posted
No, I NEVER said "to avoid danger." The ostrich was hiding its head in the sand (in the WB cartoon) to avoid seeing an unpleasant/embarassing situation. Because another animal called him 'ugly.'
>"Well, yes, in the cases where they were arrested for manslaughter and attempted murder, I'm sure the guns were involved."
How are you 'sure'? Vast psychic powers? There are literally hundreds of ways to commit even those to crimes that don't involve firearms, including with your bare hands and by vehicle. We're interested in FACTS, not conjecture.
>"Where do you get this .25% number, anyway? Aren't you the one who said people should have accurate figures and not make them up?"
I was ASKING for YOUR (or better, the article writer's) fact-based ESTIMATE, not making a factual statement. However, since the number of firearms used in crimes in the US as related to the number of privately owned firearms in EXISTENCE in the US is somewhere around .025% (data gleaned from World Almanac, again), I felt it was a MORE than generous assumption, around TEN TIMES what one would expect... but still an insignificant percentage.
>"And the simple fact that these people were law-abiding until they got their hands on a carry permit should tell you something."
Not neccessarily, until the previous objections are satisfied. And dependent on what the TX qualifications for the permit are.
------------------ The government that seems the most unwise, oft goodness to the people best supplies. That which is meddling, touching everything, will work but ill, and disappointment bring. - The Tao Te Ching
[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited March 15, 2001).]
quote:You might also try reading this, though I doubt it. Although it has no relevance to guns/crime, it has a great deal of relevance to guns/self-defense. IF you can summon up the mental fortitude to plow through it. http://www.2ndlawlib.org/journals/lethal.html
Well, right, let's go with this:
quote:What is "wrong" with this book? First, its lead author is an economist, not a law professor or even an attorney. Second, the topic of the book is gun control statutes in nations which have perpetrated genocide (p.356)in the twentieth century. Third, the book's insistent thesis is that gun control paves the way for genocide.
quote:Tell me how they aren't. Use nonemotional terms. Do not resort to the 'poor criminal' myth. Then expand it to include the other criminals. Especially rapists. I'd like to see you try and justify that one, try and make me feel sorry for one of those, especially. What is your argument that criminals aren't evil? Because the only understanding of the definition of 'evil' that you've been exposed to is dictators and mass murderers? Well that AIN'T the only one.
Where did I say that rapists aren't evil? Please -- show me. I'm simply arguing that not everyone can be grouped into the category of "evil" simple because they break the law. I run a red light -- am I evil? You jaywalk -- that's evil? Tell me, that 12 year old boy who killed the little girl -- do you think he did that intentionally? Is he evil? This isn't a black and white, open and shut ideal here, First. This is shades of grey.
quote:Now that was just weird. A double post with my post in between?
There's no evidence of a double post. I demand a recount.
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 6.27 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with four eps posted) *** "Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" -Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001 **** And homeschooling also turns you into a socially well-adjusted person, capable of talking to people without them wanting to ram a f***ing chair down your throat! - PsyLiam, 3/11/01
quote:No, the ostrich was hiding its head in the sand (in the WB cartoon) to avoid seeing an unpleasant/embarassing situation. Because another animal called him 'ugly.'
So this would be the third example of a different way in which our culture perceives ostriches of hiding its head in the sand!
quote:how are you 'sure'? Vast psychic powers? There are literally hundreds of ways to commit even those to crimes that don't involve firearms, including with your bare hands and by vehicle. We're interested in FACTS, not conjecture.
Yeah. They've got a permit to carry guns. They're arrested for trying to or actually killing someone, and you expect people to believe that guns weren't involved? Isn't your whole post conjecture in and of itself? Would you try and kill someone with your bare hands if you had a gun at your side? Don't make much sense to me.
quote:I was ASKING for YOUR (or better, the article writer's) fact-based ESTIMATE, not making a factual statement. However, since the number of firearms used in crimes in the US as related to the number of privately owned firearms in EXISTENCE in the US is somewhere around .025% (data gleaned from World Almanac, again), I felt it was a MORE than generous assumption, around TEN TIMES what one would expect... but still an insignificant percentage.
Fascinating. So guns are only used in crimes .25 percent and you claim that all the criminals need guns? Or is this not what you're saying? Looks like we don't need the guns at all, actually.
And ... by some chance, is this the Almanac that said the Gov't reported 2,000,000 lawful shootings per year? When actually the number was about 80,000? Something screwy going on there, methinks.
quote:Not neccessarily, until the previous objections are satisfied. And dependent on what the TX qualifications for the permit are.
Since the Texas qualification consists of having a clean criminal record and attending a training course, I'd call it a good example that guns make some people bad.
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 6.27 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with four eps posted) *** "Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" -Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001 **** And homeschooling also turns you into a socially well-adjusted person, capable of talking to people without them wanting to ram a f***ing chair down your throat! - PsyLiam, 3/11/01
posted
Who says that they had the gun in their possession at the time of the event they were charged for? I mean, my whole family has permits, but we don't pack heat every second of every day. None of us (except my brother, when he delivered pizza to high-crime areas) usually carry our weapons to work, or while at home on the farm (where we don't need a permit, anyway), or, in fact, most places. But we like to be ABLE to, should it become necessary.
So why do you ASSUME that they were armed when these things occurred?
Come on, do you have ANYTHING?
>"So guns are only used in crimes .25 percent"
No, The ratio of guns used to guns that are out there is .025 percent. Those few guns, however, are used, by a very small minority of people, in a large number of crimes. This is why some people have very long criminal records. They commit crimes over and over again. Until they're stopped.
"and you claim that all the criminals need guns?"
where exactly did I say this? I say that some non-criminals should be allowed to carry guns. There's no 'need' implied.
"Or is this not what you're saying? Looks like we don't need the guns at all, actually."
Nothing I said could reasonably lead to that conclusion.
"And ... by some chance, is this the Almanac that said the Gov't reported 2,000,000 lawful shootings per year?"
No.
------------------ The government that seems the most unwise, oft goodness to the people best supplies. That which is meddling, touching everything, will work but ill, and disappointment bring. - The Tao Te Ching
quote:So why do you ASSUME that they were armed when these things occurred?
Why do you assume they weren't?
quote:No, The ratio of guns used to guns that are out there is .025 percent. Those few guns, however, are used, by a very small minority of people, in a large number of crimes. This is why some people have very long criminal records. They commit crimes over and over again. Until they're stopped.
Yes. Stopped by being arrested. Or do you think the punishment for every crime should be a .40 to the skull?
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 6.27 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with four eps posted) *** "Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" -Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001 **** And homeschooling also turns you into a socially well-adjusted person, capable of talking to people without them wanting to ram a f***ing chair down your throat! - PsyLiam, 3/11/01
quote:So why do you ASSUME that they were armed when these things occurred?
Why do you assume they weren't?
quote:No, The ratio of guns used to guns that are out there is .025 percent. Those few guns, however, are used, by a very small minority of people, in a large number of crimes. This is why some people have very long criminal records. They commit crimes over and over again. Until they're stopped.
Yes. Stopped by being arrested. Or do you think the punishment for every crime should be a .40 to the skull?
quote:Nothing I said could reasonably lead to that conclusion.
Really? Only .025 percent of the guns are used in crimes. A very small amount. Why would we all need guns to combat that very small amount?
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 6.27 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with four eps posted) *** "Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" -Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001 **** And homeschooling also turns you into a socially well-adjusted person, capable of talking to people without them wanting to ram a f***ing chair down your throat! - PsyLiam, 3/11/01
No, you ARE wrong. You said You make the distinction that gun owners fight crime, while non-gun owners cower in fear. I never made this distinction. You jumped to a conclusion without thinking it through. Admit your mistakes. You'll seem so much bigger in people's eyes.
Well, frankly, I don't agree with that definition.
Your opinion is irrelevant. The definition of a word is what it is. Whether you like it or not is immaterial.
Clearly, if something or someone causes discomfort or revulsion it must be evil.
You know, you still didn't do what I told you. You originally said:
Speaking of which, maybe your entire post discomforted me: gee, guess you're evil too.
This can be broken down into two statements, with the definition of "evil" inserted between.
1) Your post made me uncomfortable. D) Something is evil if it causes discomfort. 2) You are therefore evil.
This is not logical reasoning. You might consider his POST to be evil, but not Rob himself.
Regardless, when did I say anything about there being evil PEOPLE in the world? You've gotten worked up over the past few dozen posts over absolutely nothing. I was hoping that you'd notice on your own, but I guess that's just asking too much of you, to actually read what you're responding to.
in the cases where they were arrested for manslaughter and attempted murder, I'm sure the guns were involved
I would point out that manslaughter is far more likely to be commited with a vehicle such as a car. It is the ACCIDENTAL killing of another human, remember. Learn your definitions, Jeff.
Although as I read further, I notice that Rob has already beaten me to the punch on this.
I'm simply ascertaining that "hiding your head in the sand" means more than just ignoring a problem
Which is where you are wrong. Ignoring the problem is EXACTLY what it means, because that is how it is used in contemporary language.
They've got a permit to carry guns. They're arrested for trying to or actually killing someone, and you expect people to believe that guns weren't involved?
Yes, I do. But only those people that have enough intelligence as to not jump to conclusions without knowing facts.
Would you try and kill someone with your bare hands if you had a gun at your side?
MANSLAUGHTER, Jeff. That's where you kill someone WITHOUT trying.
is this the Almanac that said the Gov't reported 2,000,000 lawful shootings per year?
Who said the government reported that?
Rob: So why do you ASSUME that they were armed when these things occurred?
Jeff: Why do you assume they weren't?
Who said we did? You made an assumption, with which you backed up a conclusion. Explain it.
Only .025 percent of the guns are used in crimes. A very small amount. Why would we all need guns to combat that very small amount?
Did he just say that? This makes no sense whatsoever. Jeff, you have reached a new low.
------------------ "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, co-operate, act alone, solve equations, analyse a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, [and] die gallantly. Specialisation is for insects." - Woodrow Wilson Smith
Ah-Ah-AHHH! No, no, no. YOU made the inference, therefore YOU must back up the conclusions, not me.
>"Yes. Stopped by being arrested."
No. SOMETIMES stopped by being arrested. Sometimes stopped by being killed. OFTEN not stopped until AFTER they've killed one or more people, and USUALLY after at least SEVEN prior felonies.
>"Or do you think the punishment for every crime should be a .40 to the skull?"
No, just some of them.
Murder, rape, stalking, child abuse, assault with intent to cause bodily harm, mugging, robbery, home invasion, and DUI on the second offense.
Why would we need guns to combat such a small amount of crime? To have a leg up on all the OTHER criminals, who use guns, knives, baseball bats, chains, bricks, and their bare hands. And because one day one of the guys with that .025% of guns used in a crime might run up against one of us with the 99.975% that aren't, and I'd like the playing field to be at LEAST even on that point.
------------------ The government that seems the most unwise, oft goodness to the people best supplies. That which is meddling, touching everything, will work but ill, and disappointment bring. - The Tao Te Ching
We just had a attempted murder/suicide shooting here today less than 2 blocks from MY house at A.K Suter Elementary. Fortunatly none of the students inside were involved.
What happened was that apparently a guy and his estranged wife while waiting to pick up their child got into a fight in the student pick up zone and the guy pulled a gun on his wife and shot her twice. He then turned the gun on himself and killed himself. She (the wife) managed to get out only to collapse like some 20 feet from the school. She's in serious condition right now at Baptist Hospital.
*sigh*
People are so fucked in the head.
------------------ "Okashii na... namida ga nagareteru. Hitotsu mo kanashikunai no ni." (That's funny... my tears are falling. And I'm not sad at all.) - Quatre Raberba Winner
quote:No, you ARE wrong. You said You make the distinction that gun owners fight crime, while non-gun owners cower in fear. I never made this distinction. You jumped to a conclusion without thinking it through. Admit your mistakes. You'll seem so much bigger in people's eyes.
How am I wrong? You jumped to the conclusion that everyone understands the metaphor as you do. That's not the way I've been exposed to the ostrich hiding in the sand, yet you assume that everyone sees it the same way you do. Now, I admit, I assumed that you used it in the same way I understand it. Therefore, we're both guilty of jumping to conclusions. Really, the fact that this is so hard to understand makes me wonder how you'll be at reading a map.
quote:Your opinion is irrelevant. The definition of a word is what it is. Whether you like it or not is immaterial.
Ah. So, likewise, your opinion of what the Constitution should be is immaterial because the lawful definition is what it is? Fantastic.
But seriously -- do you believe that boy Tate Donovan is evil? You know, the 12 year old. There's a big difference between what he did and a thirty-year old man doing the same thing. You've got to draw the distinction between what evil is and what evil is not. You don't seem able to.
quote:Regardless, when did I say anything about there being evil PEOPLE in the world?
Right here:
quote:There is EVIL in this world, in case you didn't notice. You don't eliminate it by wishing it would go away. You can either deal with it and prepare for it, or you can bury your head in the sand and hope someone doesn't shoot you in the butt in the process.
Now, if you didn't say people are evil, what exactly are you afraid is going to shoot you in the butt when your head is buried in the sand? Yes -- the evil people!!!!!! Unless you think Ahriman is real, of course. And can hold a gun. But that's another matter.
quote:This is not logical reasoning. You might consider his POST to be evil, but not Rob himself.
Ah, yes. My bad. Of course, one could always argue that only evil people are capable of posting evil posts.
quote:I would point out that manslaughter is far more likely to be commited with a vehicle such as a car. It is the ACCIDENTAL killing of another human, remember. Learn your definitions, Jeff.
That's not entirely correct, Omega.
manslaughter \Man"slaugh`ter\, n. 1. The slaying of a human being; destruction of men. --Milton.
2. (Law) The unlawful killing of a man, either in negligenc? or incidentally to the commission of some unlawful act, but without specific malice, or upon a sudden excitement of anger.
While yes, it most certainly is applied to car crash deaths and the like ... it could also apply to someone drawing their gun and killing someone in a spurt of anger. Gun related death. Ya see?
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 6.27 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with four eps posted) *** "Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" -Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001 **** And homeschooling also turns you into a socially well-adjusted person, capable of talking to people without them wanting to ram a f***ing chair down your throat! - PsyLiam, 3/11/01
quote:Which is where you are wrong. Ignoring the problem is EXACTLY what it means, because that is how it is used in contemporary language.
As I think we've pounded into the ground, there are several ways its used in contemporary language. Maybe next time just SAY what you mean?
quote:MANSLAUGHTER, Jeff. That's where you kill someone WITHOUT trying.
How do you kill someone without trying? Ah! You mean without malice aforethought? Which can be easily acquired by someone just drawing their gun and killing someone in the midst of a heated argument. Read above definition.
quote:Who said the government reported that?
You did. It was your link (in an older thread) that said that official government figures put the number at only 80,000. I want to know where you got the two million from. (Your ass, most likely).
quote:Who said we did? You made an assumption, with which you backed up a conclusion. Explain it.
Someone is going to go to the trouble of obtaining a carry permit in Texas (involving a training course), and then NOT carry their gun? Yeah, okay. That's called common sense right there. If you feel you can only be safe with a Glock at your side, why would you go out without it?
quote:Ah-Ah-AHHH! No, no, no. YOU made the inference, therefore YOU must back up the conclusions, not me.
Over three thousand concealed carry permit holders are arrested for a variety of crimes including murder. And you expect people to believe that the murderers didn't commit their crimes with a gun. Right. Again, common sense. Why bludgeon someone to death with a hammer when you've got a gun at your side? You're the one disputing that they used guns at all -- you prove it. I've got numbers showing over 3,000 concealed carry permit holders arrested for crimes. Whatchu got?
quote:Murder, rape, stalking, child abuse, assault with intent to cause bodily harm, mugging, robbery, home invasion, and DUI on the second offense.
Well, ya'll ready know my view of the Death Penalty. But, Jesus H. Fucking Christ. You make George W. look compassionate! Mugging? Robbery? Yeah, that's right -- someone steals your cheapo stereo, so you gotta gun 'em down for it. Thank god you'll never be a poltical power.
quote:And because one day one of the guys with that .025% of guns used in a crime might run up against one of us with the 99.975% that aren't, and I'd like the playing field to be at LEAST even on that point.
Yes, and it's quite possible that one of those .025% are of the 3,000 and growing number from Texas, and they're about to commit their first crime against you. But, hey, that's the price of freedom, right?
quote:People are so fucked in the head.
Yep. And many own guns. Hence: this thread.
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited March 15, 2001).]
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 6.27 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with four eps posted) *** "Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" -Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001 **** And homeschooling also turns you into a socially well-adjusted person, capable of talking to people without them wanting to ram a f***ing chair down your throat! - PsyLiam, 3/11/01
posted
You jumped to the conclusion that everyone understands the metaphor as you do.
No, I came to a well thought-out conclusion, because the vast majority of people DO use the term the same way I do. Ask any ten people whether they've heard the phrase, then ask them what they think it means. No multiple choice.
your opinion of what the Constitution should be is immaterial because the lawful definition is what it is
My definition is the lawful definition, according to the Constitution. Your definition is the lawful definition according to the Supreme Court. Which is the higher authority on law in this country?
re: evil
Look VERY carefully at the post you quoted. Do you see the word "evil" being used to modify any form of the word "person"?
I was hoping you'd figure it out on your own, but once again, you disappoint me. I'll throw you this: diagram the sentence. What type of word is "evil" in this context?
re: manslaughter
From 'Lectric Law Library's Lexicon
MANSLAUGHTER - The unlawful killing of a human being without malice or premeditation, either express or implied; distinguished from murder, which requires malicious intent.
From Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary
manslaughter \'man-,slot-er\ n (15c): the unlawful killing of a human being without express or implied malice
Killing someone without premeditation or malice requires that you not want to kill them for the purpose of killing them. This would qualify as either self-defence, which is legal, or an accident.
Where, pray tell, did you get YOUR definition? I've never seen such a horrible pronunciation guide.
You [said the Gov't reported 2,000,000 lawful shootings per year]. It was your link (in an older thread)
A) Rob posted that link, IIRC. B) We never said ANYTHING about there being 2,000,000 lawful shootings per year. We said that the FBI report stated that there were 2,000,000 incidents per year in which a civilian used a gun to prevent a crime. See the difference?
I've got numbers showing over 3,000 concealed carry permit holders arrested for crimes.
What does this have to do with your assertion that guns were used in the crimes, or that the permit assisted in the commission of said crimes?
You made an assertion. It's not our job to disprove it until you give us some reason to take it seriously. A chain of logic leading up to the conclusion would help.
------------------ "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, co-operate, act alone, solve equations, analyse a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, [and] die gallantly. Specialisation is for insects." - Woodrow Wilson Smith
quote:No, I came to a well thought-out conclusion, because the vast majority of people DO use the term the same way I do. Ask any ten people whether they've heard the phrase, then ask them what they think it means. No multiple choice.
Well ya see? I'm one of the minority who don't use the term that way. We could chalk this up to a simple misunderstanding ... ?
quote:My definition is the lawful definition, according to the Constitution. Your definition is the lawful definition according to the Supreme Court. Which is the higher authority on law in this country?
Well, according to the Constitution, the Supreme Court is.
quote:I was hoping you'd figure it out on your own, but once again, you disappoint me. I'll throw you this: diagram the sentence. What type of word is "evil" in this context?
Omega, if people aren't evil, why'd you bring it up in the first place? Right -- because you think people are evil! And as you said, it'd shoot you in the butt. Here ya' go:
quote:There is EVIL in this world, in case you didn't notice. You don't eliminate it by wishing it would go away. You can either deal with it and prepare for it, or you can bury your head in the sand and hope someone doesn't shoot you in the butt in the process.
Now, how do you eliminate evil if there are not evil people? How does evil shoot you in the butt when you've got your head buried in the sand? Really, it's quite clear that you're talking about evil people here.
quote:MANSLAUGHTER - The unlawful killing of a human being without malice or premeditation, either express or implied; distinguished from murder, which requires malicious intent.
Well, gee -- that's still using a gun, isn't it? You're the one who said people committed manslaughter with cars. Guess you had to fall of that position, huh?
Pronunciation is irrelevent. It is not a valid debating tactic as the definition is what we're looking for. And nowhere does the definition say that manslaughter can not be committed with a gun. In fact, it can be. Yes, that's correct -- you can shoot someone (and kill them) and be charged with manslaughter. You don't need malice aforethought to pull a trigger last I checked -- just a momentary loss of control.
Which comes back to: DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE LAWS OF SELF DEFENSE IN YOUR STATE? 'Cuz I'll be laughing my ass off when you're dragged to jail and charged with killing someone
quote:A) Rob posted that link, IIRC.
You don't. You posted it.
quote:B) We never said ANYTHING about there being 2,000,000 lawful shootings per year. We said that the FBI report stated that there were 2,000,000 incidents per year in which a civilian used a gun to prevent a crime. See the difference?
Ah, yes. And the FBI said the number was 80,000, not two million
quote:What does this have to do with your assertion that guns were used in the crimes, or that the permit assisted in the commission of said crimes?
Gee. Let's see here. People are law-abiding citizens (they have be, to get both the guns and the permits). Less than a year after getting both, they're arrested for a crime -- including manslaughter and murder. Gee -- I wonder why I think guns played a part?
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 6.27 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with four eps posted) *** "Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" -Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001 **** And homeschooling also turns you into a socially well-adjusted person, capable of talking to people without them wanting to ram a f***ing chair down your throat! - PsyLiam, 3/11/01
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited March 15, 2001).]
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic