Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8943 total)
31 online now:
DrJones*, jar, Percy (Admin), Tanypteryx, vimesey (5 members, 26 visitors)
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Upcoming Birthdays: DrJones*
Post Volume: Total: 864,046 Year: 19,082/19,786 Month: 1,502/1,705 Week: 308/446 Day: 47/59 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gun Control III
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(2)
Message 57 of 834 (828646)
02-21-2018 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Faith
02-21-2018 7:51 PM


Re: Wingnut's attack Florida High School Students
Faith writes:

quote:
I think it's reprehensible that gun control becomes this huge leftist cause every time there is a shooting like this

Huh? Gun control is a massively bipartisan issue. From whence cometh this idea that it's "leftist"? Remember, Faith, you support what the students are asking for.

quote:
using an emotional situation to push their politics and drown out the other side..

Huh? As opposed to using the emotional situation to push the other sides politics and drown out those that want what you want? Remember, Faith, you support what the students are asking for.

quote:
I'm actually for more gun control but this is the wrong way to get it,

Why?

Be specific.

quote:
and when you have teenagers supporting the standard leftwing position I don't trust it anyway.

Why? Don't you think they, as the ones who have grown up having to deal with school shootings all their lives, who now have "active shooter drills" as a normal part of their lives, have something to say on the subject?

Is everybody who disagrees with you "leftist"?

"It's too soon," right?

Well, is it too soon after Sandy Hook to talk about it? Let's talk about the Sandy Hook situation. It's been five years. Surely enough time has passed to allow us to talk about it without people accusing others of "using the emotional situation to push their politics and drown out the other side," right?

There's a school shooting in this country at the rate of once a week. And there's a mass shooting in general (four or more people injured or killed) every other day in the US. At what point has enough time passed for you to no longer accuse others of "using the emotional situation to push their politics and drown out the other side"?

Remember, Faith: You support what the students are asking for. Is the fear of being seen as "liberal" so overwhelming that you would rather children die than do something that a "liberal" would agree with?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Faith, posted 02-21-2018 7:51 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 79 of 834 (828702)
02-22-2018 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Faith
02-22-2018 10:28 AM


Re: Wingnut's attack Florida High School Students
Faith writes:

quote:
If leftists didn't always immediately try to build their case for gun control after such a shooting

Since there's a school shooting every week and a mass shooting every other day, exactly when are we supposed to be building the case for gun control?

Remember, Faith, you want what these students want. Why are you hesitating? Because it would make you look "liberal"? Is the fear of appearing "liberal" so overwhelming that you would rather let these children die?

quote:
trying to pre-empt other points of view

You mean like the conservatives who are claiming that these children don't have a right to speak? That they're "paid actors"?

You mean like *YOU* who literally just said that "leftists are trying to pre-empt other points of view"? Who claim that anybody who disagrees with you is engaging in a "predictable exchange of insults"?

quote:
Make the case in a neutral time

Why? Why not now when everybody is paying attention? Why wait until nobody cares anymore?

And once again, exactly when is this "neutral time" you value so much? There's a school shooting every week and a mass shooting every other day. Exactly when are we supposed to be building the case for gun control?

Remember, Faith, you want what these students want. Why are you hesitating? Is the fear of appearing "liberal" so overwhelming that you would rather let these students die?

quote:
I think having a FEW more armed people at schools and other vulnerable institutions is a reasonable solution.

There was an armed guard at the Pulse nightclub.

It didn't stop the shooting.

Chris Kyle, the guy from the American Sniper movies was an expert with guns. He and his companion, Chad Littlefield, were armed when they were killed by Eddie Ray Routh. In fact, the guns they had on them were still holstered, had not been fired, and still had the safeties on. And on top of that, the guns that were used to kill Kyle and Littlefield were owned by Kyle.

When you add more people with guns into the mix, when the cops show up, they aren't going to know who the shooter is. In fact, the police in Amarillo just shot a student who had just *disarmed* the active shooter because they thought he was the one they were after. And this was in a chapel.

That was the same day as the Parkland shooting.

When are we supposed to talk about this since this happens every other day? If we have to let "enough time" pass, when will that happen?

Remember, Faith, you want what these students want. Why are you hesitating?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Faith, posted 02-22-2018 10:28 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 80 of 834 (828705)
02-22-2018 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Faith
02-22-2018 10:56 AM


Re: 17 Dead at Florida High School
Faith writes:

quote:
We have a problem with crazed shooters these days.

Oh? Other countries have people who are mentally ill and they don't have this problem.

Women are just as likely to be mentally ill and yet all the mass shootings are carried out by men.

Mentally ill people are no more likely to engage in violence as those who aren't.

But let's assume that it really is a question of "mental health" that is causing this country, and only this country, to have a school shooting every week and a mass shooting every other day. Why would the conservatives gut Obamacare and its mandates for mental health services to be covered?

quote:
but the point is we have a particular problem that needs addressing, and taking more guns away from the good guys strikes some of us as the least sane solution.

But it is clear that more guns doesn't solve the problem.

Why would taking guns away not help? It's really hard to get shot when there is no gun to shoot somebody with.

No other country has this problem, Faith. Only the US does. We have only about 5% of the world's population, but we have nearly half of the world's guns.

Let's take a look at Japan's requirements to get a gun:

You have to attend a class that lasts all day and is only offered once a month. Then you have to prove your skill on the shooting range, passing a shooting test. Then you have to undergo a mental screening and drug test. Then, you need to undergo a thorough background check. Only then can you buy a gun which you then must register with the police, including a report on where you keep it and how you store and lock the gun and the ammunition separately. The police are then going to inspect your gun every year and you need to take the exam and shooting test every three years.

Is that something like what we ought to do?

quote:
I'm also for better gun control in general, but I think it's really slimy of the leftists who always jump on the crazed shooter cases to try to take guns away from everybody else.

But they're not "crazed shooters."

And again, there's a school shooting every week and a mass shooting every other day. Exactly when are we supposed to talk about this?

When your child hits someone else with a stick, you don't blame the stick.

But you still take the stick away.

quote:
But making sure crowds anywhere are unarmed in this day and age is NOT the sane solution.

As pointed out, that's the exact opposite of what would help. More guns only means more people get shot. When the cops show up, they don't know who is the shooter.

The Pulse had an armed guard. He traded shots with the gunman who then retreated into the club. When the guard called for backup, who were they going to go after?

Remember, in Amarillo, the same day as the Florida shooting, the cops killed a student in a church who had just disarmed the actual shooter.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Faith, posted 02-22-2018 10:56 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Faith, posted 02-22-2018 5:42 PM Rrhain has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 84 of 834 (828721)
02-22-2018 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Faith
02-22-2018 6:48 PM


Re: 17 Dead at Florida High School
Faith responds to Percy:

quote:
I do recall someone saying they don't have the problems we have which we supposedly have because we have so many guns

Thus, your argument that unarmed populations are "sitting ducks" is trivially shown to be false.

The United States is the *only* country in the world that has a mass shooting every other day. That is not an exaggeration. That is not some sort of hyperbole to make a point. The rate of a mass shooting, defined as having four or more injured or killed, in the United States is a bit under 48 hours.

If the argument is that we should be arming more people because unarmed populations are "sitting ducks," then how do you explain the fact that it doesn't happen in populations with fewer guns and thus so many unarmed populations?

quote:
I accepted that as a general description of a more homogeneous society

Huh? What does that have to do anything? Did you just claim that black people are more likely to engage in gun violence? I know...I know...you never used the word "black." So what do you mean by "more homogeneous society"? What is the criteria that you are using which makes the US not as "homogeneous" as other countries?

And then explain how this has any effect upon gun violence. Canada, India, South Africa...they are not as "homogeneous" as the US and yet they don't have this problem of mass shootings.

quote:
forgetting about the Muslims.

Especially since they have a lower rate of gun violence than non-Muslims.

Why does the US have a school shooting every week and a mass shooting every other day? Are you seriously claiming the fact that the US has only 5% of the world's population but almost 50% of the world's guns doesn't have some sort of effect?

You never answered my offering of the Japanese system of getting a gun. Would that be good?

Edited by Rrhain, : Added some context of countries regarding "homogeneity" and the number of guns in the US


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Faith, posted 02-22-2018 6:48 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Faith, posted 02-22-2018 9:22 PM Rrhain has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 109 of 834 (828827)
02-25-2018 12:33 AM


Arm the teachers
So what we're telling teachers is that they need to be prepared to kill their students.

Of course, in their attempt to get "the bad one," they'll likely miss and may hit "the good one," so you better be sure you're OK with killing any of them.

But, that's the price we have to pay to "stop the bad guy." There's no other possible solution. You have to be ready to kill your students.

Oh, and students? You need to be prepared to die at the hands of your teacher. They didn't mean it. They were gunning for "the bad one" and missed. You should be proud to be killed.

