posted
Well, according to the Constitution, the Supreme Court is.
Quote the section saying that, please.
Think about it, Jeff. According to your theory, the founders designed a system by which the highest law of the land was the desires of the Supreme Court. You really think this country was designed to be a dictatorship?
Omega, if people aren't evil, why'd you bring it up in the first place?
Bring what up? That evil exists? This is only prehipherally related to the concept of their being evil people.
Now, how do you eliminate evil if there are not evil people?
Who said evil could be eliminated?
Really, Jeff, stop reading what ain't there, and try reading what is. I mean exactly what I say, unless I'm using pre-existing metaphor, or obviously joking, neither of which applies here.
Well, gee -- that's still using a gun, isn't it?
Possible, but unlikely. 1,300 or so people are killed each year in accidents involving guns. How many in cars?
You're the one who said people committed manslaughter with cars.
Which they do. Do you deny that?
the FBI said the number was 80,000, not two million
A) That's REPORTED incidents.
B) He posted the wrong study. The one we were looking for (and I only just found) can be found here. It was commissioned by the National Institute of Justice. They didn't like the conclusion, but they did arrive at it. You can find similar studies here and here. A response from the conductor of the study in question can be found here. Enjoy. If you bother to read it. Guess I got some good bookmarks out of it if you don't.
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.
There could be one murder in the group, for all you know, and manslaughter implies nothing to do with guns. How many of these crimes actually involved a gun? And were facilitated by the criminal having a permit? You don't know, and are thus in no position to make any statments on the subject.
You have nothing.
------------------ "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
[This message has been edited by Omega (edited March 16, 2001).]
[This message has been edited by Omega (edited March 16, 2001).]
[This message has been edited by Omega (edited March 16, 2001).]
[This message has been edited by Omega (edited March 16, 2001).]
[This message has been edited by Omega (edited March 16, 2001).]
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made,
There ya' go, Omega. Maybe you should try reading the Constitution from time to time?
quote:Think about it, Jeff. According to your theory, the founders designed a system by which the highest law of the land was the desires of the Supreme Court. You really think this country was designed to be a dictatorship?
Hardly, as there is more than one person on the Supreme Court. It's called "checks and balances" ... you know? Maybe you've heard of that. Probably not thought. Take a political science course please Omega, because you're really making yourself out to be a moron.
quote:Bring what up? That evil exists? This is only prehipherally related to the concept of their being evil people.
Omega, you expect that "evil" is going to shoot you in the butt? No, evil people will do that, yes? Evil itself can't just shoot you. It's not coporeal by and of itself. Honestly, do you really want me to post what you said AGAIN?!
quote:Who said evil could be eliminated?
You obviously believe it can. You said as much.
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.
How then do you plan to eliminate it? Even going by "your" interpretation of the ostrich, it's still the non-gun owners who are ignoring the problem, while it's clear the gun owners are in a position to eliminate "evil." Honestly, dude, please read your own posts. I get tired of pointing this stuff out to you.
quote:Possible, but unlikely. 1,300 or so people are killed each year in accidents involving guns. How many in cars?
Well, gee, Omega. Maybe ... none? Why don't you look that up? I've no problem believing those people could've lost their temper and shot someone in the heat of the moment. And, you've done nothing to prove otherwise, except bring up the definition of manslaughter which proved your original contention quite wrong. Truly fascinating that you tell others to know what definitions they're talking about when you don't know yourself.
quote:Which they do. Do you deny that?
Not at all. Just that people can also commit manslaughter with guns. Do you deny that?
Ahhh --- so the other 1,820,000 were unreported? How then did these numbers come about? Yet, you still claim the UCR back up the 2,000,000 number -- they don't.
quote:B) He posted the wrong study. The one we were looking for (and I only just found) can be found here. It was commissioned by the National Institute of Justice. They didn't like the conclusion, but they did arrive at it. You can find similar studies here and here. A response from the conductor of the study in question can be found here. Enjoy. If you bother to read it. Guess I got some good bookmarks out of it if you don't.
Don't blame it on Rob, you posted it.
quote:There could be one murder in the group, for all you know, and manslaughter implies nothing to do with guns. How many of these crimes actually involved a gun? And were facilitated by the criminal having a permit? You don't know, and are thus in no position to make any statments on the subject.
Twenty-seven were arrested for charges ranging from manslaughter to murder. Others were arrested for armed robbery, burglary, etc*. Honestly, the idea that you don't see a link between people carrying guns and committing crimes only proves what a ... oh, wait, that'd be an ad-hominem. Ahem.
------------------ 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 16, 2001).]
quote:Evidence suggests that this survey and others like it overestimate the frequency with which firearms were used by private citizens to defend against criminal attack.
Hey -- proof positive.
quote:Motivations. The most common motivation for owning firearms was recreation.
Wow. Looks like not everyone is as fearful as you.
quote:In 1994, about two-thirds of gunless adults were actively opposed to having guns in their homes because they viewed guns as dangerous, "immoral," or otherwise objectionable.
Damn straight.
quote:Firearm regulations place special restrictions on commerce in short-barreled guns (because they are easily concealed and disproportionately used in crime) and on large-capacity magazines.
Look at that! I tell ya', common sense at work right here.
quote:Based on the NSPOF, an estimated 0.9 percent of all gun-owning households (269,000) experienced the theft of one or more firearms during 1994. About 211,000 handguns and 382,000 long guns were stolen in noncommercial thefts that year, for a total of 593,000 stolen firearms. Those estimates are subject to considerable sampling error but are consistent with earlier estimates of about half a million guns stolen annually.[10]
Gee -- if you'd invest in a fucking safe or a trigger lock, your gun might be safe. But no -- now they're on the streets. Good work.
quote:Gun storage. Of 1,356 accidental deaths by gunshot in 1994, 185 involved children 14 years old and younger.[11] For each such fatality, there are several accidental shootings that cause serious injury. Guns were also the means of destruction in 19,590 suicides, 210 involving children 14 or younger. For these reasons, safe handling and storage of firearms have attracted the attention of the public health community.
185 Children?! Didn't you say that children gun death were less than 20 per year? GUN LOCKS people! How fucking hard is it to understand?
quote:Although training programs usually include suggestions on how to store guns safely, it does not appear that trainees are paying attention. More than half (56 percent) of owners had received some form of "formal" training from the military, law enforcement, National Rifle Association, National Safety Council, or other source. As a group, owners who received such training were no less likely than others to keep guns loaded and unlocked. This surprising result is consistent with other recent studies.[12]
Gee. Imagine that. People ain't storing their guns safely. Probably why 185 kids blew their heads off.
quote:Carrying a gun outside the home, especially in an urban area, is problematic because the public is at risk if the carrier is reckless or inclined to violence.
Gee -- like those 27 people in Texas, I wonder?
quote:NSPOF estimates. Private citizens sometimes use their guns to scare off trespassers and fend off assaults. Such defensive gun uses (DGUs) are sometimes invoked as a measure of the public benefits of private gun ownership. On the basis of data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics' National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) data, one would conclude that defensive uses are rare indeed, about 108,000 per year. But other surveys yield far higher estimates of the number of DGUs. Most notable has been a much publicized estimate of 2.5 million DGUs, based on data from a 1994 telephone survey conducted by Florida State University professors Gary Kleck and Mark Gertz.[13] The 2.5 million figure has been picked up by the press and now appears regularly in newspaper articles, letters to the editor, editorials, and even Congressional Research Service briefs for public policymakers.
A telephone survery? Prone to over-sampling. And the Gov't figures still show a much lower figure, a bit over 100,000 here. This hardly backs up your claim.
quote:For example, in only a small fraction of rape and robbery attempts do victims use guns in self-defense. It does not make sense, then, that the NSPOF estimate of the number of rapes in which a woman defended herself with a gun was more than the total number of rapes estimated from NCVS (exhibit 8).
It doesn't make sense? Kinda like you, Omega
quote:NSPOF estimates also suggest that 130,000 criminals are wounded or killed by civilian gun defenders. That number also appears completely out of line with other, more reliable statistics on the number of gunshot cases.[14]
Erm. Omega, you're using this site to BACK UP your conclusions? Amazing.
quote:False positives. Regardless of which estimates one believes, only a small fraction of adults have used guns defensively in 1994. The only question is whether that fraction is 1 in 1,800 (as one would conclude from the NCVS) or 1 in 100 (as indicated by the NSPOF estimate based on Kleck and Gertz's criteria).
Well, gee, the Gov't figures would say 1 in 1,800, and until Omega shows a reliable source for his two-million number, I'm inclined to go with that.
quote:Respondents might falsely provide a positive response to the DGU question for any of a number of reasons:
o They may want to impress the interviewer by their heroism and hence exaggerate a trivial event.
o They may be genuinely confused due to substance abuse, mental illness, or simply less-than-accurate memories.
o They may actually have used a gun defensively within the last couple of years but falsely report it as occurring in the previous year--a phenomenon known as "telescoping."
Of course, it is easy to imagine the reasons why that rare respondent who actually did use a gun defensively within the time frame may have decided not to report it to the interviewer. But again, the arithmetic dictates that the false positives will likely predominate.
quote:In line with the theory that many DGU reports are exaggerated or falsified, we note that in some of these reports, the respondents' answers to the followup items are not consistent with respondents' reported DGUs. For example, of the 19 NSPOF respondents meeting the more restrictive Kleck and Gertz DGU criteria (exhibit 7), 6 indicated that the circumstance of the DGU was rape, robbery, or attack--but then responded "no" to a subsequent question: "Did the perpetrator threaten, attack, or injure you?"
Erm. Yeah -- okay. This is a laughable resource, Omega.
quote:The key explanation for the difference between the 108,000 NCVS estimate for the annual number of DGUs and the several million from the surveys discussed earlier is that NCVS avoids the false-positive problem by limiting DGU questions to persons who first reported that they were crime victims. Most NCVS respondents never have a chance to answer the DGU question, falsely or otherwise.
o First, people who draw their guns to defend themselves against perceived threats are not necessarily innocent victims; they may have started fights themselves or they may simply be mistaken about whether the other persons really intended to harm them. Survey interviewers must take the respondent's word for what happened and why; a competent police investigation of the same incident would interview all parties before reaching a conclusion.
Sort of like those 27 in Texas!!!!!!!!!
------------------ 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
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made
This says nothing about being able to override the Constitution. JUDICIAL power INTERPRETS law. It does not create new law. How can the law be interpreted and conflicts be resolved if you don't have one all-overriding set of rules?
Constitution trumps everything, INCLUDING the Supreme Court. Get over it.
there is more than one person on the Supreme Court. It's called "checks and balances"
*L*
Oh, yes, I'm sure they intended to have a BOARD of dictators, balancing each other.
*/SarcasmMode*
Your model makes is inconsistant, both internally and with the Constitution.
A) Why would they give Congress the power to set up the Supreme Court in the first place, only to give that Supreme Court the power to do whatever the heck it pleased, including overriding the Constitution?
B) If all you had to do to change the Constitution was convince five Supreme Court justices, why would the founders have set up such a complex system to do the same thing?
C) If the Supreme Court is all-powerful, as you claim, then how can there be ANY checks and balances against them?
D) If the Supreme Court is all-powerful, as you claim, then why do we even have the other two branches of government?
Your understanding is flawed.
Omega, you expect that "evil" is going to shoot you in the butt? No, evil people will do that, yes?
I didn't say that, now did I? I said "someone". Never have I stated in this discussion that an evil person exists on this planet. Instead, I have stated that evil ITSELF exists. You can be an agent of evil, and do evil, without BEING evil. Don't you realize that? Diagram the sentence, as I suggested. You'll find something very interesting about the word "evil". Hint: it's not an adjective.
Again, Jeff, read what's there, not what you want to be.
You obviously believe [evil] can [be eliminated]. You said as much.
Again, you're reading what's not there. I said evil COULDN'T be eliminated by ignoring it. I never proposed any method by which it could be eliminated. I simply stated a method by which one can defend one's self from it. A completely different concept.
I've no problem believing those people could've lost their temper and shot someone in the heat of the moment.
This would not qualify as manslaughter. Killing someone out of anger on the spur of a moment is called second degree murder, a considerably more serious crime.
people can also commit manslaughter with guns. Do you deny that?
I admitted that. I also pointed out that far more people are likely to be killed in negligent accidents involving cars than in negligent accidents involving guns. Do you deny that?
How then did these numbers come about?
You obviously didn't read the information given.
Honestly, the idea that you don't see a link between people carrying guns and committing crimes only proves...
It proves that I don't just jump to the conclusion I want. You have said nothing about guns being used in the crimes, or the crimes being facilitated by the posession of a carry permit. You STILL have nothing.
Hey -- proof positive.
Didn't you read what you just quoted? "Evidence suggests..."
Gee -- if you'd invest in a fucking safe or a trigger lock, your gun might be safe.
Trigger lock? Come on, like THAT's gonna prevent someone from stealing your gun. How hard could it possibly be to break the thing, with the right tools?
Didn't you say that children gun death were less than 20 per year?
Children UNDER FIVE. READ, Jeff.
GUN LOCKS people!
If someone is irresponsible enough to leave a gun where a kid can get to it, what makes you think they'd bother to lock the gun behind them? Your reasoning is flawed.
And the Gov't figures still show a much lower figure, a bit over 100,000 here.
Jeff, I will say this one more time: that is REPORTED CLAIMS. When Rob gets back, ask him if his brother reports to the police every single time that he's displayed a gun, forcing unsavory characters to retreat.
It does not make sense, then, that the NSPOF estimate of the number of rapes in which a woman defended herself with a gun was more than the total number of rapes estimated from NCVS
Sure it does. It makes sense in that it shows that over twice as many rapes would occur if the women didn't carry guns.
Read everything you're given, Jeff. I simply handed you a site that contained his set of results, along with inexpert commentary. You obviously didn't bother to read the other survey, the compilation of information gathered from multiple surveys, and the criticism of the method by which your 100,000 was obtained.
Tell me: if these numbers are so horribly flawed, then why, oh, why did thirteen other surveys report numbers between 800,000 and 2,500,000?
------------------ "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
[This message has been edited by Omega (edited March 16, 2001).]
quote:This says nothing about being able to override the Constitution. JUDICIAL power INTERPRETS law. It does not create new law. How can the law be interpreted and conflicts be resolved if you don't have one all-overriding set of rules?
Omega: I hate to break this to you, but if the Supreme Court interprets the law, and the Constitution IS the law, then the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, does it not? I posted the section where it says that. Why don't you post where it says that it doesn't?
quote:Oh, yes, I'm sure they intended to have a BOARD of dictators, balancing each other.
I don't think it'll come as a surprise to anyone here at Flare that you a) don't know jack about the US Political system, and b) you give paranoids a good name.
quote:A) Why would they give Congress the power to set up the Supreme Court in the first place, only to give that Supreme Court the power to do whatever the heck it pleased, including overriding the Constitution?
Why ... simply to tell the country what laws are constitutional. Duh.
quote:B) If all you had to do to change the Constitution was convince five Supreme Court justices, why would the founders have set up such a complex system to do the same thing?
Only Ammendments can change the Constitution. That's PoliSci 101. The Supreme Court looks at laws when they're brough to the court, and decides whether they're Constitutional or not.
quote:C) If the Supreme Court is all-powerful, as you claim, then how can there be ANY checks and balances against them?
The Supreme Court isn't all-powerful. It can't pass laws. It can just say what laws are un-Constitutional.
quote:D) If the Supreme Court is all-powerful, as you claim, then why do we even have the other two branches of government?
To pass the laws. It's then up to the Supreme Court to decide if the laws are un-Constitutional or not.
quote:Your understanding is flawed.
That's just funny -- LOL!!!!
quote:I didn't say that, now did I? I said "someone". Never have I stated in this discussion that an evil person exists on this planet. Instead, I have stated that evil ITSELF exists. You can be an agent of evil, and do evil, without BEING evil. Don't you realize that? Diagram the sentence, as I suggested. You'll find something very interesting about the word "evil". Hint: it's not an adjective.
That was my whole point (if you bothered to read). Just because someone commits an evil act does not mean that they are evil. We have to look at things case-by-case. How can there be justice if laws are absolute?
quote:Again, you're reading what's not there. I said evil COULDN'T be eliminated by ignoring it. I never proposed any method by which it could be eliminated. I simply stated a method by which one can defend one's self from it. A completely different concept.
Then how can it be eliminated? Clearly, the inference was with guns.
quote:This would not qualify as manslaughter. Killing someone out of anger on the spur of a moment is called second degree murder, a considerably more serious crime.
And many of those 27 Texans were charged with murder. But did you read the definition of manslaughter? No, you can commit manslaughter with a gun. Really, Omega.
quote:I admitted that.
Then why are we still arguing it ...?
quote:I also pointed out that far more people are likely to be killed in negligent accidents involving cars than in negligent accidents involving guns. Do you deny that?
Certainly. Far more people own cars then own guns, therefore logic would show that more people would be charged with an automobile related manslaughter charge than a gun related manslaughter charge. Yet, you've posted no stats on the ratio of automobile/gun manslaughter charges to people who own guns, so it's all purely conjecture.
quote:You obviously didn't read the information given.
Ah -- but I did! A telephone survery, which is highly inacurate (I posted the reasons why the survey might be incorect above). In fact, official Gov't figures are still much lower. While the 2,000,000 fig has risen by 500,000, the Fed figure is only about 110,000. Still a large difference, which you've yet to explain.
quote:It proves that I don't just jump to the conclusion I want. You have said nothing about guns being used in the crimes, or the crimes being facilitated by the posession of a carry permit. You STILL have nothing.
Actually, Omega, I've got proof that 3,000 carry permit holders were arrested for criminal acts -- many of them violent. Or did they commit that armed robbery with a baseball bat? Or the murder with a pencil? Really.
quote:Trigger lock? Come on, like THAT's gonna prevent someone from stealing your gun. How hard could it possibly be to break the thing, with the right tools?
Well, perhaps the criminal might decide it's not worth the trouble? Also, if it was in a safe, he wouldn't be able to get to it. And, if it had a trigger lock, what kid is going to try to break the thing so they can accidently shoot themselves?
quote:Children UNDER FIVE. READ, Jeff.
I read about 185 dead children. And your original statement gave no age specifics.
quote:If someone is irresponsible enough to leave a gun where a kid can get to it, what makes you think they'd bother to lock the gun behind them? Your reasoning is flawed.
Which is exactly why some people shouldn't have the right to own guns.
quote:Jeff, I will say this one more time: that is REPORTED CLAIMS. When Rob gets back, ask him if his brother reports to the police every single time that he's displayed a gun, forcing unsavory characters to retreat.
And how do I know such figures wouldn't be made up? That method is very unreliable. Tough shit, Omega-san, the number stands at 100,000.
quote:As I said, read the response from the surveyor, Jeff. I simply handed you a site that contained his set of results, along with inexpert commentary. You obviously didn't bother to read the other survey, the compilation of information gathered from multiple surveys, and the criticism of the method by which your 100,000 was obtained.
The criticism is about how the 2,500,000 number is obtained. Guess you didn't read it.
quote:Tell me: if these numbers are so horribly flawed, then why, oh, why did thirteen other surveys report numbers between 800,000 and 2,500,000?
Sure. Keep reading:
quote:Respondents might falsely provide a positive response to the DGU question for any of a number of reasons:
o They may want to impress the interviewer by their heroism and hence exaggerate a trivial event.
o They may be genuinely confused due to substance abuse, mental illness, or simply less-than-accurate memories.
o They may actually have used a gun defensively within the last couple of years but falsely report it as occurring in the previous year--a phenomenon known as "telescoping."
Of course, it is easy to imagine the reasons why that rare respondent who actually did use a gun defensively within the time frame may have decided not to report it to the interviewer. But again, the arithmetic dictates that the false positives will likely predominate.
In line with the theory that many DGU reports are exaggerated or falsified, we note that in some of these reports, the respondents' answers to the followup items are not consistent with respondents' reported DGUs. For example, of the 19 NSPOF respondents meeting the more restrictive Kleck and Gertz DGU criteria (exhibit 7), 6 indicated that the circumstance of the DGU was rape, robbery, or attack--but then responded "no" to a subsequent question: "Did the perpetrator threaten, attack, or injure you?"
The key explanation for the difference between the 108,000 NCVS estimate for the annual number of DGUs and the several million from the surveys discussed earlier is that NCVS avoids the false-positive problem by limiting DGU questions to persons who first reported that they were crime victims. Most NCVS respondents never have a chance to answer the DGU question, falsely or otherwise.
o First, people who draw their guns to defend themselves against perceived threats are not necessarily innocent victims; they may have started fights themselves or they may simply be mistaken about whether the other persons really intended to harm them. Survey interviewers must take the respondent's word for what happened and why; a competent police investigation of the same incident would interview all parties before reaching a conclusion.
------------------ 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 16, 2001).]
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited March 16, 2001).]
posted
We must have these two over for dinner sometime, ne Infinity?
------------------ "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
posted
I'd never discuss politics over the dinner table. I'd be too tempted to start a "Hook"-style food fight.
------------------ 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
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic