Originally posted by TheWall
View Post
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.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Mass Shooting Las Vegas...
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Teallaura View PostGuess 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 PostNo, 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.
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 PostA burglar is far less likely to remove a secured safe.
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 PostYes, I am stating that just like a back yard fence is insufficient security for a pool,
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Teallaura View PostIt'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 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 PostIt 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.
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 PostYou 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”.
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 PostIf 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.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Roy View PostMy 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.
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 PostAn 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/
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 PostI suppose it depends on how you define "gun control" ...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
by whag
Yesterday, 08:38 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
|
42 responses
230 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by whag
Yesterday, 03:53 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
|
24 responses
104 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Ronson
Yesterday, 02:40 PM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
|
32 responses
173 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Yesterday, 08:22 AM | ||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
|
72 responses
281 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by JimL
Yesterday, 08:06 PM
|
Comment