Because it's the way your teachers show they care about you.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

    
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 205 of 834 (831748)
04-23-2018 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by NoNukes
04-23-2018 11:47 AM


Re: Shooters Get Too Much Media Attention
NoNukes writes:

quote:
Given all that, I don't see any way that pop is an accomplice absent some more facts having to do with knowing his son's specific state of mind.

No, there's no need to "know his son's specific state of mind."

Where did the father get the gun? From the cops. Who took it away from his son.

Therefore, the father knows that the son is not supposed to have a gun. After all, the cops are not in the habit of just giving guns to people. But, he gave his son the confiscated weapon anyway.

There is a reasonable case to be made. Whether it survives scrutiny in the court is precisely why the court is there. But, this is not a frivolous charge.

That the cops didn't seize the weapon is, indeed, a legitimate question, but it doesn't mitigate the father's neglect.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by NoNukes, posted 04-23-2018 11:47 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by NoNukes, posted 04-24-2018 6:50 PM Rrhain has responded

    
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(2)
Message 212 of 834 (831842)
04-24-2018 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by NoNukes
04-24-2018 6:50 PM


Re: Shooters Get Too Much Media Attention
NoNukes responds to me:

quote:
No, that is not correct. The police also take cars away from drunk folks. They may even give the car to a family member when they arrest the drunk. That does not imply that the owner cannot have his car back.

Having actually lived through your example (my father had his license suspended for drunk driving), I have first-hand knowledge: You are incorrect. He doesn't get to drive. If he has his car taken away and I somehow get it out of impound, he is still not allowed to drive it until he is legally allowed to do so. I got to drive him to work. If I had decided to give him a car to drive (such as his own car), knowing as I did that he had a suspended license, I would be involved if he were to then run somebody over. The extent of my liability? Well, that's for the courts to decide, but it is clear that I am involved in him violating the law in driving without a license and the results of that violation.

And before you toss a red herring into this, you are allowed to own a car without a license. You can't drive it without a license, but you can own it. But to own a gun requires you to have a license in Illinois. He was not allowed to have a gun. His father knew it. His father gave him a gun anyway.

quote:
When you say that he was not supposed to have a gun, what kind of legal "not supposed" do you mean?

His license was revoked (you did know this, didn't you? Have you actually done any homework on this issue?), his guns confiscated, and his father took possession of them. For his father to then give them back to his son means he is involved.

quote:
quote:
After all, the cops are not in the habit of just giving guns to people.

I don't know what to make of this statement. How does it advance your case?

It would help if you provided the complete context. The father didn't give guns to his son just out of the blue. It's not like the kid left his guns at his father's house and his father, unaware that the cops had revoked the son's license, called up his son to say, "Hey, you left your AR-15 in the shed. I'll bring it by tomorrow."

No, he got it from the cops. And it wasn't like the cops were having a sale on confiscated firearms and the father just happened to coincidentally acquire the gun that was seized from his son. Instead, everybody involved in this transfer of the weapons from the son to the cops to the father knew precisely what these guns were, why the cops had them, and the process by which the father was getting them back.

The father knew his son had his license revoked and weapons seized. For him to then acquire them from the cops and give them back to his son means he is involved.

quote:
quote:
There is a reasonable case to be made. Whether it survives scrutiny in the court is precisely why the court is there. But, this is not a frivolous charge.

Then make the case.

I did.

Did you pay attention?

I will give you some things to think about while you re-read the post before you respond:

1) Did I say anything about his mental health?

2) Did I say that the shooter's father was responsible simply because he was his father? Or was there some other reason regarding how the son re-acquired the weapons? Specifically: What did the person who acquired the guns from the cops know about the reason why the cops had the guns? Note: The relationship between the person who acquired the guns from the cops and the shooter is irrelevant.

3) What did the father know about why the cops had the guns? For that matter, why did the cops have the guns?

4) How does the police's assumption that the father wouldn't give guns to his unlicensed son absolve the father from responsibility in giving guns to his unlicensed son? It doesn't matter where he got the gun. In this particular case, in acquiring the gun, he learned of the reason why his son no longer had his guns. But that is irrelevant to the point: He knowingly gave weapons to someone whom he knew was not supposed to have them.

So, I think you have an uphill battle pretending to be as ignorant as you are making yourself out to be.

But I'm willing to entertain arguments. Have you just not read anything about this case?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by NoNukes, posted 04-24-2018 6:50 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by NoNukes, posted 04-25-2018 2:08 AM Rrhain has responded

    
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(1)
Message 215 of 834 (831873)
04-25-2018 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by NoNukes
04-25-2018 2:08 AM


Re: Shooters Get Too Much Media Attention
NoNukes responds to me:

quote:
The relevant question is not when your dad got to drive, but when he got his car back.

And thus, you threw in the red herring I specifically asked you not to.

You are allowed to own a car without a license to drive it. Therefore, when he got his car back is irrelevant. Giving a car to someone who is not licensed to drive it, in and of itself, is of no concern. If said unlicensed driver then drives the car, it would be a dereliction of duty for the authorities not to ask, "Where did you get this car?" And if it turns out that said unlicensed driver got it from someone else to ask that other person about the details because they just might be involved in the consequences of this unlicensed driver.

However, you are not allowed to own a gun without a license. Therefore, giving a gun to someone whom you know to be ineligible to have one, which the father was since the guns were confiscated specifically because the son had his license revoked and the father was taking possession of his son's guns specifically because they were being confiscated due to the son no longer having a license, means you are in trouble.

I notice you didn't answer my question: Have you done any homework regarding this? Do you know what the law is in Illinois regarding guns, licensing, and the transfer of weapons? For example, did you know that there is an exemption for family members? If a close relative (and do you know how the statute defines that?) gives a "bona fide gift" of a weapon, you don't need to check to see if they have a license. Do you honestly think that this is a "bona fide gift"? Especially since the father specifically knew that his son was ineligible to own a gun?

And that is why it's a red herring. Repeat this to yourself before responding:

You are allowed to own a car without a license.

You are NOT allowed to own a gun without a license.

You are allowed to own a car without a license.

You are NOT allowed to own a gun without a license.

You are allowed to own a car without a license.

You are NOT allowed to own a gun without a license.

...


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by NoNukes, posted 04-25-2018 2:08 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by NoNukes, posted 05-03-2018 3:16 PM Rrhain has responded

    
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 222 of 834 (832509)
05-04-2018 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by NoNukes
05-03-2018 3:16 PM


Re: Shooters Get Too Much MediReinkinga Attention
NoNukes:

quote:
I don't have to honor your requests.

Of course not. I tried to help you, but I can't stop you from making a fool of yourself.

Not only did the father know that the son had his gun license taken away and thus his son was ineligible to own guns, he promised the cops he wouldn't give them to his son:

Waffle House Shooting Suspect Got His Confiscated Guns Back After Moving to Tennessee

He said deputies returned the guns to Reinking’s father on the promise that he would “keep the weapons secure and out of the possession of Travis.”

And thus, we're back to my original point: Reinking's father could face charges. There is a reasonable case to be made. Whether it survives scrutiny in the court is precisely why the court is there. But, this is not a frivolous charge.

quote:
Wrong. You don't need a license to own a rifle. All adults have a right to own a rifle absent some legal disqualification. Your premise is just wrong. Surely you have heard of the 2nd amendment?

(*chuckle*)

I asked you repeatedly to do your homework regarding this, and still you refuse to consider this advice and thus, you make yourself look foolish.

I even quoted some of the law and give you really good hints as to what you should be looking for, and you still decided to speak without any authority.

In Illinois, you need a license to own any firearm. Surely you have heard of the Second Amendment? Notice how it refers to a "well-regulated" militia? Surely you have read the various SCOTUS decisions that indicate it is not an infringement of your rights to require you to be licensed in order to own a firearm.

It is hereby declared as a matter of legislative determination that in order to promote and protect the health, safety and welfare of the public, it is necessary and in the public interest to provide a system of identifying persons who are not qualified to acquire or possess firearms, firearm ammunition, stun guns, and tasers within the State of Illinois by the establishment of a system of Firearm Owner's Identification Cards, thereby establishing a practical and workable system by which law enforcement authorities will be afforded an opportunity to identify those persons who are prohibited by Section 24-3.1 of the Criminal Code of 2012, from acquiring or possessing firearms and firearm ammunition and who are prohibited by this Act from acquiring stun guns and tasers.
(Source: P.A. 97-1150, eff. 1-25-13.)

That's just the introduction. Are you going to do your homework to find out what the full extent of the law is?

Hint: The law doesn't talk about "ownership." Do the words "acquire or possess" mean anything to you?

quote:
But generally speaking no license is required to own a rifle.

You sure about that? Have you looked up the relevant law in Illinois? Because it isn't the case all over the US. Don't confuse North Carolina's law (which requires a license to have a "pistol" but makes an exemption for "long guns") with Illinois' law.

You did, didn't you? You thought that the laws in North Carolina were applicable across the entire country, didn't you?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by NoNukes, posted 05-03-2018 3:16 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by xongsmith, posted 05-04-2018 7:45 PM Rrhain has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019