Mass Killings at Virginia Walmart

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Andrew Jackson, Nov 22, 2022.

  1. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,645
    Likes Received:
    46,476
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They don't trust them to go further than six miles from their houses.
     
    ButterBalls and Turtledude like this.
  2. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,645
    Likes Received:
    46,476
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Says the people that cowered from an illness with a 99.7% survival rate.
     
    ButterBalls and Turtledude like this.
  3. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    30,276
    Likes Received:
    20,263
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I answer as I see fit, and you don't set the rules who posts or what I post on this American board. I already gave you an honest answer-I cannot help it if you neither understand it nor like it. I don't speak for the other poster and if he has determined it's not worth answering what appear to be trolling questions-so be it. I gave you my answer and you should be happy
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2022
    Buri and vman12 like this.
  4. Par10

    Par10 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2019
    Messages:
    4,231
    Likes Received:
    3,739
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Why don't you compare us to Brazil? They have 2/3 the population and 33% more gun deaths. They are a Western nation and have much tougher gun laws than the US.
     
    Buri and Turtledude like this.
  5. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    17,377
    Likes Received:
    9,812
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If I were to convince myself for example that firearms were a causal factor in the difference in our suicide rates I would have to also accept firearms are causal in the difference between your suicide rates and those of South Korea. See the problem? I can’t accept such ideas because the data just doesn’t support them.

    If adding laws in your country since the 1960’s is actually correlated with MORE mass shootings in your country how can it be responsible for the disparity between our countries when the disparity existed prior? How can gun crime be exploding in parts of your country if the laws apply to the whole country?

    How can the same household rate of firearm ownership since the 1970’s to today explain the EXPLOSION of mass shootings since 2012 here? Access to firearms has been tightened extremely since 1968 and our mass shooting rate has increased massively. If we are going to use data at all me must look at all data. When we do that we can’t even come up with consistent correlation, let alone causal relationships.

    As I said, obviously a gun must exist for it to be used in a crime. But the causal factors that lead up to it actually being used for crime are many, not just existence. And those other causal factors are orders of magnitude more influential than the gun just existing. This is demonstrated by places with LOTS of guns in people’s hands having very low gun crime and places with harsh restrictions on firearms having very high gun crime rates.

    Your point about enforcing current law I can get behind. We do not enforce current law addressing your concerns. Sorry for just linking but I’m short of time this morning. Here is a longer explanation I provided previously.

    http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?posts/1073478377/

    I’m not concerned about bad men except for wishing to address what makes them bad men to begin with. But society is addicted to the things that make bad men.

    Maybe when I’m in Omaha later today where firearm restrictions are more severe than the rest of the state and where the vast majority of the state’s violent crime occurs I’ll be more concerned. :)
     
    ButterBalls likes this.
  6. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,280
    Likes Received:
    18,041
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It's not the cause of this
    Not related to the second amendment. It doesn't say you have the right to murder people.
     
    Buri and ButterBalls like this.
  7. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    17,377
    Likes Received:
    9,812
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your problem seems to be with your Constitution, our Declaration of Independence, and the United Nations.

    They have made claims of what natural rights exist and where they came from. All I’ve claimed is the rights protected by our governments and the UN were not created by them. I’ve substantiated that claim numerous times.

    The list of rights are in the documents I’ve provided. I suggest you read them. The source of those rights is in the documents I’ve provided. I suggest you READ them and attempt to critique THEIR claims if you disagree with them.

    I’m uninterested in your fallacious arguments. That won’t change. Do some reading about the Enlightenment and liberal philosophy. I’m done doing your homework. I’ve substantiated my only claim beyond a shadow of a doubt. That is my responsibility. It’s not my responsibility to make arguments for the United Nations etc. as I’m unaffiliated with them. If you disagree with the UN on human rights present an intellectual argument based on evidence as to why they are incorrect. Stop presenting me with fallacy.
     
    ButterBalls likes this.
  8. Montegriffo

    Montegriffo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2017
    Messages:
    10,673
    Likes Received:
    8,942
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    OK since you are short of time today I'll just cherry pick one point to respond to.
    I haven't actually produced any data other than to suggest rates of firearms misuse are higher in your country than mine.
    I'm a firm believer in the old adage that if you torture statistics enough you can get them to say whatever you want them to say.
    As with actual torture this makes the results unreliable at best and lies, damn lies and statistics at worst.
    I was making a generalisation which is fairly widely accepted outside of the US (sorry, no stats to support my opinion once again and yes I know the old joke about opinions and diapers being the same and for the same reasons).
    Now you can get back to the work of a busy farmer and I can get back to the life of the idle poor and watch the soccer.
    Catch you later. :)
     
  9. ButterBalls

    ButterBalls Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    51,208
    Likes Received:
    37,553
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How about Inalienable rights?
     
  10. ButterBalls

    ButterBalls Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    51,208
    Likes Received:
    37,553
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well, there's hardly a mystery that population/crime and in this case "firearms would naturally be high in the U.S. compared to a smaller country.. California alone is better than half of your county's total population alone..
     
    Buri likes this.
  11. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,456
    Likes Received:
    7,605
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Its not a whataboutism. I'm asking if they adjusted for confounding factors: Namely that without the ability to self defend, violent crime in the UK grew.
    People die from fewer gunshots, nice. Except if they're being robbed, raped, assaulted, and murdered with other objects or the criminals USING guns already just don't have to shoot because you're unarmed. Also the law barely allows for self defense in the UK, even in a home invasion.
     
  12. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,456
    Likes Received:
    7,605
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, all laws are ultimately backed by naked force. You will comply, or I will imprison you and if you resist I will use all force up to and including deadly force.
    If you don't believe me on that: Go break the law and see what happens.
     
  13. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,456
    Likes Received:
    7,605
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He cannot accept the concept of creation endowing you with a right.
    Only governments can. Man is all. Etc.

    Its like trying to argue with a king james bible only type that the king james version was intentionally edited by said king in a historically documentable fashion to benefit his administration.
    Then there are translation errors throughout the various sources used. And Nicea. Etc.
    They simply cannot accept these things intellectually, they have a hard mental block.
     
  14. Alwayssa

    Alwayssa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Messages:
    32,956
    Likes Received:
    7,587
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you are quoting/referring/referencing from Locke and others, then yes, you are quoting a deity source. The difference is that the natural rights they were talking about went from the King/Queen to the people individually.
     
  15. Alwayssa

    Alwayssa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Messages:
    32,956
    Likes Received:
    7,587
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is not a question of packing, it is a question of using a firearm that is clearly not defending your home or car. We have people who do road rage with firearms because "someone cut them off" or something similar. We had a mass shooting in Walmart because he was being taunted by some employees who made fun of him. A common argument for someone who is facing capital murder charges will almost always have the argument that he was bullied, whether at home, in school, at work, etc. It is how we got the "going postal" concept. When there is a shooting at a bar or any other public place, the chances are very great that it started out as a scuffle and ended up as a shootout.
     
  16. Alwayssa

    Alwayssa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Messages:
    32,956
    Likes Received:
    7,587
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The founders never believed the 2a was an individual right. It was more about the fear of a strong federal government directing a large military force to take away those rights. Hence in the early days of the Republic, we had a very, very, very small regular army and everyone else was "national guard" between the ages of 16 to 60. The individual right of owning a firearm didn't develop until the mid-19th century and culminated in its first Supreme Court Ruling in the United States vs Cruikshank and Presser vs Illinois. These Supreme Court cases were in the late 19th century, almost 100 years since the passing of the Bill of Rights.



    https://www.uslawshield.com/key-second-amendment-supreme-court-cases/
     
    Montegriffo likes this.
  17. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    30,276
    Likes Received:
    20,263
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    when the many states started considering allowing CCW-the anti gun hysterics constantly howled about "blood in the streets" For about six months, their lamentations could be written off as hyperbolic speculation. But as state after state allowed SHALL ISSUE permits, and the numbers didn't show any such problems, it was obvious to me that the anti gun groups were what I already knew-inveterate liars.
     
    SiNNiK likes this.
  18. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    30,276
    Likes Received:
    20,263
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    LOL-even the dissent in Heller agreed it was an individual right. There was no need for it to develop because the FEDERAL government never attempted to control arms until the corrupt FDR regime did. You cannot find a serious legal scholar-even on the left-who agrees with your claim
     
    SiNNiK likes this.
  19. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    30,276
    Likes Received:
    20,263
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    LOL-lets see I broke the national record for pin shooting and while I am no longer active, had a GM rating in USPSA
     
    SiNNiK and vman12 like this.
  20. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,645
    Likes Received:
    46,476
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeah but he can fast rope from the 1st floor to the basement.
     
    Turtledude likes this.
  21. Alwayssa

    Alwayssa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Messages:
    32,956
    Likes Received:
    7,587
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Heller was in 20th Century, not when the Founding fathers wrote the 2a. Hellers basically rules that no firearm, other than Scalia wrote as dangerous and improper to sell to the public, aka military weapons, cannot be banned per the individual right. This expanded the earlier decisions that I mentioned in my post. And the Heller case never went against the 1934 Firearms Act. That is still on the books and deals with the interstate commerce of firearm sales.
     
  22. Montegriffo

    Montegriffo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2017
    Messages:
    10,673
    Likes Received:
    8,942
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It's not a use of force when something is done voluntarily.
     
  23. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    30,276
    Likes Received:
    20,263
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    yeah conservatives-when they finally got control of federal courts late in DDE's second term-were too respectful of awful precedent
     
  24. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,456
    Likes Received:
    7,605
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A law is always a use of force. Threat of force is force.
    As well: It was not a 100% measure, it was compulsory on pay of law not voluntary.
     
    vman12 likes this.
  25. Alwayssa

    Alwayssa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Messages:
    32,956
    Likes Received:
    7,587
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have no problems with CCW. That is not the point. The point has always been when to use a firearm.

    Case in point, in Louisiana, a young Japanese 19 year old kid was killed while being shot through the door with a shotgun blast. The kid was lost, trying to ask for directions. The owner of the home shot hime throgh the door, per his statement. And given the gun politics of the day, he couldn't be charged. This was an example of the "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality of the late 1990s early 2000s. It should have never happened. He could have answered the kid's question through the door or told him to go away. But neither was the case when he made his statement to the police. Or you have the person at a bar getting into a fisticuff, gets beat, retreats returns with a firearm, and attempts to kill the person who beat him up but ends up killing an innocent bystander, wounding the person who attacked him, and then flees. There are a plethora of these types of cases, what I call stupid people doing stupid things with firearms because of the mentality that we have.

    Look a firearm is a great tool, a useful tool if you know how to use one property. But many people don't know **** and think what they see on TV is reality. Even when you had a former military person claiming to be a former SEAL in Las Vegas in 2017 wanting to shoot the person from the ground up some 33 stories using nothing but a pistol. He was on Fox and other conservative outlets and made that claim along with the usual "anti-gun" arguments he was making at that time.
     

Share This Page