed a jump in support for stricter gun control but was taken right after the tragedy. This new poll was taken a bit later when emotions cooled off and folks had a chance to think and assess.

                        I'm always still in trouble again

                        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                        Comment


                        • I suppose it depends on how you define "gun control" and how the question is framed. For instance, there was initially broad support for banning bump-stocks, including by the NRA, which could be loosely defined as "gun control" despite not being what most people typically think of when they hear the term. This is one of the reasons polls are so useless.
                          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                          Than a fool in the eyes of God


                          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                            I suppose it depends on how you define "gun control" ...
                            Solid footing, proper balance, good breath control, and a proper grip. Squeeze the trigger between heartbeats.
                            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                            Comment

                            Related Threads

                            Collapse

                            Topics Statistics Last Post
                            Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                            6 responses
                            45 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post whag
                            by whag
                             
                            Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                            42 responses
                            230 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post whag
                            by whag
                             
                            Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                            24 responses
                            104 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post Ronson
                            by Ronson
                             
                            Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                            32 responses
                            173 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                            Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                            72 responses
                            281 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post JimL
                            by JimL
                             
                            Working...
                            X