50 dead in Florida

Duck and cover
bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10234
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: 50 dead in Florida

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Aug 21, 2016 2:56 pm

No.
As do we all.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26378
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: 50 dead in Florida

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Aug 22, 2016 2:19 am

psychiatry is a scam wrote: I can not imagine how a good rifle would not function as long as each round is ok .

You obviously don't know about ranging and sight management. You have to set up the rifle based on homogeneous ordinance.

psychiatry is a scam wrote:how can a rifle tell if one bullet is perfect and the next one is not ?
When your second shot falls short, or goes to far, and goes whizzing in a different direction.

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: 50 dead in Florida

Postby Venerable Kwan Tam Woo » Thu Aug 25, 2016 12:59 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Kwan

Like many fanatics, you argue by denying facts. As it happens, I have a lot of facts about suicide at my fingertips, due to being part of a major debate on the subject on another forum, and having done the internet research at the time. I read a number of essays on the subject, by those who carry out research into this weird behaviour.


Seriously?? I have appealed and provided links to facts throughout this thread. So tell me, where are all these facts and essays you claim to have?

According to the New England Journal of Medicine, simply having a gun in the house increases the likelihood of a member of your family successfully committing suicide by a factor of two to ten fold.


Where in the New England Journal of Medicine? Why don't you provide a proper citation?

Whether two, ten or something in between depends on how securely the gun is stored. A hand gun in a drawer, which is no security at all, increases likelihood of suicide by ten fold.


So what you're saying is that the likelihood of suicide could be reduced by 80% without having to introduce any government gun control.

Bearing in mind that the vast majority of suicide attempts are done with drug overdose, which normally fails, making an easy and effective method available, (guns) will increase the number of deaths dramatically.


Where's your citation?

On the suicide rate in the USA.
I already agreed it was not especially high. But that is due to fewer ATTEMPTS. The percentage of attempts that succeed is higher, due to ready access to guns. Fewer guns will not affect the number of ATTEMPTS , but will reduce the number that result in death. Dramatically.


Again, where's your citation?

One of the interesting aspects of suicide is that most (not all, but most) attempts at suicide are done more or less on impulse. A person who is depressed suddenly decides to end it all. That impulse lasts for a period of time, usually from a few minutes to a few hours.


Citation?

Since depression is an illness that waxes and wanes, a person who survives the suicide impulse is likely to live out his/her life in full.


Wouldn't the waxing and waning nature of depression make suicidal impulses recurrent? How is a person going to live out their life "in full" if they have recurrent suicidal thoughts, especially given that depression tends to feed on itself in the long term in spite of said waxing and waning?
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: 50 dead in Florida

Postby Venerable Kwan Tam Woo » Thu Aug 25, 2016 1:06 pm

Paul Anthony wrote:
The type of guns most often targeted for banning are AR-15 and weapons similar to them.

Since you have "a lot of facts about suicide at my fingertips" please tell us how many suicides are committed with so-called assault weapons. Then tell us how the suicide rate will be reduced by banning assault weapons. Hey, let's expand on this. How many suicides will be prevented by banning weapons that hold more than 10 rounds, 'cause we all know people who commit suicide need to fire lots of rounds. :roll:


They can't make a compelling case for assault weapons bans based on homicides or accidental death rates, so they resort to pushing for assault weapons bans based on the number of people who kill themselves with handguns. Pathetic, isn't it.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7372
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: 50 dead in Florida

Postby TJrandom » Sun Aug 28, 2016 10:54 pm

The case for assault weapons ban is fully supported by the mass murders in which they are used plus the fact that nobody needs to assault anyone outside of the military and police.

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: 50 dead in Florida

Postby Venerable Kwan Tam Woo » Mon Aug 29, 2016 4:36 am

TJrandom wrote:The case for assault weapons ban is fully supported by the mass murders in which they are used plus the fact that nobody needs to assault anyone outside of the military and police.


