Mass shootings - Printable Version +- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com) +-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums) +--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0) +---- Forum: P & R Archive (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-P-R-Archive) +---- Thread: Mass shootings (/Thread-Mass-shootings) |
RE: Mass shootings - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 04-09-2018 I believe it was in this thread that I introduced you guys to the CA "approved handgun roster". Here's an excellent article on the subject for those interested. http://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilot/opinion/tn-dpt-me-harper-commentary-20180405-story.html RE: Mass shootings - fredtoast - 04-10-2018 (04-09-2018, 12:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, I pointed out an undeniable fact. The number of guns in private hands has exploded while the crime rate decreased. What one could logically infer from this is that the vast majority of gun owners are exceptionally law abiding citizens. Actually there is no logical inference there at all. There is no connection at all between the number of guns gunowners possess and the crime rate among gunowners. RE: Mass shootings - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 04-10-2018 (04-10-2018, 08:46 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually there is no logical inference there at all. There is no connection at all between the number of guns gunowners possess and the crime rate among gunowners. Only if you assume that not a single gun among the millions purchased in that time period was bought by a new gun owner. The crime statistics are rather telling, lawful gun owners account for a minuscule amount of gun related crime. Maybe targeting them with new laws and regulations is not the answer? RE: Mass shootings - fredtoast - 04-11-2018 (04-10-2018, 08:46 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually there is no logical inference there at all. There is no connection at all between the number of guns gunowners possess and the crime rate among gunowners. (04-10-2018, 10:52 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Only if you assume that not a single gun among the millions purchased in that time period was bought by a new gun owner. Even if I assume that a lot of guns were bought by new gun owners there is still no connection between the nnumber of guns owned and the crime rate among gunowners. (04-10-2018, 10:52 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: lawful gun owners account for a minuscule amount of gun related crime. Maybe targeting them with new laws and regulations is not the answer? Not one lawful gun owner will be punished by laws requiring registration or licensing. The laws will only punish the ones who break the law. RE: Mass shootings - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 04-11-2018 (04-11-2018, 05:58 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Even if I assume that a lot of guns were bought by new gun owners there is still no connection between the nnumber of guns owned and the crime rate among gunowners. You don't see the inherent contradictions in this statement? I can only assume, no. Quote:Not one lawful gun owner will be punished by laws requiring registration or licensing. The laws will only punish the ones who break the law. You say this with the obvious assumption that all newly enacted laws are good laws that deserve to be followed. You have already seen a perfect example of this in Colorado with their "high capacity" magazine ban. The citizenry largely refused to follow this law. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/16/us/sheriffs-refuse-to-enforce-laws-on-gun-control.html Just because a bunch of politicians pass a law does not mean only a criminal will refuse to follow said law. For a defense attorney you put a lot of faith in the power of the state. Wait, I should rephrase that, you only appear to do so in regards to gun laws, certainly not in regards to the actions of law enforcement officers. RE: Mass shootings - fredtoast - 04-11-2018 (04-11-2018, 06:50 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You say this with the obvious assumption that all newly enacted laws are good laws that deserve to be followed. No I did not. I simply used the same exact phrase you did. "Law Abiding Citizen". You can defend criminal behavior all you want. But you are not allowed to use the term "law abiding" for people who break the law. Who do you give the authority to decide which laws are proper to follow and which are proper to break? RE: Mass shootings - fredtoast - 04-11-2018 (04-11-2018, 06:50 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You don't see the inherent contradictions in this statement? I can only assume, no. You do not have to assume. I will admit that I do not. Please explain it to me. RE: Mass shootings - Belsnickel - 04-11-2018 Sometimes, when people talk about statistics that don't know how to talk about statistics, it gives me a headache. RE: Mass shootings - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 04-11-2018 (04-11-2018, 07:01 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No I did not. I simply used the same exact phrase you did. "Law Abiding Citizen". Don't mealy mouth with us, Fred. It's pointless as no one buys it. Quote:You can defend criminal behavior all you want. But you are not allowed to use the term "law abiding" for people who break the law. Sure I am. When a previously law abiding citizen refuses to follow an unjust law they don't become a criminal by dint of refusal. Who knew you were such a bootlicker to those in authority? Quote:Who do you give the authority to decide which laws are proper to follow and which are proper to break? I rather think that an unjust law is rather obvious. The Framers thought the same way, so I feel I'm in good company. Let's put it this way, would you follow a law that stated you must turn in anyone suspected of homosexuality or face criminal consequences? Would a failure to follow this law would make you criminal in any moral sense? (04-11-2018, 07:02 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You do not have to assume. I will admit that I do not. Please explain it to me. More guns legally owned by more people with less crime. The math is rather simple. (04-11-2018, 07:54 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Sometimes, when people talk about statistics that don't know how to talk about statistics, it gives me a headache. Oh, do please just state your point instead of tap dancing around it. I do like your posts in general, but your general reluctance to flat out state a point is annoying at times. RE: Mass shootings - fredtoast - 04-12-2018 (04-11-2018, 09:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: More guns legally owned by more people with less crime. The math is rather simple. Except there are not more people owning guns. That was my original point. The percentage of people owning guns has remained the same or dropped over the last 25 years. The NRA claim that gun ownership has "exploded" is based on the fact that the people who already own guns are buying a lot more. RE: Mass shootings - fredtoast - 04-12-2018 (04-11-2018, 09:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I rather think that an unjust law is rather obvious. The Framers thought the same way, so I feel I'm in good company. The framers of the Constitution designed a system where laws would be created by elected legislators. They never said anything about individuals being able to decide which laws were "unjust". And your answer just begs the question "Obvious to who?" If it is obvious to everyone then it would never become a law in the firstplace. RE: Mass shootings - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 04-12-2018 (04-12-2018, 01:03 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Except there are not more people owning guns. That was my original point. There are new people owning guns, which is what I said. When the statement, "more people own guns" is made it means that people who did not previously own a gun decided to purchase one. Unless your argument is that every single firearm purchased since 1992 was bought by a person who already owned a gun then your position is demonstrably false. Are you making that claim? I'll be interested in seeing you tap dance around this question. (04-12-2018, 01:09 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The framers of the Constitution designed a system where laws would be created by elected legislators. They never said anything about individuals being able to decide which laws were "unjust". Odd, as the founded the very country based on rebellion against unjust laws. Google founding fathers and tyranny for a choice set of quotes on the subject. Quote:And your answer just begs the question "Obvious to who?" If it is obvious to everyone then it would never become a law in the firstplace. So, based on your position, segregation was fine when it was the law of the land simply because it was the law? How strange it must be to need legislators to inform you as to what is moral and immoral. RE: Mass shootings - PhilHos - 04-12-2018 (04-12-2018, 05:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So, based on your position, segregation was fine when it was the law of the land simply because it was the law? How strange it must be to need legislators to inform you as to what is moral and immoral. Allow me to interject here that slavery was upheld by the Supreme Court, as well. RE: Mass shootings - fredtoast - 04-12-2018 (04-12-2018, 05:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: There are new people owning guns, which is what I said. When the statement, "more people own guns" is made it means that people who did not previously own a gun decided to purchase one. Unless your argument is that every single firearm purchased since 1992 was bought by a person who already owned a gun then your position is demonstrably false. Are you making that claim? I'll be interested in seeing you tap dance around this question. The "fact" is that the percentage of people owning guns has either dropped or stayed the same. I agreed that probably some new people had bought guns because I assume some other gun owners had either died or gotten rid of their guns. There can be "new" gunowners without there being "more" gunowners. RE: Mass shootings - fredtoast - 04-12-2018 (04-12-2018, 05:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Odd, as the founded the very country based on rebellion against unjust laws. Google founding fathers and tyranny for a choice set of quotes on the subject. Actually their main complaint was that the laws were being made without them having representation. They never once said that each individual would be allowed to decide which laws he followed. They made this pretty clear when they wrote a Constitution that created a representative system to make laws that EVERYONE had to follow. They did not think all laws were bad. Just the ones that were created without representation of the citizens. RE: Mass shootings - fredtoast - 04-12-2018 (04-12-2018, 05:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So, based on your position, segregation was fine when it was the law of the land simply because it was the law? How strange it must be to need legislators to inform you as to what is moral and immoral. No. Never said anything like that. If segregation was still the law today I would be fighting to change it through the process of our elected representatives or a challenge in the courts. I would never suggest that individuals should be allowed to make their own laws instead of the laws created by our elected officials. If there is a law passed requiring registration of guns then anyone opposed to that law should be allowed to fight to change the law. However they should not be allowed to just say "I don't have to follow any law I do not agree with." And if there was a law that I violated because it was against my morals I would not try to claim that I was a "law abiding" citizen. RE: Mass shootings - PhilHos - 04-12-2018 (04-12-2018, 06:21 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The "fact" is that the percentage of people owning guns has either dropped or stayed the same. What is the actual NUMBER of people who own guns? The percentage of gun owners may have gone down, but if the total population of America has increased during that time span, more people may actually own guns than before even if the percentage has gone down. I don't know if this is true or not, just pointing out an alternative. If I wasn't on my work computer, I could try to find the answer, but I can't. Sorry. RE: Mass shootings - fredtoast - 04-12-2018 (04-12-2018, 06:40 PM)PhilHos Wrote: What is the actual NUMBER of people who own guns? The percentage of gun owners may have gone down, but if the total population of America has increased during that time span, more people may actually own guns than before even if the percentage has gone down. I don't know if this is true or not, just pointing out an alternative. If I wasn't on my work computer, I could try to find the answer, but I can't. Sorry. Well when we discuss "crime" we discuss "crime rate" not total number of crimes. The total number of crimes can go up but if the population increases the "crime rate" can still go down. But going back to the original point even if the number of crimes has dercresed while the nuber of gunowners has increased you can not claim this proves that a vast majority of gunowners are law abiding citizens. The connection is not there. the crime rate among gunowners is not dependent on the total population crime rate or the total number of guns owned. RE: Mass shootings - PhilHos - 04-13-2018 (04-12-2018, 07:03 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Well when we discuss "crime" we discuss "crime rate" not total number of crimes. The total number of crimes can go up but if the population increases the "crime rate" can still go down. I'm not talking about the correlation between gun ownership and crime, i was just curious as to the ACTUAL number of gun owners. Are more people owning guns even if the percentage of gun ownership has gone down? I'll leave it to you and SSF to discuss if the level of gun ownership has an impact on crime. RE: Mass shootings - Bengalzona - 04-14-2018 Interesting article: https://www.npr.org/2018/04/13/602143823/how-often-do-people-use-guns-in-self-defense?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20180413 Quote:How Often Do People Use Guns In Self-Defense? Quote:The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. |