Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
randall146

USA Shootings

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, -fish- said:

Since guns are no different than rocks, knives, bats or dildos, it is clear that we don't need the second amendment.   A gun is just another object, right?

You can have my sex to when you can pry it from .... never mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, KarmaPolice said:

You have said repeatedly that the object does not matter.  If someone wants to kill a bunch of people they can do so with guns, or fire, or knives, or baseball bats.  Gun bans wont save lives because of these statements.  Is that an accurate reflection of your posts in here?  

sigh

ya'll have a real hard time staying on point and merging different concepts

I will try again KarmaPolice because your posts at least are not trolling, they have validity unlike fish's

 

You cannot stop someone with words or laws. If the guy down the street from you wanted to break into your home tonight, could you stop him? Probably not. You could deter him with gates, a dog, locked doors, fences, security system etc.

The same is true with violence. If that guy wanted to kill you .... he's got a really good chance at doing so. He could use an AR15, a car, poison, a bomb, a knife, a bat ...... that person and his/her intentions have the advantage every time. 

 

so ... the object they're using for a weapon does not matter do you see that? It matters maybe in how you defend yourself or in fish's case not defending yourself, but what object they use towards you? they're going to do what they want and if you take their AR15, they'll use a rifle, take that they'll use a handgun, take that they'll use a knife, take than and they will ..... see what I mean ? The objects they use isn't the core problem - THEY ARE

 

does that make more sense ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

sigh

ya'll have a real hard time staying on point and merging different concepts

I will try again KarmaPolice because your posts at least are not trolling, they have validity unlike fish's

 

You cannot stop someone with words or laws. If the guy down the street from you wanted to break into your home tonight, could you stop him? Probably not. You could deter him with gates, a dog, locked doors, fences, security system etc.

The same is true with violence. If that guy wanted to kill you .... he's got a really good chance at doing so. He could use an AR15, a car, poison, a bomb, a knife, a bat ...... that person and his/her intentions have the advantage every time. 

 

so ... the object they're using for a weapon does not matter do you see that? It matters maybe in how you defend yourself or in fish's case not defending yourself, but what object they use towards you? they're going to do what they want and if you take their AR15, they'll use a rifle, take that they'll use a handgun, take that they'll use a knife, take than and they will ..... see what I mean ? The objects they use isn't the core problem - THEY ARE

 

does that make more sense ?

The problem with the bolded and your posts in general is that at no point do you address the chance that the attack will be successful if the person is forced to choose another weapon.  In failing to admit there is a difference, IMO you are implying that you believe the objects don't matter at all, and that you believe there is 0 difference in a guy coming into your house with a gun vs. a bat.   That is what I want I was asking if you truly believe that, since that is what it seems as you post that the objects don't matter over and over again.  

I don't think you believe that because the reason that people choose guns as a popular weapon to commit crimes is the same reason you choose to defend yourself with one.  It's efficient, quick, you don't need to be close to the person, etc...  If all that is true, then yes, the objects we are talking about do matter, and it's why people would be fine making it so that somebody hellbent on death and destruction has to try to do so with a bag knives vs. a bag of guns.  

 

Again - never have I said that we don't need to address the people side of the equation, I am just arguing that your constant evasion of this and saying that objects don't matter is just not true.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

The problem with the bolded and your posts in general is that at no point do you address the chance that the attack will be successful if the person is forced to choose another weapon.  In failing to admit there is a difference, IMO you are implying that you believe the objects don't matter at all, and that you believe there is 0 difference in a guy coming into your house with a gun vs. a bat.   That is what I want I was asking if you truly believe that, since that is what it seems as you post that the objects don't matter over and over again.  

I don't think you believe that because the reason that people choose guns as a popular weapon to commit crimes is the same reason you choose to defend yourself with one.  It's efficient, quick, you don't need to be close to the person, etc...  If all that is true, then yes, the objects we are talking about do matter, and it's why people would be fine making it so that somebody hellbent on death and destruction has to try to do so with a bag knives vs. a bag of guns.  

Again - never have I said that we don't need to address the people side of the equation, I am just arguing that your constant evasion of this and saying that objects don't matter is just not true.  

 

 

 

and you refuse to see that remove 1 type of weapon they'll pick up another and kill you with that ............... can you tell me why that isn't valid ?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Stealthycat said:

why do you keep going back to that lie?

as for your other ramblings .... they're not worthy of a response to be honest. I do not believe that a victim of a crime should be guilty of whatever the criminals did afterwards .... I think that entire concept is insane. you do too - except in the case of guns because you're a scared rabbit

that's ok - to be scared. Some people just are ... and then there are people who stand up and fight and will not be victims. 

 

you do what you want in your home, please allow the same courtesy to me

 

27-51-1306. Unattended motor vehicles.

No person driving or in charge of a motor vehicle shall permit it to stand unattended without first stopping the engine, locking the ignition, and removing the key, or, when standing upon any perceptible grade, without effectively setting the brake and turning the front wheels to the curb or side of the highway.

It is illegal in your state to leave your car unattended, unlocked with the key in it.

An illegal act is, under the law, negligence per se.  That means that you can be held liable for the consequences.  

What don't you understand about this?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stealthycat said:

 

and you refuse to see that remove 1 type of weapon they'll pick up another and kill you with that ............... can you tell me why that isn't valid ?

 

 

Not 100% refusing that.  IMO they MIGHT pick up something else, and the other object that they choose to use will make it so they are less likely to be successful at accomplishing their task.  Just like if somebody is breaking into your house, you want a gun and not poison or a baseball bat.  

Hence, the objects that we are talking about matter.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, -fish- said:

27-51-1306. Unattended motor vehicles.

No person driving or in charge of a motor vehicle shall permit it to stand unattended without first stopping the engine, locking the ignition, and removing the key, or, when standing upon any perceptible grade, without effectively setting the brake and turning the front wheels to the curb or side of the highway.

It is illegal in your state to leave your car unattended, unlocked with the key in it.

An illegal act is, under the law, negligence per se.  That means that you can be held liable for the consequences.  

What don't you understand about this?

 

http://enginesoff.com/2_7_laws_ordinances.htm

 

I hate our Puffer laws here in Colorado on cold mornings, but I comply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

http://enginesoff.com/2_7_laws_ordinances.htm

 

I hate our Puffer laws here in Colorado on cold mornings, but I comply.

As you're well aware, normally an intervening criminal act would break the chain of causation, but where that is a foreseeable harm, such as SC keeping loaded guns in his glove compartment, liability attaches.  Although shown this on multiple occasions, SC still argues that he cannot be held responsible for someone stealing his unsecured weapons.   

As a responsible gun owner, do you leave weapons unsecured in your home or vehicle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, -fish- said:

As you're well aware, normally an intervening criminal act would break the chain of causation, but where that is a foreseeable harm, such as SC keeping loaded guns in his glove compartment, liability attaches.  Although shown this on multiple occasions, SC still argues that he cannot be held responsible for someone stealing his unsecured weapons.   

As a responsible gun owner, do you leave weapons unsecured in your home or vehicle?

Me, no. I have a rather substantial gun safe in my basement.  in addition a have those weapons unloaded and secured with trigger locks or action locks.  Further, the ammunition I keep is inside of an additional fire rated safe.  In my bedroom I keep a pistol safe biometrically controlled to my fingerprints.

When I transport guns, to go to the range I have them in a shooters bag.  Same when going hunting, but my long guns go in a lockable hard case.  They are unloaded and with trigger locks or cables through the open action.  I am no longer required to carry and so I do not.  My belief is that the potential utility of carrying for personal protection is outweighed by the risk of accident or ill-considered anger.  Others disagree, obviously. 

I have had a time or two in my life where I might have wanted a weapon on me and did not have one.  In the end those instances played out well enough without the weapon. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Stealthycat said:

i'd love to live in a place like that - reality is, many people don't and home/self protection is what many choose. 

 

Personally I think, while places like that do exist, most people don't live in places like that, and those who believe they do live in a place like that are severe cases of hyberbole of their experience of reality. 

Edited by Politician Spock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, KarmaPolice said:

Seems like you were trying for some "gotcha" because he said SC should be liable if he has an unsecured gun get stolen and used in a crime.  

I take it you are in SC's camp that thinks guns, knives, and baseball bats should be treated equally? 

Nope.  I had no gotcha. Just wanted to see if he could directly answer a question. Nothing hard or sneaky about it.

And you would be wrong. Not sure what logic would even lead you to the conclusion.

As far as knives and bats being treated the same as guns of course not.   That makes no logical sense at all.

I've stated else where that people similar to the ones in this thread are the main reason we can't get common sense gun laws here.  Basically all talk, posturing, and an unwillingness to simply look at the problem logically.  

I pointed out the New Zealand laws as an example.  They have done a good job and still allowed enthusiast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The principal of a New Jersey middle school was leading a graduation rehearsal Friday when student stabbed him in the chest multiple times, police said.

Quote

The student, a 14-year-old boy who was not identified, ran across the gym at Union School in Rutherford, New Jersey, and attacked Principal Kurt Schweitzer with a folding knife, according to the city's police department.

Good thing he didn't have a gun. Bad thing, our kids are choosing violence to solve their problems. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, KCitons said:

. Bad thing, our kids are choosing violence to solve their problems. 

Choose your own adventure.

1. No they are not or not any worse than before.

2. They are but they didn’t develop that on their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, OrtonToOlsen said:

Choose your own adventure.

1. No they are not or not any worse than before.

2. They are but they didn’t develop that on their own.

3. Pass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/14/2019 at 12:00 PM, -fish- said:

As you're well aware, normally an intervening criminal act would break the chain of causation, but where that is a foreseeable harm, such as SC keeping loaded guns in his glove compartment, liability attaches.  Although shown this on multiple occasions, SC still argues that he cannot be held responsible for someone stealing his unsecured weapons.   

As a responsible gun owner, do you leave weapons unsecured in your home or vehicle?

Never.  My house and car are always locked.  A gun in the car's console or in a bedroom drawer is secured by the car and house locks. 

P.S. I've only read the last two pages of this thread, in case this has been covered fifty times already.

P.P.S  Full disclosure.  The sole purpose of the bedroom gun is kill someone breaking in and trying to harm us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Enderdog said:

Never.  My house and car are always locked.  A gun in the car's console or in a bedroom drawer is secured by the car and house locks. 

I don't think that's how it works.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

I don't think that's how it works.  

Are we going to have strict laws on what constitutes proper protection? A gun safe must be thicker than x millimeters? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, the precautions I take with my firearms are those which are prudent coupled with some which are unnecessary but are solid signals of my responsibility so as to back off any overly officious intermeddlers in my affairs.  I do not want any misunderstandings if I get pulled over during hunting season.  I do not want any ambiguity if my house gets robbed or burgled and my weapons turn up in the wrong hands. 

Also, I do not want any curiosity by my wife or child to lead to tragedy due to inexperience handling firearms. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Mookie said:

Gotta admit - It'd be nice to be heavily armed when the line for free pigs in a blanket gets too long.  Costco Shooting

What the heck? Gotta be more to the story...a cop shoots an entire family? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I imagine there are two dozen or more witnesses being that this was at Costco, where only Disney has more people crammed in on a weekend. My bet is this was completely unjustified and that this cop will end up skating. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Jobber said:

I imagine there are two dozen or more witnesses being that this was at Costco, where only Disney has more people crammed in on a weekend. My bet is this was completely unjustified and that this cop will end up skating. 

Unless you're on of the two dozen witnesses, how can you make the bolded statement with any certainty? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/4/2019 at 1:42 AM, Politician Spock said:

Tim said we give our military AR-15s?