If Goebbels were alive he'd be laughing his ass off to know that people actually "think" this way.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7372
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: 50 dead in Florida

Postby TJrandom » Mon Aug 29, 2016 8:10 am

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
TJrandom wrote:The case for assault weapons ban is fully supported by the mass murders in which they are used plus the fact that nobody needs to assault anyone outside of the military and police.


If Goebbels were alive he'd be laughing his ass off to know that people actually "think" this way.


Why is it that alt-rightists answer with suppositional statements which couldn`t possibly be confirmed?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10234
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: 50 dead in Florida

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Aug 29, 2016 8:23 am

The ever popular appeal to the Straw Man Authority.

aka: simple BS.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3077
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: 50 dead in Florida

Postby ElectricMonk » Mon Aug 29, 2016 8:32 am

There is one reason why pro-gun people use the 'defend against tyranny' argument:

they don't know {!#%@} about tyranny and war.

The USA never had any existential threat in it's history. It was never occupied by a foreign power, it was never under totalitarian rule. None of that has anything to do with the 2nd Amendment and everything to do with geographic location.

Hoarders of guns&ammo are like kids who sleep with their hockey-stick to fight of the monsters under the bed: there aren't any, and if there were, your stick would not help.
Private guns are nothing but a security blanket that occasionally suffocates someone (intentionally or unintentionally).

Any man with military experience can tell you that having a weapon means nothing without training as a group to fight off an organized military. You could give weapon-nuts RPGs and it wouldn't matter if President Trump decides to impose indefinite Martial Law.
Also, every survivor of WW2 in Europe (or any other conflict the world over) will tell you that having a weapon in the house is no help whatsoever: you either get drafted or shot if someone knows you can handle a weapon.

American citizens just have no clue about war, since they never had to experience them. They also don't know what a dictatorship is like, otherwise they'd stop talking so much nonsense about their political opponents.

All in all: being able to argue about gun rights is a LUXURY Americans can indulge in because they have a care-free live when it comes to the security of their country.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10234
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: 50 dead in Florida

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Aug 29, 2016 8:42 am

Slightly more than a quibble but in our early years, there was an existential threat from Britain which is why the 2nd Amendment was passed. Somewhat heightened when the Brits burned the Whitehouse to the ground.

The Cold War with Nuclear Winter in the offing was not a worry free time either..... still present and even expanded ... but hardly thought of any more.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3077
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: 50 dead in Florida

Postby ElectricMonk » Mon Aug 29, 2016 8:52 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Slightly more than a quibble but in our early years, there was an existential threat from Britain which is why the 2nd Amendment was passed. Somewhat heightened when the Brits burned the Whitehouse to the ground.

The Cold War with Nuclear Winter in the offing was not a worry free time either..... still present and even expanded ... but hardly thought of any more.


it wasn't anything like the current USA then, was it?
And while there was a lot of hyperbole about the Cold War, even the most fanatical hawks didn't think the USSR would invade us - just nuke us.

No, Americans just have no sense of being powerless, which makes us often impotent in using the power we have.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10234
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: 50 dead in Florida

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Aug 29, 2016 9:04 am

ElectricMonk wrote:it wasn't anything like the current USA then, was it?


Correct. Highlighting your overly broad statement saying we "never had." Better be careful with that phrasing as Paul has that caution right in his signature line.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3077
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: 50 dead in Florida

Postby ElectricMonk » Mon Aug 29, 2016 10:51 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
ElectricMonk wrote:it wasn't anything like the current USA then, was it?


Correct. Highlighting your overly broad statement saying we "never had." Better be careful with that phrasing as Paul has that caution right in his signature line.


Let me elaborate then: when Americans think of war abroad, they think History Channel: Aircraft Carriers, Battleships, Stealth Bombers, Cruise Missiles, smart bombs, SEAL Teams and drones.

When they think war on US soil, they think Muskets, blunderbusses, cavalry and canons.

It is this romantic idea of the War of Independence that makes having a firearm the in the (a.k.a. "I'm a Minuteman!") sound reasonable and appealing. But it has nothing to do with modern warfare.

People in other countries fight for their lives and everything they hold dear, using firearms, bombs, rpgs and everything else they can get their hands on, and they die at a rate of 100:1 against the occupiers, civilians casualties not included.

The 2nd Amendment might provide more than a fig-leaf of protection against an actual enemy if it was exercised in the way intended, i.e. within a militia. But armed individuals are and always have been irrelevant in terms of warfare.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10234
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: 50 dead in Florida

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Aug 29, 2016 11:12 am

ElectricMonk wrote: Let me elaborate then: ......

The 2nd Amendment might provide more than a fig-leaf of protection against an actual enemy if it was exercised in the way intended, i.e. within a militia. But armed individuals are and always have been irrelevant in terms of warfare.


Not the issue you raised at all. Yes, I see it was tangential...but not at all the point you actually made.

While basically agreeing, I will quibble. Citizens having lots of guns hidden away would not stop a military invasion...but it could well hamper any military occupation. It doesn't take long for individuals to form groups...especially when confronted by a common enemy. Its the nature of man.

what protects America..............is our Oceans.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3077
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: 50 dead in Florida

Postby ElectricMonk » Mon Aug 29, 2016 11:29 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
what protects America..............is our Oceans.



as I mentioned in my post above.

No, it doesn't matter how many guns someone has: an occupier would park some drones overhead and would know in almost real-time who organizes into impromptu-militias. Knowing who has a service record is also easy.
And how do you think people today will manage to organize without using internet of phones?
ISIS and other groups have learned for decades to stay hidden and even they fail.

Can private firearms be a nuisance to occupiers?
Sure.

can they kick the occupiers out?
No.

But that is all irrelevant because no one is ever going to try to invade the US: there is no possible gain.
If China or Russia attack, it will be to push the US off its military bases around the world and degrade our offensive capabilities. This is not 1941, when a Japanese invasion was imminent.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Paul Anthony
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2783
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:23 pm
Custom Title: The other god
Location: The desert
Contact:

Re: 50 dead in Florida

Postby Paul Anthony » Mon Aug 29, 2016 10:07 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
ElectricMonk wrote:it wasn't anything like the current USA then, was it?


Correct. Highlighting your overly broad statement saying we "never had." Better be careful with that phrasing as Paul has that caution right in his signature line.


Let me elaborate then: when Americans think of war abroad, they think History Channel: Aircraft Carriers, Battleships, Stealth Bombers, Cruise Missiles, smart bombs, SEAL Teams and drones.

When they think war on US soil, they think Muskets, blunderbusses, cavalry and canons.

It is this romantic idea of the War of Independence that makes having a firearm the in the (a.k.a. "I'm a Minuteman!") sound reasonable and appealing. But it has nothing to do with modern warfare.

People in other countries fight for their lives and everything they hold dear, using firearms, bombs, rpgs and everything else they can get their hands on, and they die at a rate of 100:1 against the occupiers, civilians casualties not included.

The 2nd Amendment might provide more than a fig-leaf of protection against an actual enemy if it was exercised in the way intended, i.e. within a militia. But armed individuals are and always have been irrelevant in terms of warfare.


Apparently you know little about the battles in Viet Nam, or the resistance fighters in Europe during WWII, or the snipers in Afghanistan, or...
In other words, you don't know {!#%@} about "modern warfare". The US and it's "civilized" allies have been using modern weapons against locals with rifles - and losing - for many years.

But I think very few gun owners think they will have to fight a foreign enemy on US soil. More think they might have to fight a tyrannical government that is much more local.

The vast majority of gun owners have guns as protection from criminals, not armies. Criminals don't use "modern warfare". Kinda makes your argument irrelevant.
People who say ALWAYS and NEVER are usually wrong, part of the time.
Science answers questions, Philosophy questions answers.
Make sense, not war.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7372
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: 50 dead in Florida

Postby TJrandom » Mon Aug 29, 2016 10:33 pm

Paul Anthony wrote:... The US and it's "civilized" allies have been using modern weapons against locals with rifles - and losing - for many years.

But I think very few gun owners think they will have to fight a foreign enemy on US soil. More think they might have to fight a tyrannical government that is much more local. ...


The loss in Vietnam wasn`t a loss to rag-tag individuals with their long flint lock rifles - but against a modern army which used its superior knowledge of the enemy to win. The US just wasn`t willing to use all-out warfare and at the same time wasn`t willing to lose more men.

Any US gun owners who think they can snipe their way to a different government will be wiped out in short order by the combined police and military forces of their supposedly tyrannical government.

User avatar
Paul Anthony
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2783
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:23 pm
Custom Title: The other god
Location: The desert
Contact:

Re: 50 dead in Florida

Postby Paul Anthony » Mon Aug 29, 2016 11:29 pm

TJrandom wrote:
Paul Anthony wrote:... The US and it's "civilized" allies have been using modern weapons against locals with rifles - and losing - for many years.

But I think very few gun owners think they will have to fight a foreign enemy on US soil. More think they might have to fight a tyrannical government that is much more local. ...


The loss in Vietnam wasn`t a loss to rag-tag individuals with their long flint lock rifles - but against a modern army which used its superior knowledge of the enemy to win. The US just wasn`t willing to use all-out warfare and at the same time wasn`t willing to lose more men.

Any US gun owners who think they can snipe their way to a different government will be wiped out in short order by the combined police and military forces of their supposedly tyrannical government.


Probably, but they would be a pain in the ass for a long time. Still, I doubt it will ever come to that.

You responded to that portion of my post you thought you had the best chance of winning, but conveniently ignored this:

The vast majority of gun owners have guns as protection from criminals, not armies. Criminals don't use "modern warfare".
People who say ALWAYS and NEVER are usually wrong, part of the time.
Science answers questions, Philosophy questions answers.
Make sense, not war.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3077
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: 50 dead in Florida

Postby ElectricMonk » Tue Aug 30, 2016 12:19 am

The 2ND ammendment is supposed to protect against tyranny, not crime.
It's terrible how many people equate police with military.
The state is the only legitimate user of violence: we have authorized it to use, if necessary, for to uphold the law.
No one else can use force to get what they want, even if a judge might later rule it to be OK.
We have created the illusion that self-defense is always OK, but most of the time it actually isn't - it's just not current policy of prosecutors in most states to charge persons for hurting an attacker.
Using a gun against others makes you a criminal, though we often pretend it doesn't.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Paul Anthony
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2783
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:23 pm
Custom Title: The other god
Location: The desert
Contact:

Re: 50 dead in Florida

Postby Paul Anthony » Tue Aug 30, 2016 12:33 am

ElectricMonk wrote:The 2ND ammendment is supposed to protect against tyranny, not crime.
It's terrible how many people equate police with military.
The state is the only legitimate user of violence: we have authorized it to use, if necessary, for to uphold the law.
No one else can use force to get what they want, even if a judge might later rule it to be OK.
We have created the illusion that self-defense is always OK, but most of the time it actually isn't - it's just not current policy of prosecutors in most states to charge persons for hurting an attacker.
Using a gun against others makes you a criminal, though we often pretend it doesn't.


The Castle Doctrine is recognized in most states. It gives one the right to defend oneself or other occupants of one's home against force by another.
Stand Your Ground has been recognized by some states. It gives one the right to defend oneself or others outside the home against force by another.

So, where do you get "No one else can use force..."

If you truly believe people don't have a basic right to defend themselves, then all other rights are meaningless.
People who say ALWAYS and NEVER are usually wrong, part of the time.
Science answers questions, Philosophy questions answers.
Make sense, not war.

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: 50 dead in Florida

Postby Venerable Kwan Tam Woo » Tue Aug 30, 2016 1:44 am

Paul Anthony wrote:If you truly believe people don't have a basic right to defend themselves, then all other rights are meaningless.


QFT
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: 50 dead in Florida

Postby Venerable Kwan Tam Woo » Tue Aug 30, 2016 1:51 am

TJrandom wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
TJrandom wrote:The case for assault weapons ban is fully supported by the mass murders in which they are used plus the fact that nobody needs to assault anyone outside of the military and police.


If Goebbels were alive he'd be laughing his ass off to know that people actually "think" this way.


Why is it that alt-rightists answer with suppositional statements which couldn`t possibly be confirmed?


Why is it that libtards are incapable of understanding hyperbole? Why is it that mass shootings such as the Bataclan massacre and the Munich shopping centre massacre still happen in countries with tight gun control?
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: 50 dead in Florida

Postby Venerable Kwan Tam Woo » Tue Aug 30, 2016 2:32 am

ElectricMonk wrote:There is one reason why pro-gun people use the 'defend against tyranny' argument:

they don't know {!#%@} about tyranny and war.



You don't know {!#%@} about pro-gun people.

The USA never had any existential threat in it's history. It was never occupied by a foreign power, it was never under totalitarian rule. None of that has anything to do with the 2nd Amendment and everything to do with geographic location.


The War of Independence. Look it up. And while you're at it, look up how the rights and freedoms of the American people have been slowly but surely eviscerated since then, including and especially with the advent of the Patriot Acts.

Hoarders of guns&ammo are like kids who sleep with their hockey-stick to fight of the monsters under the bed: there aren't any, and if there were, your stick would not help.
Private guns are nothing but a security blanket that occasionally suffocates someone (intentionally or unintentionally).


How do you manage to pack so much multi-faceted stupidity into so few words??

Any man with military experience can tell you that having a weapon means nothing without training as a group to fight off an organized military.


Funny you should mention that. The militias referred to in the 2nd Amendment were basically abolished and outlawed by the Federal Government many decades ago. The main reason they did this was to grab more power for themselves, but a side-benefit is that they created a fraudulent justification which they could sell to the useful idiots among us for ultimately destroying peoples' 2nd amendment rights entirely.

You could give weapon-nuts RPGs and it wouldn't matter if President Trump decides to impose indefinite Martial Law.


And you know this how??

Also, every survivor of WW2 in Europe (or any other conflict the world over) will tell you that having a weapon in the house is no help whatsoever: you either get drafted or shot if someone knows you can handle a weapon.


Every survivor of every conflict?! Really?? I hope you can back that up with reliable sources!

American citizens just have no clue about war, since they never had to experience them. They also don't know what a dictatorship is like, otherwise they'd stop talking so much nonsense about their political opponents.


What history books (if any) have you been reading?? Americans have plenty of experience of war, the just haven't experienced military conflict on US soil in the last several decades. This is largely due to the fact that the US has not been taken over from within by totalitarians movements like the Nazis or Communists, and this in turn is largely due to the fact that widespread private gun ownership makes would-be totalitarian movements much more reluctant to try it on in the first place.

Americans know full-well what dictatorship is like; the world is choc-full of examples, and the kind of American who gives a damn about their natural rights is not the kind of American who is going to turn a blind eye to the world around them in order to watch Keeping up with the Kardashians instead.

All in all: being able to argue about gun rights is a LUXURY Americans can indulge in because they have a care-free live when it comes to the security of their country.


No, being able to argue about gun rights is STILL A POSSIBILITY because Americans have cared about their individual rights enough to stand up for them when they perceived them to be under threat.
Last edited by Venerable Kwan Tam Woo on Tue Aug 30, 2016 4:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7372
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: 50 dead in Florida

Postby TJrandom » Tue Aug 30, 2016 3:14 am

Paul Anthony wrote: ... You responded to that portion of my post you thought you had the best chance of winning, but conveniently ignored this:

The vast majority of gun owners have guns as protection from criminals, not armies. Criminals don't use "modern warfare".


I frequently do not respond to portions of posts with which I agree.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7372
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: 50 dead in Florida

Postby TJrandom » Tue Aug 30, 2016 3:24 am

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
TJrandom wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
TJrandom wrote:The case for assault weapons ban is fully supported by the mass murders in which they are used plus the fact that nobody needs to assault anyone outside of the military and police.


If Goebbels were alive he'd be laughing his ass off to know that people actually "think" this way.


Why is it that alt-rightists answer with suppositional statements which couldn`t possibly be confirmed?


Why is it that libtards are incapable of understanding hyperbole? Why is it that mass shootings such as the Bataclan massacre and the Munich shopping centre massacre still happen in countries with tight gun control?


Wouldn`t know about libtards, never having met one - but I assure you that liberals understand your hyperbole just fine. Your Bataclan/Munich Shopping center question being a perfect example - since terrorists and mentally ill people will find a way in a world awash in guns. Without guns being available, not so much.

User avatar
Paul Anthony
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2783
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:23 pm
Custom Title: The other god
Location: The desert
Contact:

Re: 50 dead in Florida

Postby Paul Anthony » Tue Aug 30, 2016 4:11 am

TJrandom wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
TJrandom wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
TJrandom wrote:The case for assault weapons ban is fully supported by the mass murders in which they are used plus the fact that nobody needs to assault anyone outside of the military and police.


If Goebbels were alive he'd be laughing his ass off to know that people actually "think" this way.


Why is it that alt-rightists answer with suppositional statements which couldn`t possibly be confirmed?


Why is it that libtards are incapable of understanding hyperbole? Why is it that mass shootings such as the Bataclan massacre and the Munich shopping centre massacre still happen in countries with tight gun control?


Wouldn`t know about libtards, never having met one - but I assure you that liberals understand your hyperbole just fine. Your Bataclan/Munich Shopping center question being a perfect example - since terrorists and mentally ill people will find a way in a world awash in guns. Without guns being available, not so much.


If no guns were available we'd all hold hands and sing? When guns aren't available they make bombs...or drive a truck through a crowd.
People who say ALWAYS and NEVER are usually wrong, part of the time.
Science answers questions, Philosophy questions answers.
Make sense, not war.

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: 50 dead in Florida

Postby Venerable Kwan Tam Woo » Tue Aug 30, 2016 4:51 am

TJrandom wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
TJrandom wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
TJrandom wrote:The case for assault weapons ban is fully supported by the mass murders in which they are used plus the fact that nobody needs to assault anyone outside of the military and police.


If Goebbels were alive he'd be laughing his ass off to know that people actually "think" this way.


Why is it that alt-rightists answer with suppositional statements which couldn`t possibly be confirmed?


Why is it that libtards are incapable of understanding hyperbole? Why is it that mass shootings such as the Bataclan massacre and the Munich shopping centre massacre still happen in countries with tight gun control?


Wouldn`t know about libtards, never having met one - but I assure you that liberals understand your hyperbole just fine.


I wasn't talking about liberals, I was talking about libtards. They're the ones who *think* they're liberals when in reality they're anything but.

Your Bataclan/Munich Shopping center question being a perfect example - since terrorists and mentally ill people will find a way in a world awash in guns even in a country with tight gun controls. Without guns being legally available, not so much they will acquire guns illegally or use other weapons such as bombs, knives or trucks.


FIFY
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26378
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: 50 dead in Florida

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Aug 30, 2016 5:34 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: what protects America..............is our Oceans.


Off Topic
Australia is an island. When the Japanese were coming down, the oceans didn't really stop them landing on Australia, but the logic was "what would be the point in landing in the middle of nowhere on Australia's coast?" It would be like sending your best division to the middle of Siberia to protect Russia. You could never supply them food or ammo, while they sat on their hands. :D

From memory it was those evil British (Canadians) who waltzed down from the north and burnt the White-house
:D

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7372
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: 50 dead in Florida

Postby TJrandom » Tue Aug 30, 2016 5:42 am

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
TJrandom wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
TJrandom wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
TJrandom wrote:The case for assault weapons ban is fully supported by the mass murders in which they are used plus the fact that nobody needs to assault anyone outside of the military and police.


If Goebbels were alive he'd be laughing his ass off to know that people actually "think" this way.


Why is it that alt-rightists answer with suppositional statements which couldn`t possibly be confirmed?


Why is it that libtards are incapable of understanding hyperbole? Why is it that mass shootings such as the Bataclan massacre and the Munich shopping centre massacre still happen in countries with tight gun control?


Wouldn`t know about libtards, never having met one - but I assure you that liberals understand your hyperbole just fine.


I wasn't talking about liberals, I was talking about libtards. They're the ones who *think* they're liberals when in reality they're anything but.

Your Bataclan/Munich Shopping center question being a perfect example - since terrorists and mentally ill people will find a way in a world awash in guns even in a country with tight gun controls. Without guns being legally available, not so much they will acquire guns illegally or use other weapons such as bombs, knives or trucks.


FIFY


Ah... but not so much.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10234
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: 50 dead in Florida

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:34 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:From memory it was those evil British (Canadians) who waltzed down from the north and burnt the White-house[/color] :D

Excellent point.

At a gut level though...I just know our oceans are better than your oceans. You get the nod on deserts....but who wants them?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3077
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: 50 dead in Florida

Postby ElectricMonk » Tue Aug 30, 2016 3:08 pm

More guns do not provide more security - or to be more precise: in the US, laws like 'stand your ground' are an excuse to scale back the size of the police force: if there is no chance of the police to arrive within 20min, of course having a weapon in reach can make sense, or at least having the threat that you might have one.
But that would not be necessary if we had a credible police presence.

Concerning Munich: the attacker invited a lot of 'friends' to join him in the mall, and he selectively shot them before killing himself. This is a scenario that will never be preventable, but it is also incredibly rare. If his mates had guns on their own, they would have been the first to die, that's all.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Paul Anthony
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2783
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:23 pm
Custom Title: The other god
Location: The desert
Contact:

Re: 50 dead in Florida

Postby Paul Anthony » Tue Aug 30, 2016 5:37 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:More guns do not provide more security - or to be more precise: in the US, laws like 'stand your ground' are an excuse to scale back the size of the police force: if there is no chance of the police to arrive within 20min, of course having a weapon in reach can make sense, or at least having the threat that you might have one.
But that would not be necessary if we had a credible police presence.



What would constitute a "credible police force"? Anything less than one policeman for each citizen would be inadequate, wouldn't it? (Self)-important people like politicians have multiple security guards to protect one person!

Personally, I would not want a policeman permanently stationed in my home. So, there will be some lag time between calling 911 and someone coming to my aid. Police aren't faster than a speeding bullet, so if someone points a gun at me seconds count...and the police are only minutes away.

If I lived in a neighborhood where crime was rampant, I'd own a gun. Fortunately, I'm able to live in a safer neighborhood. I don't own a gun, but I live in a state that allows anyone to have one. This is an excellent deterrent. Someone intending to do harm to others has no way of knowing if his intended victim is armed. In this sense, more guns do provide more security.
People who say ALWAYS and NEVER are usually wrong, part of the time.
Science answers questions, Philosophy questions answers.
Make sense, not war.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3077
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: 50 dead in Florida

Postby ElectricMonk » Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:09 pm

I have yet to hear a PD say that it's adequately staffed. Plenty of small crimes aren't even investigated for lack of personnel.
While crime is down, so are clearance rates: nationwide only 1/3 of all homicide are solved - but almost all killings of police officers are.
Doesn't that suggest that, time and resources permitting, more could be solved?

currently, criminals can actually expect to get away with murder. And plenty of studies have shown that when clearance rates are low, tough sentences are no deterrent since you can expect not to be caught.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10234
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: 50 dead in Florida

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:36 pm

I'm thinking guns are so last century. Our age is one of DATA.

I'd bet tht once Big Blue is set loose on Amazon sales web site, it could clear half the back log of cold cases and predict future crime so accurately that a trial would not even be necessary.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Paul Anthony
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2783
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:23 pm
Custom Title: The other god
Location: The desert
Contact:

Re: 50 dead in Florida

Postby Paul Anthony » Tue Aug 30, 2016 7:58 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:I have yet to hear a PD say that it's adequately staffed. Plenty of small crimes aren't even investigated for lack of personnel.
While crime is down, so are clearance rates: nationwide only 1/3 of all homicide are solved - but almost all killings of police officers are.
Doesn't that suggest that, time and resources permitting, more could be solved?

currently, criminals can actually expect to get away with murder. And plenty of studies have shown that when clearance rates are low, tough sentences are no deterrent since you can expect not to be caught.


What you say is true, but you are talking about solving crimes after they occur. While it might be a comfort to your family members to learn who killed you and see them tried...you're still dead.

Now imagine if you wounded your assailant (Most people aren't expert enough to actually shoot straight enough in a tense situation. Police fire multiple rounds and still miss most of the time). The wounded attacker is easier to catch, your family gets the satisfaction of seeing him captured and tried, and you're still alive.

Even if you miss, the attacker is more likely to run away than if you are unarmed and shout "I'm calling the police!". He knows he has many minutes before they arrive, but if you point a gun at him he has to make a decision very quickly. Sometimes he'll decide he wants to stay alive.
People who say ALWAYS and NEVER are usually wrong, part of the time.
Science answers questions, Philosophy questions answers.
Make sense, not war.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3077
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: 50 dead in Florida

Postby ElectricMonk » Tue Aug 30, 2016 8:31 pm

I'm talking deterrent.
True, assuming your victims might be armed is a deterrent to a degree, but all it does is discourage amateur criminals.
If I have to doubt that I will reap the rewards of my crime, I won't commit it in the first place.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Paul Anthony
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2783
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:23 pm
Custom Title: The other god
Location: The desert
Contact:

Re: 50 dead in Florida

Postby Paul Anthony » Tue Aug 30, 2016 8:54 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:I'm talking deterrent.
True, assuming your victims might be armed is a deterrent to a degree, but all it does is discourage amateur criminals.
If I have to doubt that I will reap the rewards of my crime, I won't commit it in the first place.


Our prison system is full of people who disprove that statement.
People who say ALWAYS and NEVER are usually wrong, part of the time.
Science answers questions, Philosophy questions answers.
Make sense, not war.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3077
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: 50 dead in Florida

Postby ElectricMonk » Tue Aug 30, 2016 9:53 pm

You know how many of those are in for assault or homicide?

3%
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Paul Anthony
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2783
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:23 pm
Custom Title: The other god
Location: The desert
Contact:

Re: 50 dead in Florida

Postby Paul Anthony » Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:46 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:You know how many of those are in for assault or homicide?

3%


Don't know if that % is accurate. Source? But let's go with 3%...

Main reason for that is plea bargains. The court system is overloaded. Most accused never make it before a jury. 5 minutes in front of a judge who approves the deal made between the attorneys. Serve time for a lesser crime, only full term is rarely served. Out in a few years, back on the street until the next arrest. Repeat offenders are VERY common. So much for your deterrent.

Nevertheless, assault or homicide are not the only times crimes are committed with weapons. Armed robbery comes to mind...
People who say ALWAYS and NEVER are usually wrong, part of the time.
Science answers questions, Philosophy questions answers.
Make sense, not war.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7372
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: 50 dead in Florida

Postby TJrandom » Wed Aug 31, 2016 1:41 am

Paul Anthony wrote:
ElectricMonk wrote:You know how many of those are in for assault or homicide?

3%


Don't know if that % is accurate. Source? But let's go with 3%...

Main reason for that is plea bargains. The court system is overloaded. Most accused never make it before a jury. 5 minutes in front of a judge who approves the deal made between the attorneys. Serve time for a lesser crime, only full term is rarely served. Out in a few years, back on the street until the next arrest. Repeat offenders are VERY common. So much for your deterrent.

Nevertheless, assault or homicide are not the only times crimes are committed with weapons. Armed robbery comes to mind...


The plea bargain system works for all crimes, so wouldn`t change the % for any particular category. This site gives that 3%.

https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/st ... fenses.jsp

This in a PDF...

Approximately 203,300 prisoners serving a sentence in a State or Federal prison in 1997 were armed when they committed the crime for
which they were serving time. An estimated 18% of State prison inmates and 15% of Federal inmates reported using, carrying, or possessing a firearm during the crime for which they were sentenced. In 1991, 16% of State inmates and 12% of Federal inmates said they were armed at the time of their offense.


http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf


Return to “Guns”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest