Las Vegas

Duck and cover
User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7622
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Las Vegas

Postby TJrandom » Sun Oct 15, 2017 3:29 am

Back on France... much stricter restrictions than in the US, but I do suspect they could lower their gun death rate even further by adding further restrictions.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10702
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Las Vegas

Postby xouper » Sun Oct 15, 2017 3:40 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:It is also politics, Bobbo.
It is about politicians who make nice sounding mouthings when what they are saying is bull-shit. However, Xouper appears to believe the politicians.

Xouper
Why should the government give rights? Because it is morally correct. It is morally correct because it fills the principle of the greatest good to the greatest number.

I am utterly unconviced about your nonsense using the word violated to replace "taken away from". It is a meaningless distinction. If someone has his or her right removed, it is alienable.


You are merely repeating the same old BS that I have already refuted.

Get some new material, Lance.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11033
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Las Vegas

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Oct 15, 2017 3:41 am

TJrandom wrote:Back on France... much stricter restrictions than in the US, but I do suspect they could lower their gun death rate even further by adding further restrictions.

Yes.......death from guns is lower all across Europe where sane gun controls are in place. But I thought the link X provided parsed down the data field fairly well to show a "relevant" (meaning for many purposes deaths from one person suicides is fair not to count ......etc) death from guns rate to higher in France than in the USA?

But the overall death from guns rate is also disproportionately lower. A mismatch in the data? Assuming no one is LYING ( a pro gun website wouldn't do that would they?).......it must be a product of how they stripped the data down. That is often done by not actually following the same stripping process across all the data fields. You find that out in the footnotes if provided as in: Death from Suicides by Gun in France is not collected so the total gun death rate is used....or words that mean that but its not obvious.

Indeed: "something" does not add up.
Last edited by bobbo_the_Pragmatist on Sun Oct 15, 2017 3:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
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?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11033
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Las Vegas

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Oct 15, 2017 3:41 am

xouper wrote:
Lance Kennedy wrote:It is also politics, Bobbo.
It is about politicians who make nice sounding mouthings when what they are saying is bull-shit. However, Xouper appears to believe the politicians.

Xouper
Why should the government give rights? Because it is morally correct. It is morally correct because it fills the principle of the greatest good to the greatest number.

I am utterly unconviced about your nonsense using the word violated to replace "taken away from". It is a meaningless distinction. If someone has his or her right removed, it is alienable.


You are merely repeating the same old BS that I have already refuted.

Get some new material, Lance.


Gee...........THAT is SO calling the kettle black. Have you no shame?
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
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10702
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Las Vegas

Postby xouper » Sun Oct 15, 2017 3:47 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
xouper wrote:
Lance Kennedy wrote:It is also politics, Bobbo.
It is about politicians who make nice sounding mouthings when what they are saying is bull-shit. However, Xouper appears to believe the politicians.

Xouper
Why should the government give rights? Because it is morally correct. It is morally correct because it fills the principle of the greatest good to the greatest number.

I am utterly unconviced about your nonsense using the word violated to replace "taken away from". It is a meaningless distinction. If someone has his or her right removed, it is alienable.


You are merely repeating the same old BS that I have already refuted.

Get some new material, Lance.


Gee...........THAT is SO calling the kettle black. Have you no shame?


Nope. No shame. Every time Lance posts his BS, I post the same rebuttal.

Except Lance has not refuted any of my arguments. He merely restates his personal opinion, which is worth zilch.

He doesn't care what I think and I don't care what he thinks.

Lance keeps running his mouth, and so do I.

Nothing ever gets resolved.

Except I'm right and he's wrong.

And the merry-go-round keeps going around . . .
Last edited by xouper on Sun Oct 15, 2017 3:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10214
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Las Vegas

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun Oct 15, 2017 3:50 am

Some good points, Bobbo.

Argument by re-labelling. Pretty awful. Is there a specific fallacy we call this ?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10702
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Las Vegas

Postby xouper » Sun Oct 15, 2017 3:52 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Argument by re-labelling. Pretty awful.


Then why do you keep doing it?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11033
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Las Vegas

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Oct 15, 2017 4:15 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Some good points, Bobbo.