Why would we give our military AR-15s instead of M-16s?

Technically the military uses the M4 these days - a version of the M-16 more suited to close combat situations

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We may have to look into legalizing full auto weapons to help civilians defend themselves against guys like the Dallas shooter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BroadwayG said:

We may have to look into legalizing full auto weapons to help civilians defend themselves against guys like the Dallas shooter.

I want nothing less than a RPG launcher.  If I can't have that I won't be able to defend myself or go deer hunting. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sheriff Bart said:

I want nothing less than a RPG launcher.  If I can't have that I won't be able to defend myself or go deer hunting. 

I've heard a knife or a rock would be just as good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Bucky86 said:

Shooting in Dallas near a Federal Building.

http://nbcnews.to/2Xi9SLg

I'm surprised this isn't a bigger deal. Another one on the pile of young, right wing white men radicalized on the Internet, I guess. Social media posts are very alt-right, 4chan, meme-y. I found a reddit comment with a link to a repeat poster on 4chan that used an image of Earle Cabell Federal Building (the location of the shooting) taken through a rifle scope. I won't link the full archive of posts, as they are vile and racist, but here's the link to the scope image. Kudos to the Federal protection service officers that undoubtedly saved lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, mcintyre1 said:

I'm surprised this isn't a bigger deal. Another one on the pile of young, right wing white men radicalized on the Internet, I guess. Social media posts are very alt-right, 4chan, meme-y. I found a reddit comment with a link to a repeat poster on 4chan that used an image of Earle Cabell Federal Building (the location of the shooting) taken through a rifle scope. I won't link the full archive of posts, as they are vile and racist, but here's the link to the scope image. Kudos to the Federal protection service officers that undoubtedly saved lives.

What a loser. Hopefully he felt every shot and realized he was a failure before passing.

Edited by Jobber
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, mcintyre1 said:

I'm surprised this isn't a bigger deal. Another one on the pile of young, right wing white men radicalized on the Internet, I guess. Social media posts are very alt-right, 4chan, meme-y. I found a reddit comment with a link to a repeat poster on 4chan that used an image of Earle Cabell Federal Building (the location of the shooting) taken through a rifle scope. I won't link the full archive of posts, as they are vile and racist, but here's the link to the scope image. Kudos to the Federal protection service officers that undoubtedly saved lives.

Jeez. That image is spooky.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mcintyre1 said:

I'm surprised this isn't a bigger deal. Another one on the pile of young, right wing white men radicalized on the Internet, I guess. Social media posts are very alt-right, 4chan, meme-y. I found a reddit comment with a link to a repeat poster on 4chan that used an image of Earle Cabell Federal Building (the location of the shooting) taken through a rifle scope. I won't link the full archive of posts, as they are vile and racist, but here's the link to the scope image. Kudos to the Federal protection service officers that undoubtedly saved lives.

Certainly doesn't jive with the "almost all terrorist acts in this country are performed by Muslim's" BS claim made by someone in this thread.

I saw a report that no one else was hurt. I glad to see that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Yenrub said:

Certainly doesn't jive with the "almost all terrorist acts in this country are performed by Muslim's" BS claim made by someone in this thread.

I saw a report that no one else was hurt. I glad to see that. 

Link?

Edited by KCitons

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KCitons said:

You forgot to include the qualifier of the last 30 years in your comment. 

When someone says “are” (present tense) I think extending out to include “30 years” is pretty generous. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, KCitons said:

You forgot to include the qualifier of the last 30 years in your comment. 

My bad I forgot the “last 30 years” part of the BS statement.

That being said, I certainly hope that you don’t believe that including the “last 30 years” to the statement somehow makes the statement true. Because if you do, then you too are being willfully ignorant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Yenrub said:

My bad I forgot the “last 30 years” part of the BS statement.

That being said, I certainly hope that you don’t believe that including the “last 30 years” to the statement somehow makes the statement true. Because if you do, then you too are being willfully ignorant.

I think you're both wrong. If you're going to use the term terrorism, then yes, most to those over the last 30 years where muslim. If you're going to apply the term terrorism to every mass shooting, then I think you're creating your own definition of terrorism.

The FBI defines it:

Quote

International terrorism: Perpetrated by individuals and/or groups inspired by or associated with designated foreign terrorist organizations or nations (state-sponsored).
--for example, the December 2, 2015 shooting in San Bernardino, CA, that killed 14 people and wounded 22 which involved a married couple who radicalized for some time prior to the attack and were inspired by multiple extremist ideologies and foreign terrorist organizations.

Domestic terrorism: Perpetrated by individuals and/or groups inspired by or associated with primarily U.S.-based movements that espouse extremist ideologies of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature. 
--for example, the June 8, 2014 Las Vegas shooting, during which two police officers inside a restaurant were killed in an ambush-style attack, which was committed by a married couple who held anti-government views and who intended to use the shooting to start a revolution.

When you look at school shootings or workplace shootings, they lack the radicalized, extremist ideologies. I would also question if gang violence, that results in more that 4 people shot, would constitute terrorism? Especially those perpetrated between gangs of different ethnic backgrounds. Do they hold extreme ideologies of a social nature?

If we are going to label these acts as terrorism, are we condoning the use of military resources to protect?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/14/2019 at 9:46 PM, KCitons said:

The principal of a New Jersey middle school was leading a graduation rehearsal Friday when student stabbed him in the chest multiple times, police said.

where did he get the knife? whoever owned it is liable right? can the manufacturer or retailer be sued ?

those questions would be asked if it wee a gun used right ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, mcintyre1 said:

I'm surprised this isn't a bigger deal. Another one on the pile of young, right wing white men radicalized on the Internet, I guess.

what color of skin were the people killing cops in Dallas a few years back ? 

color of skin ... do you want to talk about all the violence in this nation and how skin color weaves into it ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

where did he get the knife? whoever owned it is liable right? can the manufacturer or retailer be sued ?

those questions would be asked if it wee a gun used right ?

Yes, because a gun is not a knife.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KarmaPolice said:

Yes, because a gun is not a knife.  

sigh

but the concept is exactly the same - does stealing an object and using it in a crime place guilt on the owner of the object who was victimized in the original crime that acquiring that object ? I say no - it doesn't in almost every day to day, real life ways

 

Edited by Stealthycat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Stealthycat said:

sigh

but the concept is exactly the same - does stealing an object and using it in a crime place guilt on the owner of the object who was victimized in a crime? I say no - it doesn't in almost every day to day, real life ways

 

Was there a legal obligation to secure the object due to its inherently dangerous nature?    You don’t understand how laws work.  You really should either educate yourself or stop making this argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, -fish- said:

Was there a legal obligation to secure the object due to its inherently dangerous nature?    You don’t understand how laws work.  You really should either educate yourself or stop making this argument.

I understand exactly how laws work  and I know they can change in a second, and I know that have nothing to do with ethical and moral and even LESS to do when discussing things on a message board/forum on how they all tie into the hypocrisies of society.

Your continued inability to keep up is baffling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Stealthycat said:

I understand exactly how laws work  and I know they can change in a second, and I know that have nothing to do with ethical and moral and even LESS to do when discussing things on a message board/forum on how they all tie into the hypocrisies of society.

Your continued inability to keep up is baffling.

You don't know how laws work, or you wouldn't keep saying things that are completely wrong when it comes to how laws apply.   You're so desperate to repeat your insipid position that guns are just like knives that you keep lying about how actual laws work to support it.  It has nothing to do with morals.  It has to do with foreseeable harm, reasonably foreseeable misuse, duty and intervening criminal acts and how they all work together.   Where there is a law in place, that law changes the whole picture.   Generally, those laws are adopted where the object is inherently dangerous, like a gun.   There's a reason I don't have to put a trigger lock on a dildo, even though I could potentially use it as a weapon and beat you to death with it.

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.