What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

USA Shootings (7 Viewers)

Stealthycat said:
releasing juvenile records, 5X penalties for violent crimes or even more. I'd use capital punishment a lot for people like Nikolas Cruz, he should already be dead. Send clear message that we're not going to be terrorizes anymore as a nation by the small % who want to be violent. I think hotlines are great for reporting and action plans that go through the right channels to get authorities involved with people who are on the verge of hurting others. We've seen a lot of that lately and those are great things to see. Prevention.

we could delve into the education that's needed, strong economy helps, illegal drugs are at the core of a lot of violence, gangs and thug life ...... that's an entire thread you're wanting to go into

but yes, I think as a society we can focus on preventing violence
Click to expand...
would your approach prevent all violence?

 
zDragon said:
That doesn't sound right at all. 

Source? 
Click to expand...
For which?   Assault weapons are defined in the legislation that regulates them, which includes multiple states and the 1994 regulation.  There isn't a single definition.   Assault weapons are what applicable legislation defines them to be.

From Wikipedia:

The firearms industry itself introduced the term "assault weapon" to build interest in new product lines. Phillip Peterson, the author of Gun Digest Buyer’s Guide to Assault Weapons (2008) wrote:

The popularly held idea that the term 'assault weapon' originated with anti-gun activists is wrong. The term was first adopted by manufacturers, wholesalers, importers and dealers in the American firearms industry to stimulate sales of certain firearms that did not have an appearance that was familiar to many firearms owners. The manufacturers and gun writers of the day needed a catchy name to identify this new type of gun.
Click to expand...

 
parasaurolophus said:
Maybe we should.  I mean 28% of bow hunters report falling from their stands and 14% of gun hunters fall. Whats also interesting is how far more shooting accidents happen from deer hunters in stands than other kinds of hunting. Maybe like a super double correlation there. 

Or maybe deer just look more like people than geese and "varmints" 
Click to expand...
more die DRIVING to deer hunting ......... ban cars is next ?

 
-fish- said:
would your approach prevent all violence?
Click to expand...
it addresses violence instead of trying to make them use different weapons - yes, I think its a far far better plan to change the education, hearts and minds of people to be less violent vs telling them to use a different weapon

 
Stealthycat said:
it addresses violence instead of trying to make them use different weapons - yes, I think its a far far better plan to change the education, hearts and minds of people to be less violent vs telling them to use a different weapon
Click to expand...
But it doesn't address all violence, so why should we do it?   There will still be mass shootings.   Seems like we should do something specific to lower the frequency and number of deaths in mass shootings.

 
-fish- said:
For which?   Assault weapons are defined in the legislation that regulates them, which includes multiple states and the 1994 regulation.  There isn't a single definition.   Assault weapons are what applicable legislation defines them to be.
Click to expand...
for decades there was no such thing 

its a created definition to label and use verbs that cannot be attached to an inanimate object

verb  make a physical attack on.

noun   a physical attack.

If there are assault rifles, I submit we can use any noun or very that is an action to preface rifles and guns too

Maybe lets call them slumber rifles, excited weapons, lethargic guns etc ????   see how stupid that is ?

so it is with this .... these are semi-automatic rifles - that's their function. they cannot assault anyone

 
Stealthycat said:
for decades there was no such thing 

its a created definition to label and use verbs that cannot be attached to an inanimate object

verb  make a physical attack on.

noun   a physical attack.

If there are assault rifles, I submit we can use any noun or very that is an action to preface rifles and guns too

Maybe lets call them slumber rifles, excited weapons, lethargic guns etc ????   see how stupid that is ?

so it is with this .... these are semi-automatic rifles - that's their function. they cannot assault anyone
Click to expand...
no.   you are conflating the legal concept of assault with a definition of "assault rifle" or "assault weapon."  you're just wrong.  

 
when you claim that there is no "gun violence" and there are no "assault weapons" you lose all credibility.   these are ignorant and false statements that just deflect from actual discussion.  please stop doing it.  

 
you're also using the wrong definition of assault in relation to assault weapons.   in this context, the assault being referred to is "a military attack usually involving direct combat with enemy forces."   it has nothing to do with a physical attack on another person.   the name reflects that this type of weapon originated as an offensive weapon designed for the military.

Definition of assault

 (Entry 1 of 2)

1a: a violent physical or verbal attack

b: a military attack usually involving direct combat with enemy forces

c: a concerted effort (as to reach a goal or defeat an adversary)an assault on drug trafficking

2law
Click to expand...
when you look at the actual context of the term, your argument that there are assault knives, spoons and forks is just ignorant and false as well.

 
-fish- said:
two studies described here:

https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/764628-usa-shootings/?do=findComment&comment=22170844
Click to expand...
Certainly an interesting correlation described therein.  One might wonder that all of the extant weapons at that time not being used in massacres, or one might draw a conclusion that those interested in performing such acts were not extant gun owners and needed to procure weapons.  If the latter, well maybe such bans are very effective.  this could be an argument for such bans but perhaps against the need for confiscation. It could also be a coincidence, unrelated to th eban but explainable, I suppose by other trends, jailing, demographics of echo booms in the population and the trend for such crimes to be somewhat age specific.  Me, I am not one to readily believe in coincidence when the trends are so strong both pre and post ban.

 
-fish- said:
But it doesn't address all violence, so why should we do it?   There will still be mass shootings.   Seems like we should do something specific to lower the frequency and number of deaths in mass shootings.
Click to expand...
yes, it addresses ALL violence

eliminate it all should be the goal 

society has nothing to fear from people who are good and honest and don't want to harm others - fact

those who ARE violent, criminal, dishonest and such ? we don't need them in our society

agreed ?

 
Ahh if only people fit neatly into the artificially created dichotomous categories.  What if some folks are mostly honest and generally non-violent, but can stray from those moorings from time to time?  What if, in fact, the latter is the largest demographic and the artificial categories nearly unpopulated?  No matter.  Rhetorical device with no practical application other than obfuscation.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Stealthycat said:
yes, it addresses ALL violence

eliminate it all should be the goal 

society has nothing to fear from people who are good and honest and don't want to harm others - fact

those who ARE violent, criminal, dishonest and such ? we don't need them in our society

agreed ?
Click to expand...
so again, your plan will eliminate all violence? seems like you're just lying again.

 
KarmaPolice said:
I think he said he wants to bring back mental institutions and lock them up for life. 

ETA- 0 clue how that stops all violence.  I guess they just magically wont be violent in the institution? 
Click to expand...
Not locking them up for life, but executing them. Makes a ton of sense that increasing governmental violence will stop all violence

 
Stealthycat said:
yes, it addresses ALL violence

eliminate it all should be the goal 

society has nothing to fear from people who are good and honest and don't want to harm others - fact

those who ARE violent, criminal, dishonest and such ? we don't need them in our society

agreed ?
Click to expand...
Even if we could identify a group of such people, this statement as articulated is false.

The road to hell is not paved with malice aforethought. 

 
Ditkaless Wonders said:
Ahh if only people fit neatly into the artificially created dichotomous categories.  What if some folks are mostly honest and generally non-violent, but can stay from those moorings from time to time?  what if, in fact, the latter is the largest demographic and the artificial categories nearly unpopulated?  No matter.  rhetorical device with no practical application other than obfuscation.  
Click to expand...
SC's odd thoughts regarding violence and adoption of laws lead me to this thought experiment.  For these purposes, the population is static with no changes to age, immigration, etc.

Year 0:  All current laws in place.   Punching someone in the face is illegal.

Year 1:  The government declares that punching someone in the face shall be legal in all circumstances.   I think it is safe to assume that the number of people getting punched in the face will rise with the removal of the threat of prosecution.   The question, though, is why?   SC's view of the world is that there are suddenly more violent people, since criminals don't obey laws anyway, so it couldn't be the change in law.  I believe that people are exactly violent as they have always been, but with the removal of laws against punching people in the face, they no longer need to restrain themselves.

Year 3:   The government reinstates laws prohibiting punching people in the face.   I assume that the number of people getting punched in the face lowers, because people generally obey laws.   But I wonder if the taste of violence without consequence results in a higher rate of face punching than in year 0?  I think it would.   

 
-fish- said:
SC's odd thoughts regarding violence and adoption of laws lead me to this thought experiment.  For these purposes, the population is static with no changes to age, immigration, etc.

Year 0:  All current laws in place.   Punching someone in the face is illegal.

Year 1:  The government declares that punching someone in the face shall be legal in all circumstances.   I think it is safe to assume that the number of people getting punched in the face will rise with the removal of the threat of prosecution.   The question, though, is why?   SC's view of the world is that there are suddenly more violent people, since criminals don't obey laws anyway, so it couldn't be the change in law.  I believe that people are exactly violent as they have always been, but with the removal of laws against punching people in the face, they no longer need to restrain themselves.

Year 3:   The government reinstates laws prohibiting punching people in the face.   I assume that the number of people getting punched in the face lowers, because people generally obey laws.   But I wonder if the taste of violence without consequence results in a higher rate of face punching than in year 0?  I think it would.   
Click to expand...
What frustrates me the most with SC is that he thinks we should be stricter in enforcing the law because it's a major deterrent to criminal behavior, while also saying that there is no point to making laws because criminals will just break them anyways.  Every potential solution gets rebutted with one or the other.

 
-fish- said:
For which?   Assault weapons are defined in the legislation that regulates them, which includes multiple states and the 1994 regulation.  There isn't a single definition.   Assault weapons are what applicable legislation defines them to be.

From Wikipedia:
Click to expand...
Interesting you change the term from Assault Rifle to Assault Weapon.  Even then you are quoting the portion that fits your narrative.  You completely ignored the same Wikipedia entry that point out the term was not created by the Gun Industry. 

"In the past, the names of certain military weapons used the phrase, such as the Rifleman's Assault Weapon, a grenade launcher developed in 1977".  This was over a decade before the book mentioned in the footnotes.

Assault Rifle on the other hand was the literal name of a German gun. So it has been in use way prior to what your are referencing.  

 
parasaurolophus said:
at least 2400 people are shot hunting annually. Luckily only about 75 die. 

This actually provides further proof of just how lethal assault rifles are during mass shootings. I mean look at el paso. 22 dead out of 46 shot. 
Click to expand...
Out of how many? Last I saw it was over 35 million.

Your comparison is not even close to being right.  You comparing an accidental shooting which is most likely a mishandling of a gun to a targeted shooting with the intent to kill

 
-fish- said:
you're also using the wrong definition of assault in relation to assault weapons.   in this context, the assault being referred to is "a military attack usually involving direct combat with enemy forces."   it has nothing to do with a physical attack on another person.   the name reflects that this type of weapon originated as an offensive weapon designed for the military.

when you look at the actual context of the term, your argument that there are assault knives, spoons and forks is just ignorant and false as well.
Click to expand...
Must have missed the assault spoon and fork comment the other poster made or your making up details not sure which.

As far as assault knives they are a thing even to the definition you highlighted.

 
parasaurolophus said:
I was actually shocked to read that alcohol was only a factor in 10% of treestand falls and 1.5% of firearm related injuries. Not sure how reliable some of these hunting sources are, but seems to be a commonly repeated stat and I don't find anything debunking it. 

Seems stupidity is a much bigger cause. Who knew?
Click to expand...
Yeah, my source for my post was South Park. I was going for funny.

 
zDragon said:
Interesting you change the term from Assault Rifle to Assault Weapon.  Even then you are quoting the portion that fits your narrative.  You completely ignored the same Wikipedia entry that point out the term was not created by the Gun Industry. 

"In the past, the names of certain military weapons used the phrase, such as the Rifleman's Assault Weapon, a grenade launcher developed in 1977".  This was over a decade before the book mentioned in the footnotes.

Assault Rifle on the other hand was the literal name of a German gun. So it has been in use way prior to what your are referencing.  
Click to expand...
Well, no, the German gun was a Sturmgewehr, which translated is consistent with the concept of an attack or "storm."   It still has nothing to do with "assault" as SC uses it.  And even though there was a weapon with a German name used in WWII, "assault rifle" didn't become common in use in the US until gun manufacturers began using it in marketing.   

Typically legislation refers to "assault weapons" to include semi-automatic shotguns with particular traits.   Assault rifle would be a subset of that.

 
Dickies said:
What frustrates me the most with SC is that he thinks we should be stricter in enforcing the law because it's a major deterrent to criminal behavior, while also saying that there is no point to making laws because criminals will just break them anyways.  Every potential solution gets rebutted with one or the other.
Click to expand...
Combine that with saying that weapons don't matter, and the violent people can use bats and knives.  Then he also admits he couldn't defend his family with a bat or knife as effectively, especially if the intruder had a gun, because that is a superior weapon.    :loco:

 
-fish- said:
Well, no, the German gun was a Sturmgewehr, which translated is consistent with the concept of an attack or "storm."   It still has nothing to do with "assault" as SC uses it.  And even though there was a weapon with a German name used in WWII, "assault rifle" didn't become common in use in the US until gun manufacturers began using it in marketing.   

Typically legislation refers to "assault weapons" to include semi-automatic shotguns with particular traits.   Assault rifle would be a subset of that.
Click to expand...
You said "The term assault rifle was first used by the gun industry for marketing purposes.".  

This is a false statement.  It looks good for what you want to use it for but in fact is wrong.

 
zDragon said:
You said "The term assault rifle was first used by the gun industry for marketing purposes.".  

This is a false statement.  It looks good for what you want to use it for but in fact is wrong.
Click to expand...
Whether you want to use "assault rifle, "assault firearm," or "assault weapon," the modern usage was instituted post World War II by gun manufacturers to market their products.   As someone fluent in German, sturmgeweher literally translates to "storm gun."   The German refers to surrounding or moving around, not to rain, etc.  So "assault rifle" is a fair translation.   

“Assault rifle” was first used to describe a military weapon, the Sturmgewehr, produced by the Germans in World War II. The Sturmgewehr — literally “storm rifle,” a name chosen by Adolf Hitler — was capable of both semiautomatic and full-automatic fire. It was the progenitor for many modern military rifles.  

But the term “assault rifle” was expanded and broadened when gun manufacturers began to sell firearms modeled after the new military rifles to civilians. In 1984, Guns & Ammo advertised a book called “Assault Firearms,” which it said was “full of the hottest hardware available today.”

“The popularly held idea that the term ‘assault weapon’ originated with antigun activists, media or politicians is wrong,” Mr. Peterson wrote. “The term was first adopted by the manufacturers, wholesalers, importers and dealers in the American firearms industry to stimulate sales of certain firearms that did not have an appearance that was familiar to many firearm owners. The manufacturers and gun writers of the day needed a catchy name to identify this new type of gun.”
Click to expand...
link

It's an odd semantic argument to make, particularly when I've repeatedly stated that an assault weapon is whatever a law defines it to be.   Rifles are a subset of weapons, so in many cases, "assault rifle" and "assault weapon" are used interchangeably.

In any case, contrary to Mr. Cat's outright lies, they most certainly do exist.

 
-fish- said:
Whether you want to use "assault rifle, "assault firearm," or "assault weapon," the modern usage was instituted post World War II by gun manufacturers to market their products.   As someone fluent in German, sturmgeweher literally translates to "storm gun."   The German refers to surrounding or moving around, not to rain, etc.  So "assault rifle" is a fair translation.   

link

It's an odd semantic argument to make, particularly when I've repeatedly stated that an assault weapon is whatever a law defines it to be.   Rifles are a subset of weapons, so in many cases, "assault rifle" and "assault weapon" are used interchangeably.

In any case, contrary to Mr. Cat's outright lies, they most certainly do exist.
Click to expand...
Seems to me no matter what you say your wrong as proved by your links.  Sure say "modern" so it fits your point. From what I can tell from your links is the US military was already using the term along with others and the Germans named there firs tone after it.  It seem the industry had a book advertised in Guns & Ammo way after for their first use of the term.

Why are you mentioning anything about Mr. Cat? Not sure how that fits this conversation. Guess your obsessed with that poster or are you saying your lies are better than his lies? What did lies come up again? 

 
zDragon said:
Seems to me no matter what you say your wrong as proved by your links.  Sure say "modern" so it fits your point. From what I can tell from your links is the US military was already using the term along with others and the Germans named there firs tone after it.  It seem the industry had a book advertised in Guns & Ammo way after for their first use of the term.

Why are you mentioning anything about Mr. Cat? Not sure how that fits this conversation. Guess your obsessed with that poster or are you saying your lies are better than his lies? What did lies come up again? 
Click to expand...
you quoted my post responding to SC's lie that "there are no assault weapons."   even with your irrelevant semantic arguments, it's clear that there are, in fact, assault weapons.   that's why lies come up again.  because we were discussing a lie.   hope that helps.  

 
Oh and :lol: at Sturngewehr being the resson there is a term called assault rifle. Because Americans are famous for being linguists :lmao:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
-fish- said:
you quoted my post responding to SC's lie that "there are no assault weapons."   even with your irrelevant semantic arguments, it's clear that there are, in fact, assault weapons.   that's why lies come up again.  because we were discussing a lie.   hope that helps.  
Click to expand...
I responded to your statement that the Gun industry originally came up with the term. Which it is obvious they did not and that is not semantics.

I could care less about SC and you calling each other liars.  I simply wanted to know the basis of your statement.

 
zDragon said:
I responded to your statement that the Gun industry originally came up with the term. Which it is obvious they did not and that is not semantics.

I could care less about SC and you calling each other liars.  I simply wanted to know the basis of your statement.
Click to expand...
And you’ve ignored two sources confirming what I said.   I’m done.  Believe what you want.  

 
Henry Ford said:
Even if we could identify a group of such people, this statement as articulated is false.

The road to hell is not paved with malice aforethought. 
Click to expand...
actually with violent criminals the road is paved for a very long time - repeat offenders etc

those groups are identified - its why people are caught before they act, its why we look in retrospect and think damn, that guy people knew was violent the authorities just didn't do anything etc etc

malice is involved often in crimes - aforethought too

 instant violence from people never before violent etc is not common 

 
Stealthycat said:
actually with violent criminals the road is paved for a very long time - repeat offenders etc

those groups are identified - its why people are caught before they act, its why we look in retrospect and think damn, that guy people knew was violent the authorities just didn't do anything etc etc

malice is involved often in crimes - aforethought too

 instant violence from people never before violent etc is not common 
Click to expand...
Only a touch over half of violent offenders taken to court have a previous conviction.

 
Henry Ford said:
Only a touch over half of violent offenders taken to court have a previous conviction.
Click to expand...
link ?

what about murderers - people using guns in their violent acts ... what's those numbers ?

and .... 50% reduction ... doesn't that sound good? banning AR15's will result in 0% reduction in violence.... which are the Democrats all in on ? 

:(   

 
Stealthycat said:
link ?

what about murderers - people using guns in their violent acts ... what's those numbers ?

and .... 50% reduction ... doesn't that sound good? banning AR15's will result in 0% reduction in violence.... which are the Democrats all in on ? 

:(   
Click to expand...
Sorry, I missed the conversation - what would result in a 50% reduction?  What's the action that's going to be taken?

And it's about 2/3 of the murderers.  Of course, we're talking about any conviction for a felony or misdemeanor.  If you're talking about previous felony convictions, it's about 40%.  At least it was last time I looked up the BJS stats - they may be old.

As far as violent felons who had previous violent felonies, it was less than 20% last I looked.

I'll look for a link to BJS studies

 
-fish- said:
And you’ve ignored two sources confirming what I said.   I’m done.  Believe what you want.  
Click to expand...
The sources you provided show references prior to what you are trying to say. Then you changed the terms you wanted to use, then you went on to semantics, then on to modern age. i'm sure you next point of reason would be in the last three decades, etc,etc.

I've already figured out that you were wrong since you provided your sources.  So really I'm just filling time but seems like you have a unhealthy obsession here. I'd suggest taking a break to level your thought process.

 
-fish- said:
Since I provided multiple sources showing I’m right, it would be awfully silly.  
Click to expand...
Your source proved you wrong.  

"The term assault rifle is generally attributed to Adolf Hitler........However, other sources dispute that Hitler had much to do with coining the new name besides signing the production order"

BTW...my last response to this.  No need to have a conversation with someone who doesn't read there own resources.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
zDragon said:
Your source proved you wrong.  

"The term assault rifle is generally attributed to Adolf Hitler........However, other sources dispute that Hitler had much to do with coining the new name besides signing the production order"

BTW...my last response to this.  No need to have a conversation with someone who doesn't read there own resources.
Click to expand...
Show any English speaker using the translated term.  I don’t care if the Vikings had a gun that translated to assault rifle.  It didn’t become part of our lexicon until later.   In any case, SC claims the term was made up by liberals.  Since the earliest use was by a Nazi (in German) or by the gun industry, he’s wrong.  But thanks for playing.  As always, your contribution has been pointless.

 
WTF? 

Who responds to a conversation with their alias? Seems odd. 

(unless the other username was banned. In which case, using an alias is against forum rules)

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
At Least 181 K-12 Educators/Teachers Charged With Child Sex Crimes In First Half Of 2022 (10/1/22 9:22 PST)
Replies
36
Views
1K
tymarsas
T
GordonGekko
Did UC Berkeley Law School Enable "Jewish Free Zones" & Antisemitism With Pro Israel Speaker Bans? ( 10/2/22 11:12 PST)
Replies
10
Views
580
(HULK)
(HULK)
E
Taking Politics Out of Public Schools
Replies
37
Views
882
MAC_32
MAC_32

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 8 (members: 0, guests: 8)
Top