Argument by re-labelling. Pretty awful. Is there a specific fallacy we call this ?

I can think of several that come close. Always interesting to me how many fallacies have been formalized and given a label?

But, its basically a failure to define one's terms. "If" either of you "wanted" to actually discuss some relevant point, you could define "rights" any which way you wanted to and go from there. People still not free to speak, in jail, dead....so no nuance/import is lost. Only thing lost: the argument about which label to put on it.

How about: the fallacy that we have all the time in the world to get on about life?
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?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11033
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Las Vegas

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Oct 15, 2017 4:17 am

xouper wrote:
Lance Kennedy wrote:Argument by re-labelling. Pretty awful.


Then why do you keep doing it?

Nope, no shame at all................(((open question: is there any recognition at all or is every issue a one way street?)))
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
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7622
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Las Vegas

Postby TJrandom » Sun Oct 15, 2017 5:17 am

My guess is that the intransience in not recognizing the equivalence in terms is simply because the NRA has an agreed dialogue, and no amount of discussion or logic will permit change or challenge.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3283
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Las Vegas

Postby ElectricMonk » Sun Oct 15, 2017 5:54 am

Xouper, when your inalienable rights are violated, who do you appeal to?
Or can you just act to restore your right on your own?
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
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10702
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Las Vegas

Postby xouper » Sun Oct 15, 2017 7:33 am

ElectricMonk wrote:Xouper, when your inalienable rights are violated, who do you appeal to?


It depends on what the violation is and who did the violating.

One possibility is that I would appeal to whatever court has the jurisdiction to protect my rights. Or the circumstance might require an appeal to my Congressman.

If it's the government that insists on violating my rights, then there might not be anyone to appeal to.


ElectricMonk wrote:Or can you just act to restore your right on your own?


I have a problem with the word "restore".

That question implies that an inalienable right has been taken away, which I do not agree is a valid way to describe what happened.

A better question might be this: Or can you just act to enforce your rights on your own?

Maybe, maybe not. It depends on what the violation is and who did the violating.

Example: If someone invades my home (without permission) and attempts to violate my right to life (say, tries to take my liver without my permission), then I might choose to enforce my right by stopping him with a gun (or whatever else is handy).

The home invader cannot take away my right to self defense. I have the right to defend myself even if ultimately I am unsuccessful in doing so.

Nor do I need the government's permission to exercise my right to self defense. I have that right regardless what the government (or Lance) says.

Does that answer your question? Or have I misunderstood something?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10702
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Las Vegas

Postby xouper » Sun Oct 15, 2017 7:39 am

TJrandom wrote:My guess is that the intransience in not recognizing the equivalence in terms is simply because the NRA has an agreed dialogue, and no amount of discussion or logic will permit change or challenge.


For the record, my position on the Second Amendment is not founded on anything the NRA says or does. I am quite capable of doing my own thinking.

I am always open to revising my position if given a persuasive and valid argument.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3283
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Las Vegas

Postby ElectricMonk » Sun Oct 15, 2017 8:47 am

So, X, if you can only have many of your rights enforced and infringements of your rights undone through the actions of a State of Law,
and,
when it is up to the State judicial, legislative and executive organs to determine what those rights are that will be enforced,
why do you think it is up to you to decide what those rights, enforced or otherwise, are?
As you mentioned, you have no recourse against the state acting in a way you consider infringing your rights. Such rights only exist in your opinion, then.
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
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7622
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Las Vegas

Postby TJrandom » Sun Oct 15, 2017 8:52 am

xouper wrote:
TJrandom wrote:My guess is that the intransience in not recognizing the equivalence in terms is simply because the NRA has an agreed dialogue, and no amount of discussion or logic will permit change or challenge.


For the record, my position on the Second Amendment is not founded on anything the NRA says or does. I am quite capable of doing my own thinking.

I am always open to revising my position if given a persuasive and valid argument.


Then please tell me where your "France outstrips the US" in gun deaths mime came from and on what basis it is accurate.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10214
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Las Vegas

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun Oct 15, 2017 8:53 am

My view is simple and based on correct English. Inalienable means cannot be taken away. If something can be taken away, it is not inalienable. This is so simple that even Xouper should understand it. Replacing the words "taken away " with the word violated does not alter what happened. If a right is taken away, it is not inalienable.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10702
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Las Vegas

Postby xouper » Sun Oct 15, 2017 9:44 am

My view is simple and based on correct English.

Inalienable means cannot be taken away. If something can be taken away, it is not inalienable.

This is so simple that even Lance gets it.

However, inalienable rights are sometimes violated. Sometimes justifiably, and sometimes not.

This is so simple that even Lance should understand it.

Replacing the words "violated" with the word "taken away" does not alter what happened.

If a right is violated, that does not mean it is inalienable.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11033
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Las Vegas

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Oct 15, 2017 9:59 am

inalienable: 1. Incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another
2. Not subject to forfeiture

So, the KEY feature is NOT what the activity/concept IS, but rather how it can be treated. If an activity/concept is repudiated, transerred or forfeited...it is still an activity/concept but it is not inalienable.

What else is being in jail, punished, shunned, or killed but alienated?
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?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11033
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Las Vegas

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Oct 15, 2017 10:00 am

TJ: X actually provided one of his few links to a website that manipulated the well known data to conclude France has a higher death from guns rate than the USA. Its up in the thread somewhere.
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
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10702
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Las Vegas

Postby xouper » Sun Oct 15, 2017 10:01 am

TJrandom wrote:Then please tell me where your "France outstrips the US" in gun deaths mime came from and on what basis it is accurate.


I didn't make that claim. So I don't know why you expect me to support it or explain it.

Here's what I said in another thread about mass shootings:

In another thread, xouper wrote:And how well has that been working out for Europe?
Matthew Ellard wrote:Really well. When was their last mass shooting using modified automatic weapons? :lol:
xouper wrote:November 2015, Paris France, where they used Russian AKM fully automatic assault rifles.

You can now wipe that silly grin off your face, Pinnochio.

When was the last mass shooting in the US using modified automatic weapons?

There were no automatic weapons in the recent Las Vegas shooting, or in any mass shooting in the US the past few decades.

For the record, here is a comparison between the AKM and the American AR-15:

The AKM is fully automatic and uses 7.62 mm rounds (similar to a .30 calibre round)
The AR-15 not fully automatic and uses 5.56 mm rounds (similar to a .22 calibre round)

Apparently you didn't notice when I posted this previously:

Mass shooting, Paris France, November 2015, 130 dead, 413 injured
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2015_Paris_attacks

Mass shooting, Paris France, January 2015, 17 dead, 22 injured
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_2015_%C3%8Ele-de-France_attacks

That's far more casualties in Paris than in the US in the past two years.


The context of that conversation was Matthew's question to me about mass shootings.

Does that answer your question?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10702
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Las Vegas

Postby xouper » Sun Oct 15, 2017 10:17 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:TJ: X actually provided one of his few links to a website that manipulated the well known data to conclude France has a higher death from guns rate than the USA. Its up in the thread somewhere.


Sorry, bobbo, but I didn't post any such link. Nor did I make any such claim. Not in this thread, nor in that other gun thread, or anywhere else on this forum.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10702
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Las Vegas

Postby xouper » Sun Oct 15, 2017 10:42 am

ElectricMonk wrote:So, X, if you can only have many of your rights enforced and infringements of your rights undone through the actions of a State of Law,
and,
when it is up to the State judicial, legislative and executive organs to determine what those rights are that will be enforced,
why do you think it is up to you to decide what those rights, enforced or otherwise, are?


I explained that before.

In the US, the government gets its authority from the people, not the other way around. The people (and that would include me) decide what rights the government is to protect, not the other way around.

As a sentient being, I have the moral authority to claim the right of self ownership. Many other rights follow directly from that. I do not claim that these rights come from any Creator (whose existence I do not believe in).

Some of my rights I can enforce on my own. The purpose of government is to protect the rights claimed by the people. This principle is clearly spelled out in the US Declaration of Independence and in the Constitution, and other historical records.

The Declaration of Independence wrote:We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The United States Constitution wrote:We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


Regarding that part in the Declaration about the Creator, I don't need any Creator to justify my moral authority to claim the right of self ownership and all that follows from that. The point of those documents is to show the purpose of government, and that if government fails in its function to protect the pre-existing rights of the people, such government can and should be replaced with one that will.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11033
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Las Vegas

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Oct 15, 2017 11:00 am

xouper wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:TJ: X actually provided one of his few links to a website that manipulated the well known data to conclude France has a higher death from guns rate than the USA. Its up in the thread somewhere.


Sorry, bobbo, but I didn't post any such link. Nor did I make any such claim. Not in this thread, nor in that other gun thread, or anywhere else on this forum.

Well........I apologize. As I looked back on the thread, it did occur to me that I did have to google "someone" saying the death from gun rate in France was higher than the USA.

As I reviewed, I did find: https://crimeresearch.org/2017/02/franc ... -to-424-2/

I apologize for my Mistake Xouper. I really should not compliment you when you've done nothing.

Speaking of which.......did you make it up on your own or find it under a dead cat?...........The right of self ownership....and perhaps more importantly, all the inalienable rights that flow therefrom?
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
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10702
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Las Vegas

Postby xouper » Sun Oct 15, 2017 11:35 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:I apologize for my Mistake Xouper. I really should not compliment you when you've done nothing.

Speaking of which.......did you make it up on your own or find it under a dead cat?...........The right of self ownership....and perhaps more importantly, all the inalienable rights that flow therefrom?


I got it from an old CrackerJack box with Schrodinger's Cat Toy inside.

Image

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11033
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Las Vegas

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Oct 15, 2017 11:37 am

Sugar coated, child oriented, totally disgusting.

Sounds right.
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
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10702
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Las Vegas

Postby xouper » Sun Oct 15, 2017 11:47 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Sugar coated, child oriented, totally disgusting. Sounds right.


Image

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11033
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Las Vegas

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Oct 15, 2017 12:09 pm

qed
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
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8232
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Las Vegas

Postby Poodle » Sun Oct 15, 2017 2:11 pm

Do come along, chaps! No need for the personal argy-bargy, what?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11033
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Las Vegas

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Oct 15, 2017 2:22 pm

"To each, according to their need." //// Course, if they could learn, they wouldn't be in need. Kinda is a dead end cul de sac with no return.
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
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10214
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Las Vegas

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun Oct 15, 2017 6:33 pm

Certainly not getting anywhere. As I have said before, Xoupers strongest quality is sheer stubbornness. I note here he quotes politicians of the past as if they spoke the pure gospel truth every time. Well, they do not. In fact, quoting politicians is like quoting preachers. They speak pure gospel untruth.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11033
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Las Vegas

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Oct 15, 2017 7:40 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Certainly not getting anywhere. As I have said before, Xoupers strongest quality is sheer stubbornness. I note here he quotes politicians of the past as if they spoke the pure gospel truth every time. Well, they do not. In fact, quoting politicians is like quoting preachers. They speak pure gospel untruth.

Strong?..........or weak??

..................how about "most inflexible limitation on his power of analysis with a heavy dose of failure to see his own inconsistencies..........." //// Ha. ha. One word does have its pros.
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
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10702
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Las Vegas

Postby xouper » Sun Oct 15, 2017 8:40 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Certainly not getting anywhere. As I have said before, Xoupers strongest quality is sheer stubbornness.


Hey look, the pot is calling the kettle black. Again.

You are no less stubborn than I am, Lance.

It was obvious years ago that you and I will never reach any resolution to these disagreements.

All we do is just keep running our mouths because, well . . . Trump?


Lance Kennedy wrote:I note here he quotes politicians of the past as if they spoke the pure gospel truth every time.


Straw Man Alert !!

1. I have never claimed they are always right.

2. If you argue that a person's position is wrong merely because he is a politician, then you are making this common fallacy.

3. If you want to show a politician is wrong on a certain issue, then you have to refute their position, not merely attack their character.

4. The people I cited were not all professional politicians. Some of them are among the greatest philosophical thinkers. Ever. Their writings on such matters have withstood centuries of academic scrutiny and still survive.

Are they always right? No.

Are they always wrong, as you seem to be claiming? No.

The other error you make here is the informal fallacy of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Sorry, Lance, but on a forum for critical thinking, you are going to get called out when you make faulty arguments, as you keep doing.


Lance Kennedy wrote: Well, they do not. In fact, quoting politicians is like quoting preachers. They speak pure gospel untruth.


You might have a point there, especially those politicians who say lets put more restrictions on gun owners.

Well done, Lance. You just discredited every politician who agrees with you.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10214
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Las Vegas

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun Oct 15, 2017 9:57 pm

Xouper

You are doing the straw man by applying my comment about how unreliable politicians utterances are to a lot of situations not even mentioned. My point is that quoting long dead politicians and what you call great thinkers is not an argument.

Our argument is about whether certain rights are inalienable. They are not, and that proof is down to definition. Inalienable means cannot be taken away. Yet they can and they are, as I have shown innumerable times. Replacing the words "taken away " with the word violate changes nothing. A man executed has his right to life taken away permanently, not just "violated ".

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10702
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Las Vegas

Postby xouper » Sun Oct 15, 2017 10:23 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Xouper

You are doing the straw man by applying my comment about how unreliable politicians utterances are to a lot of situations not even mentioned. My point is that quoting long dead politicians and what you call great thinkers is not an argument.

Our argument is about whether certain rights are inalienable. They are not, and that proof is down to definition. Inalienable means cannot be taken away. Yet they can and they are, as I have shown innumerable times. Replacing the words "taken away " with the word violate changes nothing. A man executed has his right to life taken away permanently, not just "violated ".


You just keep repeating the same old BS that has already been refuted.

That's the very definition of stubborn.

Get some new material.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7622
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Las Vegas

Postby TJrandom » Sun Oct 15, 2017 10:52 pm

xouper wrote:
TJrandom wrote:Then please tell me where your "France outstrips the US" in gun deaths mime came from and on what basis it is accurate.


I didn't make that claim. So I don't know why you expect me to support it or explain it.

Here's what I said in another thread about mass shootings:

In another thread, xouper wrote:And how well has that been working out for Europe?
Matthew Ellard wrote:Really well. When was their last mass shooting using modified automatic weapons? :lol:
xouper wrote:November 2015, Paris France, where they used Russian AKM fully automatic assault rifles.

You can now wipe that silly grin off your face, Pinnochio.

When was the last mass shooting in the US using modified automatic weapons?

There were no automatic weapons in the recent Las Vegas shooting, or in any mass shooting in the US the past few decades.

For the record, here is a comparison between the AKM and the American AR-15:

The AKM is fully automatic and uses 7.62 mm rounds (similar to a .30 calibre round)
The AR-15 not fully automatic and uses 5.56 mm rounds (similar to a .22 calibre round)

Apparently you didn't notice when I posted this previously:

Mass shooting, Paris France, November 2015, 130 dead, 413 injured
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2015_Paris_attacks

Mass shooting, Paris France, January 2015, 17 dead, 22 injured
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_2015_%C3%8Ele-de-France_attacks

That's far more casualties in Paris than in the US in the past two years.


The context of that conversation was Matthew's question to me about mass shootings.

Does that answer your question?


This is what you said on France, which I questioned and found to be false by three fold… BOLD added -
xouper wrote: ... Look at the failure of government to prevent mass shootings in France in the past few years, which have resulted in far more people dead than in the US in the same time frame, not just in absolute numbers but even more so as the per capita homicide rate.


But from this clarification, I see that your statement may be true if " from using fully automatic weapons" is appended.

Accurate? If this is what you meant, then - Yes, my question has been answered. That said, if this is the basis for your above quoted statement, I find it to be highly misleading and hardly contributing to a fair exhange of ideas and information. Thanks for the clarification.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10702
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Las Vegas

Postby xouper » Mon Oct 16, 2017 12:19 am

TJrandom wrote:This is what you said on France, which I questioned and found to be false by three fold… BOLD added -
xouper wrote: ... Look at the failure of government to prevent mass shootings in France in the past few years, which have resulted in far more people dead than in the US in the same time frame, not just in absolute numbers but even more so as the per capita homicide rate.


But from this clarification, I see that your statement may be true if " from using fully automatic weapons" is appended.


Well, first of all, thanks for asking me to clarify.

I see now where there's an ambiguity in how I phrased that. The context was mass shootings, not all gun homicides.

This thread was started specifically about a mass shooting in Las Vegas. I was trying to address the claim that these things don't happen in other countries. Well, they do.

So let me make another attempt to be more precise. When comparing mass shootings in France and the US in the past two years, there have been more gun casualties from mass shootings in France than from mass shootings in the US, not just in absolute numbers but even more so as a per capita number.

Does that work better? Or is there still some ambiguity what I meant?

Perhaps there's another source of confusion here. If you go by the numbers from Gun Violence Archive  or Mother Jones,  then be advised they use a much more loose definition of "mass shooting" than does the FBI.

That looser definition includes things that most people would not call a public mass shooting. Most people tend to view a mass shooting is one where the perpetrator did not know any of the victims and was simply shooting people more or less at random for no other apparent reason than he wanted to shoot some people.

Also, the looser definition includes shootings in a private setting where the perp was specifically targeting certain people he did not like, such as gang warfare, or domestic violence where four or more people are injured, but not killed.

So when I say "mass shootings", I am using the FBI definition where four or more people are killed in a scenario similar to Sandy Hook, or Las Vegas, or that Orland night club. Not domestic violence or gang related turf wars.

Perhaps that was another source of ambiguity.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10214
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Las Vegas

Postby Lance Kennedy » Mon Oct 16, 2017 12:43 am

Xouper

I keep repeating my argument because it HAS NOT been refuted. Replacing the word "take away" with the word violate is not a refutation.

You have not presented a single argument that is valid.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10702
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Las Vegas

Postby xouper » Mon Oct 16, 2017 1:54 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Xouper

I keep repeating my argument because it HAS NOT been refuted. Replacing the word "take away" with the word violate is not a refutation.


Straw Man Alert !!

That was never intended as refutation by itself. The refutations are in all the other things I posted.


Lance Kennedy wrote:You have not presented a single argument that is valid.


Wow, head in the sand much??

That is simply false.

You  have not presented a single argument that is valid.

You  haven't posted any kind of argument at all.

You  have merely posted your personal opinions, without anything at all to support them.

Not to mention the numerous fallacies here and there amongst your blatherings.

Even the UN Declaration of Rights does not agree with you, and your only reply to that is well, they must be wrong because . . . politicians are never right, or something.

You  have still not answered the question why you feel justified in saying there are certain rights the government should give you.

You  avoid answering it because you know full well that any answer you give will undermine your entire narrative.

In any case, when all the evidence is considered, it is all on my side, and none on yours.

Sorry, Lance, but You  have not made your case.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10214
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Las Vegas

Postby Lance Kennedy » Mon Oct 16, 2017 2:58 am

Xouper

This is perhaps the simplest and most obvious argument I have ever been a part of and it all devolves around a simple definition of one word. Inalienable means cannot be taken away. All I have to do is show that this is wrong. It can be taken away. Then your argument falls into the dust. I have shown that with many examples.

As I see it, your counter argument is
1. To replace the word inalienable with violate. Duh !
2. To quote people who are long dead. This kind of argument is meaningless. Not only is it argument by appeal to authority, which is a fallacy, but it relies on people who were subject to the superstitions of times gone by.

Your demand that I explain why I feel justified in demanding the government give me certain rights, frankly puzzles me. For a start, I have made no demand. I have said there are rights governments SHOULD give, and this is because they work towards the greater good for the greater number, which is central to my moral standards. But I cannot see how this impinges on an argument about whether rights are inalienable. They are not, for the simple reason that they can be taken away.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11033
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Las Vegas

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Oct 16, 2017 3:58 am

You know...............if you substitute genius for dunce ......... you can have many long conversations....... with a genius.

..................wait!! ............... I'm a bit confused myself.
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?


Return to “Guns”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest