Mass shootings

[fredtoast]

(03-14-2018, 05:36 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Let me expand on my question that was left unanswered. If there's a law already on the books that says you're guilty of negligence by not having a tall enough fence and your lion gets out and kills someone, why can't that law be used if you leave your gun out in the open and it's used to kill someone? Is the law written specifically for fencing in lions?

This would fall under the civil penalty for negligence.  It is not a criminal statute.  It is already possible to find a person negligent for allowing a child to have a gun.

The problems with guns is that it is often impossible to know who the legal owner of the gun is in order to hold that person responsible.  And it is also difficult to prove that the person who sold the gun knew that the buyer was a criminal because there is no owner licensing law.
 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-14-2018, 01:33 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Sorry, but as best I can tell you never said how you would want to keep mentally ill people from owning guns.  Sorry if I missed it, but could you post a link?

All I know is that you are opposed to any HIPPA information being used, but it is hard for me to tell exactly what you mean sometimes.

I didn't say I was opposed to it, I asked if you were in favor of confidential medical information being made public, something that is currently illegal.  This constant, deliberate, misstatement of the positions of others makes Dill's future, nauseatingly saccharine, defense of your posting techniques all the more laughable.

(03-14-2018, 01:38 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually yes it is that simple.  I have seen it happen.

If it is not that simple then please explain what i am missing.

No, it's not, as I've seen it precisely not happen.  As I said, your assertion is grossly over simplified, as I pointed out the instant you made it.

(03-14-2018, 01:48 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually no, they don't.  There is a large business in trafficking guns to criminals that start with "straw purchases"

https://everytownresearch.org/reports/inside-straw-purchasing-criminals-get-guns-illegally/

Using Everytown as a source for information on firearms is like getting information on Israel from Louis Farrakhan.  But I will address the assertions they make.

Quote:Looking at trace information from 1998, the ATF found that “a small group of dealers accounts for a disproportionately large number of crime gun traces.”4 More than 85 percent of dealers in the U.S. had no crime guns traced to them at all in 1998, while about 1 percent of licensed firearm dealers accounted for 57 percent of traces that same year.5 The ATF also concluded that “sales volume alone cannot be said to account for the disproportionately large number of traces associated with those dealers.”6

I'll first point out that the data being used in this study is, by the admission of your own source, around twenty years old.  Second, the data would seem to suggest that a far easier solution to this issue would be to target the dealers responsible for these "disproportionately large number of traces".  After all, 1% of dealers, especially the most egregious offenders within that 1% would be a small number.  Seems like my constantly restated assertion, that we have to actually enforce laws already on the books, would be a much simpler solution to drafting more laws.

Quote:Guns get from dealers to criminals in part through trafficking. “ATF’s trafficking investigations show that trafficked firearms are diverted to prohibited persons and are subsequently used in serious crimes,” according to an ATF report.7 In trafficking investigations between 1996 and 1998, 25 percent involved guns used in an assault and 17 percent involved guns used in homicides.8 Nearly 5 million Americans were victims of violent crimes committed with firearms between 1993 and 2005.9

I'd direct you the first sentence and the key words "in part".

Quote:The ATF examined gun-trafficking investigations from July 1996 to December 1998 and found that 46 percent of trafficking investigations during this period involved straw purchasers.10 This was nearly double the percentage of the next closest source.

Far enough, that's a higher percentage than I would have thought.  I'd be very interested to see if that is relevant 20 years later.

Quote:Anyone interested in the truth about gun trafficking should read this entire article.

It clearly shows which of us know what we are talking about when it comes to gun trafficking.

Sure, Fred.  I was unaware of straw purchasers and gun trafficking.  I can tell you that my personal experience has been that the vast majority of illegally possessed guns were acquired through theft, either of personal residences, businesses or product in transit (train and truck theft).

(03-14-2018, 01:53 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I can answer this directly.  No.  I would give every lawful gun owner a chance to register his guns and not be deemed a criminal.  They would only become criminals if they refused to comply with the law.

So, you are in favor of criminalizing gun owners.  No slippery slope though, eh?

(03-14-2018, 02:02 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Every new law ever enacted made "criminals" out of people who were not criminals before the "stroke of a pen".  Based on this logic every new law ever enacted was a "gross injustice"

So murder, theft, rape, extortion and any other myriad crimes were not criminal until codified in the current penal code?  Another perfect example of you ignoring the actual intent of a person's argument and focusing on an argument they clearly aren't making.

Quote:Will you comply and turn in your guns if they are outlawed?  If so then why are you concerned that a gun registry will make it more difficult to confiscate guns?

That would very much depend on what the law was and how it was enacted.  As I said earlier, I'd hate to contemplate the state of our nation if confiscation became a reality.  As for your registry idea, it's currently illegal, so, in this discussion, you are the only one advocating for a currently illegal act.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act

No such rule or regulation prescribed [by the Attorney General] after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary's authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.

Stop advocating for illegal acts, Fred.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-14-2018, 02:03 PM)Dill Wrote: lol "misleading" as you "claim," but never have time to demonstrate.  When Fred asks a rhetorical question, you accuse him of twisting your words, without ever explaining how he supposedly does that. Then you ask a rhetorical question and that is ok.

Fred stays on track when he argues an issue; his arguments are centripetal, pushing deeper into the subject. See 829 and 836 and 841 above, in addition to the post I just quoted. I could have "highlighted" any of those posts. I'd really have to look hard to find an insult in his posts.

As your posts captured above at 858 and 859 show, your "arguments" are centrifugal. They spin out into quipery and ad hoc personal attacks and unfounded accusations. You find "lying" and "sadness" and "dishonesty" everywhere. Barely 15% of your statements in both posts can be collected into something like an argument trained on a point Fred actually made. I don't blame Fred for his occasional, exasperated injunction to "educate yourself." That is about all the personal insult he has time for when he is arguing a point, if that is even an insult.

Capture 858 has an incipient argument in one line. The rest could be called simply "fluff" if there weren't so much ad hominem. You cannot show me a Fred post here or anywhere else in the three year history of this forum which is that empty, which uses so many lines to say so little. Yet you have posts like that on thread after thread. That is your signature tactic, to dismiss a real argument with a quip for every line--"Oh my!"  To claim others are lying or have twisted your words. And to just claim. Nothing more.

And it is easy to multiply examples, and expand to other threads. No one is "cherry picking" and "pretending." The list of vacuous quips in 858 is a typical SSF post, and the extended argument captured in 860 is typical Fred. If Fred stops for a moment to express exasperation with how you argue, or fail to argue, your unclarity as well as the ad hominem, he is back on track in the next post--a real argument whose points you cannot or will not address--"I'm very stupid Fred."

This is the most nauseatingly obsequious and wholly inaccurate post I have ever read on this or the old board.  Fred is infamous for deliberate obfuscation, straw man arguments, deliberate misstatement of the arguments presented to him and failing to actually answer questions directly.  Seriously, though, it's been a rough day and you literally got audible laughter out of me with this post, so thank you very much.

[fredtoast]

(03-14-2018, 06:36 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I didn't say I was opposed to it, I asked if you were in favor of confidential medical information being made public, something that is currently illegal.  This constant, deliberate, misstatement of the positions of others makes Dill's future, nauseatingly saccharine, defense of your posting techniques all the more laughable.

How can I misstate your position when I do not even know what it is?

I am opposed to letting mentally ill people own guns.  I don't know what that has to do with making confidential HIPPA information public.  But I do know that somehow someway there has to be some way to give a licensing board access to records that show that a person is too mentally iull to own a gun.

I'd actually like to hear your opinion on this.  How do you recommend we keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill people? 
 

[*wildcats forever*]

This is getting out of control again. Whatever you guys have going - take it off line. Turns every thread south, and members here hardly enjoy reading it.

I don't care who started what, read our CoC and go with the rules, please.

[fredtoast]

(03-14-2018, 06:36 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, it's not, as I've seen it precisely not happen.  As I said, your assertion is grossly over simplified, as I pointed out the instant you made it.

I understand that you keep repeating over and over and over again that my point is too simple, but you have never explained why.

How can you see something "not happen"?

If an officer pulls over a car and it contains convicted felons, non-criminals, and guns how does the officer prove who the guns belong to if the non-criminal claims ownership?

[fredtoast]

(03-14-2018, 06:36 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So, you are in favor of criminalizing gun owners.  No slippery slope though, eh?

No.  I am not in favor of criminalizing gun owners.  I have already said that.  I have no problem with you legally owning guns.

I am not even sure what you are trying to say here.  I am perfectly fine with legal gun ownership.

[Dill]

(03-14-2018, 06:49 PM)wildcats forever Wrote: This is getting out of control again. Whatever you guys have going - take it off line. Turns every thread south, and members here hardly enjoy reading it.

I don't care who started what, read our CoC and go with the rules, please.

Understood.

[*PhilHos*]

(03-14-2018, 06:49 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If an officer pulls over a car and it contains convicted felons, non-criminals, and guns how does the officer prove who the guns belong to if the non-criminal claims ownership?

Shouldn't he be more concerned with why convicted felons are in a car instead of in prison?

[Vas Deferens]

(03-15-2018, 03:54 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Shouldn't he be more concerned with why convicted felons are in a car instead of in prison?

Most felony's dont result in a life sentence.  When they leave jail, they are still convicted felons and aren't allowed to possess firearms... 

[StLucieBengal]

(03-12-2018, 01:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: What exactly am I supposed to tell the people of Australia and Canada where guns are required to be registered but still legal to own?

"Look out!! They are coming for your guns!!  Registration laws automatically lead to confiscation of all guns!!  Just ask the NRA!!!"

let's see...

Canada...registration list 1990s, old guns grandfathered in, but this list is used for the state to confiscate the guns upon the death of the holder with no compensation to the estate

1996 Australia used it's list of registered semiauto hunting rifles to confiscate all those weapons.

And finally .... New Zealand, 1921 the ownership of revolvers were allowed in the name of personal defense, 1970s this list was used to confiscate all revolvers.

[fredtoast]

(03-15-2018, 09:23 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: let's see...

Canada...registration list 1990s, old guns grandfathered in, but this list is used for the state to confiscate the guns upon the death of the holder with no compensation to the estate

1996 Australia used it's list of registered semiauto hunting rifles to confiscate all those weapons.

And finally .... New Zealand, 1921 the ownership of revolvers were allowed in the name of personal defense, 1970s this list was used to confiscate all revolvers.

You are still missing the point.  These confiscatiosn were not CAUSED BY the registration.  the confiscation laws would have been passed EVEN IF THERE WERE NO GUN REGISTRIES.

Also there are places were guns are registered and have NEVER BEEN SEIZED.  

That is why the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy.  

Plus, what do you have to worry about.  You are the most strict person here about following every rule and law.  Surely you would surrender your guns if the law required it wouldn't you?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-15-2018, 11:19 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You are still missing the point.  These confiscatiosn were not CAUSED BY the registration.  the confiscation laws would have been passed EVEN IF THERE WERE NO GUN REGISTRIES.

Did the registry make the confiscation easier, Fred?

Quote:Also there are places were guns are registered and have NEVER BEEN SEIZED.  

Seeing as how Federal law prohibits such a registry, I'm forced to ask why you advocate breaking the law.

Quote:That is why the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy.
 

You say this like people can't see results and make predictions based on similar circumstances. 

[GMDino]

(03-15-2018, 09:23 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: let's see...

Yes...let's.

First: "Confiscate"

Quote:con·fis·cate

ˈkänfəˌskāt/
verb

1. take or seize (someone's property) with authority.
   "the guards confiscated his camera"
   synonyms:
   impound, seize, commandeer, requisition, appropriate, expropriate, sequester, sequestrate, take (away); 
   distrain
   "the guards confiscated his camera"
   
   
   • take (a possession, especially land) as a penalty and give it to the public treasury.
     "the government confiscated his property
     

Moving along....

(03-15-2018, 09:23 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Canada...registration list 1990s, old guns grandfathered in, but this list is used for the state to confiscate the guns upon the death of the holder with no compensation to the estate

I found nothing...NOTHING that said they are confiscating guns.  At all.  They even stopped charging for the registration and registered gun ownership has gone UP.

Now there were a few blogs and a post from the NRA that claims "confiscation has begun" with no proof attached to them.

(03-15-2018, 09:23 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: 1996 Australia used it's list of registered semiauto hunting rifles to confiscate all those weapons.

They did not "use the list" to "confiscate weapons.  They created different licenses for different guns.  You could try and get the license or turn your guns in for fair value.

And they allow for amnesty to turn in guns that are unwanted or unregistered.

I did not find where they confiscated guns.

There are still plenty of guns in Australia...owned by the public.  And there is a minimum level of training needed to own even something like a pistol.

(03-15-2018, 09:23 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: And finally .... New Zealand, 1921 the ownership of revolvers were allowed in the name of personal defense, 1970s this list was used to confiscate all revolvers.

This one I did find a reference too!  And it got excellent reviews from the four people who reviewed it.

I also found a reference to the 1970's:

Quote:On 10th March 1972 Paul Miet, a Wellington Jeweller, was fatally shot in a robbery and that incident appears to have been the catalyst for a change to New Zealand's gun laws - specifically the removal of the natural right of individuals to defend themselves in their own homes with whatever force was necessary. The 1974 Arms Amendment Act created a very short list of organisations and people who would thereafter be permitted to possess pistols. I.e. bona fide collectors, people to whom the pistol was an heirloom, memento or souvenir, members of incorporated and recognised pistol shooting clubs, as well as bona fide museums. Most believed that Government initiated these changes but they appear to have originated from the Police Department.


Pistols in the hands of people and organisations other than the above were surrendered and destroyed. Many of the destroyed pistols were rare and unusual guns that had been old when first registered in 1920.

So while technically correct that they used the list to collect the guns it was not a direct line that had the government confiscating guns from citizens.



And while it is an arduous process to get a gun license it can be done...and there are guns there:

Quote:About 230,000 licensed firearms owners own and use New Zealand's estimated 1.1 million firearms.

[fredtoast]

(03-15-2018, 11:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Did the registry make the confiscation easier, Fred?

Yes it did.  I have already addressed this claim.  Opposing a gun registry because it would make it harder on criminals to break the law is a ridiculous argument.

(03-15-2018, 11:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Seeing as how Federal law prohibits such a registry, I'm forced to ask why you advocate breaking the law.

I am in favor of changing the law.

Federal law used to prohibit women from voting.

(03-15-2018, 11:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You say this like people can't see results and make predictions based on similar circumstances. 

Absolutely correct.  But when people make predictions based on correlation they are making false assumptions.

As I have said so many times before almost 100% of heroin addicts drink alcohol before they become heroin addicts.  So people who claim drinking alcohol causes heroin addiction are making false assumptions base on correlation instead of causation.

That is why the slippery slope argument is considered a logical fallacy.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-16-2018, 11:31 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes it did.  I have already addressed this claim.  Opposing a gun registry because it would make it harder on criminals to break the law is a ridiculous argument.

Except the "criminals" you are talking about are only "criminals" because they refuse to cooperate with what the consider an unjust law.  Is not civic disobedience and acceptable reaction to government overreach?  Mind you, we're talking about overreach from their perspective, not yours.  The ability to view a topic from a perspective other than your own would really help you understand the points being made in this thread (I say this as you have repeatedly expressed confusion at clearly made points). 

Quote:I am in favor of changing the law.

Federal law used to prohibit women from voting.

Hmm, there's a term for the logical fallacy being employed by you here. 

Quote:Absolutely correct.  But when people make predictions based on correlation they are making false assumptions.

Except when real world evidence bears that assumption out.  If there were no high level governments advocating for confiscation in this nation then you would absolutely have a point.  As there are a not insignificant number of them that are, you do not.

Quote:As I have said so many times before almost 100% of heroin addicts drink alcohol before they become heroin addicts.  So people who claim drinking alcohol causes heroin addiction are making false assumptions base on correlation instead of causation.

There's a term for the logical fallacy you're engaging in here.

Quote:That is why the slippery slope argument is considered a logical fallacy.

Again, how could it be a fallacy when it's actually occurring?  How about this for an argument, people see the possibility of such an action as it has played out in exactly those terms in this nation, hence they do not want to put themselves in a position for it to happen to them.  Thankfully the federal government made your proposed course of action 100% illegal, maybe they were worried about the slippery slope?

[fredtoast]

(03-19-2018, 12:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Again, how could it be a fallacy when it's actually occurring?  How about this for an argument, people see the possibility of such an action as it has played out in exactly those terms in this nation, hence they do not want to put themselves in a position for it to happen to them.  Thankfully the federal government made your proposed course of action 100% illegal, maybe they were worried about the slippery slope?

It is not actually occurring any more than drinking alcohol is causing heroin addiction.

There is a correlation but no causation.

There are places with registration and no confiscation, and we can pass confiscation laws without any gun registry laws being in existence.

There is NO evidence that gun registration causes confiscation or makes confiscation inevitable.  It just so happens that the places that support confiscation also supported gun registration.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-19-2018, 12:38 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It is not actually occurring any more than drinking alcohol is causing heroin addiction.

There is a correlation but no causation.

There are places with registration and no confiscation, and we can pass confiscation laws without any gun registry laws being in existence.

There is NO evidence that gun registration causes confiscation or makes confiscation inevitable.  It just so happens that the places that support confiscation also supported gun registration.

You keep repeating the same points like I'm stupid and I just don't get your argument.  We fundamentally disagree on this issue, you don't accept my claims or arguments.  I think you display a tremendous amount of naiveté on this issue.  I think we can safely stop the pointless back and forth and allow our fellow members to draw whatever conclusion they like from what has already been stated. 

[Belsnickel]

I know there was a discussion at one point about how the school's disciplinary policies were part of the problem for the MSD shooting. According to some recent news, that may not be the case: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/18/us/nikolas-cruz-baker-act.html

It seems the school tried to get him committed.

[BmorePat87]

Shooting at a high school inMaryland. Word on Facebook from the local county emergency scanner group is 3 victims, no fatalities. School secured, students being bused to nearby school.

Hopefully everyone is fine.