Mass shootings

[fredtoast]

(03-07-2018, 11:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You mean they had the momentum to get the limit changed to .08?  I do appreciate your making my point for me, that they got what they initially wanted and then tried to get more.  They likely failed as .06 BAC is so low that a smaller person (especially a woman) who had a glass or two of wine with dinner is at risk of having their lives ruined.

You completely missed my point.  Let me make it more simple for you.

.08 dui = gun registration 
.06 dui = gun confiscation 

The fact that they were successful with the reasonable .08 did not create any "political momentum " to get a .06 dui.

Understand now?

[fredtoast]

(03-07-2018, 12:16 PM)Sociopathicsteeleranf Wrote: You touch on perhaps my biggest gripe about this issue, politicians asking for more regulations when the ones in place aren't being enforced.  Both the Florida kid and the church shooter should not have been able to purchase a firearm.  If you get down to it, the Orlando shooter, with his history, should not have as well.  While I have a very hard time laying any blame at her feet, if the women he used to abuse had actually gone to the police, instead of just leaving him, he could have had a DV conviction and been a prohibited person as well.  There are so many checks and balances in the system and they fail due to human error.  The answer isn't going to be more regulations when the regulations you have in place aren't even being enforced

None of the regulations in place would stop any violent criminal from buying a ar-15 as long as private sales are not regulated.

Very disingenuous to claim that more regulation is not needed or that criminal record will stop anyone from buying any weapon they want from a private seller.

[GMDino]

(03-08-2018, 12:09 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You completely missed my point.  Let me make it more simple for you.

.08 dui = gun registration 
.06 dui = gun confiscation 

The fact that they were successful with the reasonable .08 did not create any "political momentum " to get a .06 dui.

Understand now?

I think to the average "cold dead hands" 2A defender they think if MADD got it so even a .01 was a dui that would be the same as gun confiscation.

Imagine if there was a law that if you were charged with public intoxication or dui and had a gun on you they took it until you proved you were sober!

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-08-2018, 12:03 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No it didn't .

Yeah, it did.  I've posted direct links that prove this without room for argument or debate.  Simply saying, "no" does not change this fact.

Quote:The fact that both happened does not prove that one caused the other .

Sorry that you can not grasp the difference between "correlation " and "causation".

Nope, too stupid.  I wish I was as smart as a lawyer who doesn't know the law, but alas.

(03-08-2018, 12:09 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You completely missed my point.  Let me make it more simple for you.

.08 dui = gun registration 
.06 dui = gun confiscation

Only if the two circumstances were directly parallel, which they are not.  

Quote:The fact that they were successful with the reasonable .08 did not create any "political momentum " to get a .06 dui.

Again, you unwittingly prove my point for me.  They advocated for .08, got it and went for more.  The fact that they were unsuccessful, in this instance, is indicative of the fact that .06, as I already stated, and you oddly ignored, is that such a low bar for DUI puts anyone who had wine with dinner at risk of having their lives ruined.  Again, you find the analogy clever, it is not as it is not a direct comparison, nor is it close to being one.

Quote:Understand now?

Understanding was never an issue, agreement is the issue at hand.

(03-08-2018, 12:17 PM)fredtoast Wrote: None of the regulations in place would stop any violent criminal from buying a ar-15 as long as private sales are not regulated.

Is that what happened?  I'll save you the trouble of not answering.  No.

Quote:Very disingenuous to claim that more regulation is not needed or that criminal record will stop anyone from buying any weapon they want from a private seller.

Very disingenuous to claim private sales are the problem when the firearms acquired in these shootings were not acquired in that fashion.  Tsk tsk, Fred.

[fredtoast]

(03-08-2018, 01:06 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yeah, it did.  I've posted direct links that prove this without room for argument or debate.  Simply saying, "no" does not change this fact

All you posted wad proof that both happened. You posted no proof that one caused the other.

[fredtoast]

(03-08-2018, 01:06 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Very disingenuous to claim private sales are the problem when the firearms acquired in these shootings were not acquired in that fashion.  Tsk tsk, Fred.

I never claimef they were purchased from a private seller. Just pointing out that even if he had a criminal charge or OP on his record it would not have prevented him from purchasing from a private seller.

You do undestand that don't you?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-08-2018, 01:24 PM)fredtoast Wrote: All you posted wad proof that both happened. You posted no proof that one caused the other.

Haha, now you're postwhoring when quoting the same post.  As for your claim, I literally have to thank you, I couldn't have made a better argument against your position than you just did.  Sincerely, the perfect cherry on top.

(03-08-2018, 02:05 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I never claimef they were purchased from a private seller. Just pointing out that even if he had a criminal charge or OP on his record it would not have prevented him from purchasing from a private seller.

You do undestand that don't you?

So, your response to my assertion that we need to actually enforce laws on the books is that we need to close a loophole that has had nothing to do with any of the mass shootings we're discussing.  Outstanding job, Fred.  Sincerely.

[fredtoast]

(03-08-2018, 11:39 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Haha, now you're postwhoring when quoting the same post.  As for your claim, I literally have to thank you, I couldn't have made a better argument against your position than you just did.  Sincerely, the perfect cherry on top.

WTF?  You honestly think you posted some proof that allowing registration will lead to confiscation?

You really see no difference between "correlation" and "causation".

[fredtoast]

(03-08-2018, 11:39 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So, your response to my assertion that we need to actually enforce laws on the books is that we need to close a loophole that has had nothing to do with any of the mass shootings we're discussing.  Outstanding job, Fred.  Sincerely.

We have had very long discussions about background checks and their ability to prevent people with criminal charges, orders of protection, or serious mental issues from buying guns.  If you don't think we have then I will go back and quote the posts.

Pointing out that background checks are meaningless without regulation of private transactions is 100% relevant to this discussion.

If a fence has two holes in it it does not matter if all the horse have escaped through just one hole.  You can't claim that the horses would never have escaped if you had just fixed the one hole.

This argument is just silly.

[StLucieBengal]

(03-09-2018, 01:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote: WTF?  You honestly think you posted some proof that allowing registration will lead to confiscation?

You really see no difference between "correlation" and "causation".

Registration leads to confiscation. As has been shown over history.

[fredtoast]

(03-09-2018, 04:06 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Registration leads to confiscation.  As has been shown over history.

No they don't.

Unless you also believe that drinking alcohol causes heroin addiction.

You all need to learn the very simple difference between "causation" and "correlation".  Until you do you will never be able to undrestand why the "slipper slope" argument is considered a logical fallacy.

Educate yourself.

[StLucieBengal]

(03-09-2018, 06:52 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No they don't.

Unless you also believe that drinking alcohol causes heroin addiction.

You all need to learn the very simple difference between "causation" and "correlation".  Until you do you will never be able to undrestand why the "slipper slope" argument is considered a logical fallacy.

Educate yourself.

Tell that to the people of New Zealand, Canada, and Australia, not to mention the usual suspects.

[fredtoast]

(03-09-2018, 08:05 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Tell that to the people of New Zealand, Canada, and Australia, not to mention the usual suspects.

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!!!"

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(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?

LOL, guns are legal to own in Australia.  Disingenuous appears to be your default mode.  Please explain to the class what firearms are legal in Australia.

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

One need on look at CA and other deep blue states to see it actually happening.  The NRA doesn't have to point it out, you only have to watch the news, i.e. be informed.

[fredtoast]

(03-13-2018, 09:23 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: LOL, guns are legal to own in Australia.  Disingenuous appears to be your default mode.  Please explain to the class what firearms are legal in Australia.

handguns up to .38 caliber (.45 caliber for competitive shooters)
pump action and self loading shotguns holding no more than 5 shells
non-semi auto center fire rifles
semi auto rim fire rifles holding 10 rounds or less

[fredtoast]

(03-13-2018, 09:23 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: One need on look at CA and other deep blue states to see it actually happening.  The NRA doesn't have to point it out, you only have to watch the news, i.e. be informed.

No one is disputing this.

The point I keep making is that confiscation does not require registration, and registration does not cause confiscation.  The slipper slope argument is a logical fallacy.  there is correlation because anyplace that would support confiscation woulod also support registartion, but that does not prove that every person who supports registration also supports confiscation.

You only have to be informed to know this.  theer are tons of polls and studies that show a lot more people supprt registration than support confiscation.  they are two different issues.  teh only people who refuse to acknowledge this are the ones brainwashed by the NRA.

[GMDino]

(03-13-2018, 11:38 AM)fredtoast Wrote: handguns up to .38 caliber (.45 caliber for competitive shooters)
pump action and self loading shotguns holding no more than 5 shells
non-semi auto center fire rifles
semi auto rim fire rifles holding 10 rounds or less

My lord man!  It's like they are just ASKING to be overrun!  Why not arm them with pillows and kittens!

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-13-2018, 11:38 AM)fredtoast Wrote: handguns up to .38 caliber (.45 caliber for competitive shooters)

With massive restrictions, which you oddly failed to mention.

https://www.police.qld.gov.au/programs/weaponsLicensing/acquiringWeapons/catH/

 

Quote:pump action and self loading shotguns holding no more than 5 shells

Again, only for certain people, not just anyone can own these.  Something, again, that you oddly failed to mention.

Quote:Primary producers, farm workers, firearm dealers, firearm safety officers, collectors and clay target shooters can own functional Category C firearms.

Why did you fail to mention this restriction Fred?

Quote:non-semi auto center fire rifles

So rifles with technology over 150 years old. 

Quote:semi auto rim fire rifles holding 10 rounds or less

Yes, very important to make sure a maniac doesn't get a hold of a high capacity .22lr!

(03-13-2018, 11:42 AM)fredtoast Wrote: No one is disputing this.

Odd, you seem to be making a sincere go of it.

Quote:The point I keep making is that confiscation does not require registration, and registration does not cause confiscation. 

The counter point being that registration makes confiscation infinitely easier, which is indisputable.  Also, those asking for registration are also in favor, or lean towards at the very least, confiscation.  Again, you're asking people to trust polticiians who deserve no trust.  You're stating, please register all your firearms, but don't worry that this list will ever be used to confiscate your private property.  Please ignore what's happening in CA and other deep blue states, we'll never do that here.  Trust us.  There isn't an eyeroll emoji sufficient to address this point of yours.

Quote:The slipper slope argument is a logical fallacy.

Except it's not as real world events have proven.  If I had zero examples of this occurring you'd have a point.  As I do have examples you do not. 

Quote:there is correlation because anyplace that would support confiscation woulod also support registartion, but that does not prove that every person who supports registration also supports confiscation.

Ahh, you're starting to get it, Fred!  How is a lawful gun owner to discern between the two?  Also, today's politician is not necessarily tomorrow's politician.  Why would I hand political power to an agency that may turn on me in two years?

Quote:You only have to be informed to know this.  theer are tons of polls and studies that show a lot more people supprt registration than support confiscation.

 
Sure.  I'm not in favor of making it easier for the ones who support confiscation.  My Constitutional rights should not be subject to the vagaries of the prevailing political wind.

Quote:they are two different issues.  teh only people who refuse to acknowledge this are the ones brainwashed by the NRA.

Again, calm down with the "brainwashing" BS.  You get so used to arguing with Lucie you start tarring everyone who disagrees with you with the same brush.  This, coupled with the intellectual dishonesty you display when you can't address a point, is your biggest failing.

[fredtoast]

(03-13-2018, 11:59 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Except it's not as real world events have proven.  If I had zero examples of this occurring you'd have a point.  As I do have examples you do not. 

Okay, let me go back to the beginning.

Do you agree that drinking alcohol causes heroin addiction?  Because I can show a much stronger correlation between drinking alcohol and heroin addiction than you can between gun registration and gun confiscation.

[fredtoast]

(03-13-2018, 11:59 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  Also, those asking for registration are also in favor, or lean towards at the very least, confiscation.

No they do not.  This is a complete lie.

Since you are the one claiming this is true I challenge you to post one survey or poll that shows that everyone who supports gun registration also supports gun confiscation.

You will not be able to find one.  There is a wide support for registration and narrow support for confiscation.  Every survey shows that.