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

First Gun Confiscation Killing...

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

  • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    not even close. He did not lie.
    He quoted only one of the definitions of a word, deliberately omitting several others from his source, including the one that was actually relevant.

    What would qualify as a lie-by-omission if that doesn't?
    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
      He quoted only one of the definitions of a word, deliberately omitting several others from his source, including the one that was actually relevant.

      What would qualify as a lie-by-omission if that doesn't?
      That was a debate point and his opinion. Not that accusing a "lie by omission" even falls to the level of what we would moderate around here. Which means LPOT doesn't have to support her roundabout way of saying that about you by claiming how ironic your comment was either. I was just pointing out that you making such a demand of her for not even actually accusing you of lying was hypocritical since you didn't support your previous accusation (which I erroneously thought you had used against her)

      I am just trying to get you both to stop it.

      ------Decorum-----
      Lying
      We consider a lie to be a poster knowingly and willfully making a statement they know to be untrue. If you call someone a liar you need to substantiate it. In order to substantiate an accusation of lying, it must be shown that the poster in question is stating something they know to be untrue. Opinions or facts that are in dispute should never be referred to as lies. Someone's faith or beliefs should also never be referred to as lying. We will not allow repeated accusations of lying. We will moderate any tossing out the term "liar" - and similar charges - when it is used in place of a response or as a mere insult to denigrate the other person, as judged by the moderators. We will also not allow repeated posts calling someone a liar, accusing them of lying, or claiming their post is a lie. If you wish to challenge the truth of someone's statement, then do so ONLY ONCE in the thread, and substantiate your claim IN THE SAME POST. Further discussion of the matter will only be allowed in the Padded Room.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
        I didn’t, you read it that way because you are determined to read the worst in those you disagree with while ironically attacking Trump for doing the same thing.
        Your initial question was tautalogical, it had no answer. Laws don't stop people from committing crimes. We don't make laws because they stop crime. We make laws because their application and enforcement are critical to maintaining a civilization.

        What I asked is to explain how gun control suggestions would have helped prevent shootings. You choose to read it as a ‘taunt’ because you want to believe the worst of your opponents.
        No I read your declaration I had nothing to say as a 'taunt' which it was. However, you have 'taunt' in quotes. Surely you didn't read 'tautological' as some form of the word 'taunt' - did you? Surely not.


        Second, no you haven’t because your suggestions don’t fit the reality. I can’t think of a mass shooter that used the supposed ‘gun show loophole’ to purchase a single weapon, this why I asked the question I asked.
        I never made an analysis of each mass shooting and then tried to correlate them with which laws might have had a chance of stopping them. My comments about gun shows was an example of a place where loopholes exist in some states allowing the purchase of firearms w/o a background check.

        Source: wikipedia: gun show loophole

        Since the mid-1990s, gun control advocates have voiced concern over the loophole in legislation, and campaigned to require background checks and record-keeping for all gun sales. Gun rights advocates have stated that there is no loophole, that current laws provide a single, uniform set of rules for commercial gun sellers regardless of the place of sale, and that the United States Constitution does not empower the federal government to regulate non-commercial, intrastate transfers of legal firearms between private citizens.

        © Copyright Original Source



        Likewise, treating people with mental illnesses as though they are common criminals that can snap and kill is horrible and contradicts the goal of increased mental healthcare. You can’t have increased care, treatment, and awareness of a group while treating them like common criminals Jim.
        Never once advocated for treating people with mental illness like 'common criminals'. I would advocate for prevention of the sale of guns to people with mental illnesses that affect their judgment, perception of reality, or that negatively affect their emotional state and capacity for self-control (such as significant anger control issues). A gun is not something that can be responsibly managed if a mental illness affects a person in those ways.



        The ‘assault rifle’ ban is just a ‘scary looking rifle ban’ that does little else than ban rifles based on what plastic parts are attached. See, just as I find out you want ‘action’ without understanding what these actions are where you let experts think for you vs seeing their ‘suggestions’ as little more than show that punishes the innocent, does little to nothing to solve problems, but ‘feels good’.So thus it’s liked.
        That is just weird. And somehow I doubt the people slaughtered in Las Vegas would characterize an assault rifle that way. They are capable of much more damage than a typical rifle or handgun. They are weapons designed not for hunting or self-defense, but for war or mass 'assaults'.

        Your final suggestion is really funny and shows a lack of awareness. Tanks and machine guns are century old weapons that can be defeated.
        Not modern tanks like the M1, not with pistols and rifles

        Atom bombs destroy everything and are useless if your goal is to conquer.
        But quote effective it your goal is mayhem and destruction or just eliminating a threat.

        The past 70 years is chopped full of examples of technology advanced armies getting routed by people with guns. It should be obvious that your assertion is wrong.
        That would be an interesting discussion. I doubt very much is was just 'guns' (e.e pistols and rifles) that were the deciding factor, but rather in concert with more modern hand-held weapons (hand held machine guns, rocket launchers, IED's etc), but feel free to make your case.


        Jim
        My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

        If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

        This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

        Comment


        • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

          That is just weird. And somehow I doubt the people slaughtered in Las Vegas would characterize an assault rifle that way. They are capable of much more damage than a typical rifle or handgun. They are weapons designed not for hunting or self-defense, but for war or mass 'assaults'.
          Banning ACTUAL assault rifles I can see, like machine guns like AK-47s and M16s. But AR-15s are NOT assault rifles. They are just semi-automatic rifles like any other hunting rifle, but with "scary bits" on them as Lpot said.



          The ammo used in an AR-15 is basically a .22 bullet.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            Banning ACTUAL assault rifles I can see, like machine guns like AK-47s and M16s. But AR-15s are NOT assault rifles. They are just semi-automatic rifles like any other hunting rifle, but with "scary bits" on them as Lpot said.



            The ammo used in an AR-15 is basically a .22 bullet.
            It is always educational to ask someone who wants to ban "assault weapons"[1] to explain the difference between them and a semi-automatic firearm.









            1. Not assault rifles which is a totally different thing. "Assault weapons" is a nebulous term that has everything to do with cosmetics (appearance) and nothing to do with functionality

            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


            • Originally posted by Roy View Post
              A link from your own source lists 80 fatalities this year so far. That's a lot more than half of 112, and there's still 6 weeks left to go.
              Interesting that from that long post with points, your only contribution is to nit pick and correct my math once again.

              Unfortunately, the link you're referring to is blocked by my companies firewall so I never saw that one. I would have sworn I counted 58 on a Wiki page somewhere, but now I can't seem to find it. There's THIS Article from the Washington Post updated Nov. 9, 2018 that listed the deaths at 68, (Look in the 4th paragraph there's a reference to Gun violence archive Says "Public mass shootings are a small slice of gun deaths" Mass shootings | 68 deaths. So, using that number the correct statement would be 60% of 112 not 50% as I previously stated. STILL a ridiculously low number in contrast to many other things.
              "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

              "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                Banning ACTUAL assault rifles I can see, like machine guns like AK-47s and M16s. But AR-15s are NOT assault rifles. They are just semi-automatic rifles like any other hunting rifle, but with "scary bits" on them as Lpot said.



                The ammo used in an AR-15 is basically a .22 bullet.
                Source: wikipedia

                In 1956, ArmaLite designed a lightweight assault rifle for military use and designated it the ArmaLite Rifle-15, or AR-15.[7][8] Due to financial problems and limitations in terms of manpower and production capacity, ArmaLite sold the design and the AR-15 trademark along with the ArmaLite AR-10 to Colt's Manufacturing Company in 1959.[9] In 1964, Colt began selling its own version with an improved semi-automatic design known as the Colt AR-15.[10] After Colt's patents expired in 1977, an active marketplace emerged for other manufacturers to produce and sell their own semi-automatic AR-15 style rifles.[1] Some versions of the AR-15 were classified as "assault weapons" and banned under the Federal Assault Weapons Ban

                © Copyright Original Source



                Source: washington post

                The AR was designed for speedy reloading in combat situations, and it can fire dozens of rounds in seconds. The butt of the rifle, or the stock, has a large internal spring that absorbs the shock of each firing. The low recoil makes it easier to shoot and is more accurate than earlier military weapons. It can also be easily customized by adding scopes, lasers and more.

                © Copyright Original Source



                It is, in fact, simply the civilian version of the fully automatic military version: the M-16.


                Jim
                Last edited by oxmixmudd; 11-20-2018, 02:49 PM.
                My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                Comment


                • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                  Source: wikipedia

                  In 1956, ArmaLite designed a lightweight assault rifle for military use and designated it the ArmaLite Rifle-15, or AR-15.[7][8] Due to financial problems and limitations in terms of manpower and production capacity, ArmaLite sold the design and the AR-15 trademark along with the ArmaLite AR-10 to Colt's Manufacturing Company in 1959.[9] In 1964, Colt began selling its own version with an improved semi-automatic design known as the Colt AR-15.[10] After Colt's patents expired in 1977, an active marketplace emerged for other manufacturers to produce and sell their own semi-automatic AR-15 style rifles.[1] Some versions of the AR-15 were classified as "assault weapons" and banned under the Federal Assault Weapons Ban

                  © Copyright Original Source



                  Source: washington post

                  The AR was designed for speedy reloading in combat situations, and it can fire dozens of rounds in seconds. The butt of the rifle, or the stock, has a large internal spring that absorbs the shock of each firing. The low recoil makes it easier to shoot and is more accurate than earlier military weapons. It can also be easily customized by adding scopes, lasers and more.

                  © Copyright Original Source



                  It is, in fact, simply the civilian version of the fully automatic military version: the M-16.


                  Jim
                  And it is exactly the same as that hunting rifle shown above. You can buy the same type of magazines for "rapid reloading" as in the AR-15. You can buy shock absorbing stocks for regular rifles. You can add scopes (one is in the photo) and lasers and more. A semi-automatic rifle is not an assault rifle. Like lpot said, it is just banning a gun because it looks scary. It functions just like any other semi-automatic rifle. It is not a machine gun. You get one shot per trigger pull. The m16 can shoot off 15 rounds a second.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Littlejoe View Post

                    And with that last statement, many of us who have long respected you, your posting style, and your opinions, have lost all that respect...
                    I lost all respect here with the Christians posting when it became clear I do not support Donald Trump. It has little to do with that comment.


                    I have a friend who's an ex-marine. He once told me that other countries are afraid to invade the US (a la "Red Dawn") because they know that so many Americans are armed. Just parading down the street would be a massacre for them. Numbers matter in a battle. Superior weapons have a definite advantage, but are by no means decisive.


                    We feel those of you who want to curb OUR ability to fight back as the one's having blood on their hands. Notice that most of these shooting happen in gun free zones? There's a reason for that.
                    I have heard that said before. I don't know if I believe it to be true, at the same time, I can understand how a bunch of people with guns would be a little less easy to take out than people without guns. It just depends on how far the invader is willing to go. Not much help against a nerve agent. Hard to hide from mustard gas. High tech killer drones carrying laser guided munitions? Seriously?

                    In the interests of honesty which is so rare on these pages, yes I can see how it could make things more difficult. And I am not against private gun ownership per se. I'm not scared of guns in that I'm a fairly good shot and enjoy shooting. I'm just not sure it could be considered a serious deterrent, and I'm not sure it's worth what we see in the inner cities and gangs, the mass shootings, cases of mistaken identity and accidental deaths due to improper handling or storage, the suicides and the domestic violence.

                    A gun is just too easy. Knives, bows and arrows, they are much messier, much more difficult to use and to learn to use. And we need to make sure they are not easily available to people we KNOW have a good chance of misusing them. My main complaint is the refusal to implement common sense laws due to the paranoid fear of incrementally losing the whole enchilada. It is just stupid and in my mind immoral to sit back and not only do nothing but to literally fight all efforts to do something because we anticipate some time in the future maybe someone will go too far.


                    Jim
                    My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                    If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                    This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                      And it is exactly the same as that hunting rifle shown above. You can buy the same type of magazines for "rapid reloading" as in the AR-15. You can buy shock absorbing stocks for regular rifles. You can add scopes (one is in the photo) and lasers and more. A semi-automatic rifle is not an assault rifle. Like lpot said, it is just banning a gun because it looks scary. It functions just like any other semi-automatic rifle. It is not a machine gun. You get one shot per trigger pull. The m16 can shoot off 15 rounds a second.
                      The fact that rifles are advanced enough at this point that a modern hunting rifle has the capability of specially designed military weapon from the 1950's is NOT an argument in your favor Sparko. It is a BIG part of the problem. The power of the weapons for public sale today could have allowed a relatively small group of people to overrun the American Colonies in the year the 2nd amendment was penned. There is just too much power available for too small a price to let it be made available to the random person without some sort of a filter. Couple that with the many societal ills we deal with today that tend to destabilize people and it just doesn't make sense anymore.


                      Jim

                      ETA: I do not mean to gloss over your point concerning 'typical'. I did say 'typical hunting rifle', and I will admit my image of the 'typical hunting rifle' is from the late '60 and in fact was that of an old single shot 30.06. So I definitely need to update my understanding of what a 'typical hunting rifle' is these days.
                      Last edited by oxmixmudd; 11-20-2018, 03:20 PM.
                      My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                      If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                      This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                        The fact that rifles are advanced enough at this point that a modern hunting rifle has the capability of specially designed military weapon from the 1950's is NOT an argument in your favor Sparko. It is a BIG part of the problem. The power of the weapons for public sale today could have allowed a relatively small group of people to overrun the American Colonies in the year the 2nd amendment was penned. There is just too much power available for too small a price to let it be made available to the random person without some sort of a filter. Couple that with the many societal ills we deal with today that tend to destabilize people and it just doesn't make sense anymore.


                        Jim

                        ETA: I do not mean to gloss over your point concerning 'typical'. I did say 'typical hunting rifle', and I will admit my image of the 'typical hunting rifle' is from the late '60 and in fact was that of an old single shot 30.06. So I definitely need to update my understanding of what a 'typical hunting rifle' is these days.
                        It doesn't have the same capability as a SEVENTY YEAR OLD military weapon.

                        You might be able to pull off a shot a second if you don't care about aiming or you are a very good shot. Compared to shooting off 15 rounds a second with an m16. Just because you can buy various accessories doesn't make a rifle a military weapon or have the same capabilities.

                        And I believe M16 ammo is more powerful than an AR15's.

                        Comment


                        • This seems relevant:

                          Source: Study: 97.8% of Mass Shootings Since 1950 Occurred in ‘Gun-Free Zones’

                          Findings from the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) show that 97.8 percent of mass shootings over a 68-year period occurred in “gun-free zones.”

                          The study covers 1950 through May 2018. Otherwise, it would also include the November 7, 2018, mass public attack at Borderline Bar & Grill, in which 12 were killed. The November 19, 2018, attack at Chicago Mercy Hospital, where three were killed, would not be listed because it does not meet FBI criteria for a mass shooting, but it should, nevertheless, be noted that Borderline Bar and Mercy Hospital were both state-mandated gun-free zones.

                          According to CPRC, 97.8 percent of mass public shootings from 1950 to May 2018 occurred in gun-free zones. These include the Virginia Tech University attack, which killed 32 (April 16, 2007); the Fort Hood attack, which killed 13 (November 5, 2009); the Aurora movie theater attack, which killed 12 (July 20, 2012); the Sandy Hook Elementary School attack, which killed 26 (December 12, 2014); the D.C. Navy Yard attack, which killed 13 (September 16, 2013); the Chattanooga military base attack, which killed 5 (July 16, 2015); the Umpqua Community College attack, which killed 9 (October 1, 2015); the San Bernardino attack, which killed 14 (December 2, 2015); the Orlando Pulse attack, which killed 49 (June 12, 2016); the Parkland high school attack, which killed 17 (February 14, 2018); and the Santa Fe High School attack, which killed 10 (May 18, 2018).

                          For the purposes of highlighting errors in a report by Michael Bloomberg-funded Everytown for Gun Safety, CPRC also shows figures for a condensed time frame, from January 1998 to December 2015, demonstrating that even in that shorter period, 96.2 percent of all mass public shootings occurred in gun-free zones.

                          https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...un-free-zones/

                          © Copyright Original Source

                          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 oxmixmudd View Post
                            I lost all respect here with the Christians posting when it became clear I do not support Donald Trump.
                            No you didn't.

                            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


                            • Originally posted by oxmixmuddle View Post
                              I lost all respect here with the Christians posting when it became clear I do not support Donald Trump.
                              No, it's because you're a self-righteous hypocrite.
                              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
                                No, it's because you're a self-righteous hypocrite.
                                I see. Do you get a little tingle of glee saying that?
                                Last edited by oxmixmudd; 11-20-2018, 04:38 PM.
                                My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                                If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                                This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                180 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                416 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                85 responses
                                387 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X