Mass shootings

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-14-2018, 03:05 AM)Dill Wrote: The first four statements are premises in support of one claim, that gun registration would help keep guns out of the wrong hands, therefore an extended argument.

They're also largely incorrect, or deliberately misleading, as I have pointed out.

Quote:The last one is an enthymeme.

Oh, my!

Quote:All focus on the issue; no quips or ad hoc ad hominem.

Interesting that you chose to highlight a post in which he didn't engage in personal insults to make your "point".  Cherry picking and pretending you have a legitimate argument is both sad and dishonest.  Thanks for defending your little buddy though, it was a sweet gesture.

[GMDino]

(03-14-2018, 11:17 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: They're also largely incorrect, or deliberately misleading, as I have pointed out.



Oh, my!


Interesting that you chose to highlight a post in which he didn't engage in personal insults to make your "point".  Cherry picking and pretending you have a legitimate argument is both sad and dishonest.  Thanks for defending your little buddy though, it was a sweet gesture.

[BmorePat87]

Our students did an excellent job with the walk out today. They focused on discussing the impact that one student can have on a large segment of the school, using an activity where 17 random students were chosen to represent 17 victims. The audience (about half of the school) was asked to sit if they knew one of the students. Everyone sat. The message they promoted was that if we let one student fall, we all fall.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-14-2018, 11:39 AM)GMDino Wrote:

I don't think you know what that word means, because you didn't use it correctly.  I absolutely will use a personal attack and I've never denied that I have.  Of course, you do the same, Dill does the same and Fred does the same.  The only difference is that one side admits it and the other side bathes in sanctimony.  

(03-14-2018, 11:51 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Our students did an excellent job with the walk out today. They focused on discussing the impact that one student can have on a large segment of the school, using an activity where 17 random students were chosen to represent 17 victims. The audience (about half of the school) was asked to sit if they knew one of the students. Everyone sat. The message they promoted was that if we let one student fall, we all fall.

I appreciate these kids doing something they think is worthwhile.

[GMDino]

(03-14-2018, 11:51 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Our students did an excellent job with the walk out today. They focused on discussing the impact that one student can have on a large segment of the school, using an activity where 17 random students were chosen to represent 17 victims. The audience (about half of the school) was asked to sit if they knew one of the students. Everyone sat. The message they promoted was that if we let one student fall, we all fall.

Excellent!

[GMDino]

(03-14-2018, 11:54 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't think you know what that word means, because you didn't use it correctly.  I absolutely will use a personal attack and I've never denied that I have.  Of course, you do the same, Dill does the same and Fred does the same.  The only difference is that one side admits it and the other side bathes in sanctimony.  

Nope. 

One side insists on calling it out and acting like it distracted from the discussion...until they are called out.  

[GMDino]

(03-14-2018, 12:00 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sure, you're 100% correct, you, Fred and Dill never engage in personal attacks.  Fred never offered to have sex with Lucie's underage daughters and you've never attacked Lucie personally.  Own your own bullshit, no one else is buying what you're trying to sell.  Please return to the thread topic now, this sidetrack is over.

Whoa!  Fred didn't do what you said.  Anyone with a 2nd grade reading level and above knows that. 

Let's go back here a bit:  The number of times I've deleted or edited a post before posting is large.  usually because I carried it too far with a knee jerk reaction to call someone a "fool" or tell them they are dumb/stupid.

But discussing one personal standards/ethics isn't the same.

Dill cited a post that has no personal attacks and the response was....a personal attack rather than the thread topic.  There is only one poster going on about such things in this thread.

Things get heated in this forum.  Old injuries get brought up over and over but they don't go on all the time.  I'd venture to say the number of personal attacks has gone down and the snarkiness has too.

Just trying to be honest about what I see within the way this discussion of mass shootings and the law has been handled by both sides.

[GMDino]

My son is part of a walkout at his school.  Waiting for pics and video from him.

My nephew was on the PA for the one at his school (neighboring district).

And in DC they are sitting with their backs to the White House.

Very proud of these kids.

[GMDino]

There is no perfect system and we can't stop everything.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/03/14/teacher-accidentally-discharges-firearm-in-calif-classroom-he-was-trained-in-gun-use/?utm_term=.74dc569d221f

Quote:Gun-trained teacher accidentally discharges firearm in Calif. classroom, injuring student


Dennis Alexander speaks at a Seaside, Calif., city council meeting on Feb. 15. (Seaside City Council)

A teacher who is also a reserve police officer trained in firearm use accidentally discharged a gun Tuesday at Seaside High School in Monterey County, Calif., during a class devoted to public safety. A male student was reported to have sustained non-life-threatening injuries.

The weapon, which was not described, was pointed at the ceiling, according to a statement from the school, and debris fell from the ceiling.

Seaside Police Chief Abdul Pridgen told the Monterey County Weekly that a male student was “struck in the neck by ‘debris or fragmentation’ from something overhead.” Pridgen said whatever hit the student was not a bullet.

However, the student’s father, Fermin Gonzales, told KSBW 8 that it was his understanding that fragments from the bullet ricocheted off the ceiling and lodged in the boy’s neck. The father said the teacher told the class before pointing the gun at the ceiling that he was doing so to make sure his gun wasn’t loaded, something that can be determined visually.

“It’s the craziest thing,” Gonzales told the station. “It could have been very bad.”

Gonzales said he learned about the incident when his 17-year-old son came home with blood on his shirt and bullet fragments in his neck.

“He’s shaken up, but he’s going to be okay. I’m just pretty upset that no one told us anything and we had to call the police ourselves to report it,” the father told the TV station.

The teen was treated at a hospital.

The teacher was identified by police as Dennis Alexander, who teaches math as well as a course in the administration of justice. Alexander is a reserve police officer for Sand City and a Seaside city councilman. He could not immediately be reached for comment but he has reportedly apologized for the incident. 

The Monterey County Weekly, quoting Sand City Police Chief Brian Ferrante, reported that Alexander had his last gun safety training less than a year ago. “I have concerns about why he was displaying a loaded firearm in a classroom,” Ferrante told KSBW. “We will be looking into that.”

Exactly why the teacher was displaying the weapon at all was not entirely clear. Police said he was “providing instruction related to public safety.”

The father told KSBW that the teacher was preparing to use the gun to show how to disarm someone.
Daniel “PK” Diffenbaugh, superintendent of the Monterey Peninsula Unified School District, told the Weekly that the incident occurred during the administration of justice class, a career track course offered by the school. “Clearly, we will revisit this incident to ensure that something like this would never happen again.”

Diffenbaugh noted that state law and school policy forbids carrying firearms on campus without authorization. Alexander, he said, was not authorized.

“I think a lot of questions are on parents’ minds are, why a teacher would be pointing a loaded firearm at the ceiling in front of students,” Diffenbaugh told KSBW. “Clearly, in this incident, protocols were not followed.”

The teacher has been placed on administrative leave while an investigation takes place, according to the school. The Sand City Police Department also placed Alexander on administrative leave.

The incident comes amid a national debate on how to protect students from mass shootings like the one that took the lives of 17 people in Parkland, Fla., on Feb. 14. Among the proposals advanced is training and arming teachers, an approach favored by President Trump, among others, but opposed by a majority of the teachers in the National Education Association, including many who said in an NEA survey that it would make them feel less safe.

[Vas Deferens]

Couldn't get the bullet fragments out of his neck because they slashed the budget for the school nurse to pay for a new insurance policy that will cover teacher derived misfires.

Unreal.

[fredtoast]

(03-13-2018, 04:44 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So to clear things up, are you in favor of letting mentally insane people own weapons, and if not how do you recommend we enforce that regulation.

(03-13-2018, 07:08 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Is that what I said?

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.

[fredtoast]

(03-13-2018, 01:06 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Right now if a police officer discovered a gun (or guns) in a car with a bunch of convicted felons all it takes is one guy with a clean record to claim ownership of the weapons and without more evidence there is nothing the police can do.

(03-13-2018, 01:50 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's not that simple, and you know it.

Actually yes it is that simple.  I have seen it happen.

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

[fredtoast]

(03-13-2018, 01:50 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Actually, they usually buy them from someone who stole them directly or acquired the firearm from someone who stole it.

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/



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


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


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.


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.

[fredtoast]

(03-13-2018, 04:39 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:   I will respond with a question that you won't directly answer, do you support criminalizing lawful gun owners?

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.

[fredtoast]

(03-13-2018, 12:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sure it will.  If they don't have a list of the firearms people own then confiscating them will be much more difficult.  This isn't a hard concept to grasp. 

(03-13-2018, 01:12 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Arguing that a law should not be passed because it will make things harder on criminals is about the dumbest thing I have ever heard of.

"We can't have that law because it will make it harder for me to break the law!"

(03-13-2018, 01:50 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It makes compete sense when the "criminals" you refer to were law abiding citizens until they were turned into "criminals" with the stroke of a pen.  Such an act seems to me the very definition of a gross injustice.

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"

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?

[Dill]

(03-14-2018, 11:17 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: They're also largely incorrect, or deliberately misleading, as I have pointed out.

Oh, my!

Interesting that you chose to highlight a post in which he didn't engage in personal insults to make your "point".  Cherry picking and pretending you have a legitimate argument is both sad and dishonest.  Thanks for defending your little buddy though, it was a sweet gesture.

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."

[fredtoast]

(03-13-2018, 05:00 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And I have not have not said that i would take away any of your civil liberties.  I have said all along that you can own your guns.  All I am proposing are regulations for the sake of public safety that would not take away ANY of your civil liberties.

(03-13-2018, 07:08 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You mean except for the ones you've progressively advocated in this thread?  Such a relief.

What civil liberties have advocated taking away?  I have repeatedly said you could own your guns.  All I want is owner licensing and gun registration.

[Dill]

(03-14-2018, 11:54 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't think you know what that word means, because you didn't use it correctly.  I absolutely will use a personal attack and I've never denied that I have.  Of course, you do the same, Dill does the same and Fred does the same.  The only difference is that one side admits it and the other side bathes in sanctimony.  

I can't account for every past post of Fred and Dino, but I can say Dill doesn't do the same. And you cannot provide any evidence that he does without redefining "personal attack" to mean simply disagreeing with you or identifying mis-constructed arguments--no matter how badly that may make you feel. You cannot find a post where I have called you or anyone else a name or demeaned your intelligence, as you do to people thread after thread. I don't go on about how "irrational" and "disgusting" you are, how "sad" it is that you are a "liar." I just don't. Never have. Never will.

So I don't "absolutely" use personal attack. I don't agree it is ok to do so, even when provoked. I can prove that you use it and you cannot prove that I do. That is the difference between you and me, at least.

And as for Dino and Fred, perhaps you can find a post somewhere where, in frustration, they have responded in kind to your personal attacks. But that is not their MO, as it is yours. We don't see them appear out of nowhere on a thread to trash someone or police behavior by demanding people end a digression or post "retractions."  I don't think any other poster in this forum does that.

[fredtoast]

(03-14-2018, 02:36 PM)Dill Wrote:  You cannot find a post where I have called you or anyone else a name or demeaned your intelligence, as you do to people thread after thread. I don't go on about how "irrational" and "disgusting" you are, how "sad" it is that you are a "liar." I just don't. Never have. Never will.

So I don't "absolutely" use personal attack. I don't agree it is ok to do so, even when provoked. I can prove that you use it and you cannot prove that I do. That is the difference between you and me, at least.

Oh snap.

[*PhilHos*]

(03-13-2018, 05:53 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Out of curiousity, which law states that?

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?