Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
randall146

USA Shootings

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Stealthycat said:

there are no assault weapons - there are semi-auto rifles that people use to hunt and for self defense ..... you don't want to take those do you ?

repeating ignorant and false statements isn't really an argument, is it?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Explain? Where is the fallacy in the statement?

SC argues that we shouldn't attempt to address assault weapons only because they're only 2% of the problem (let's assume this is correct, even if it probably isn't).  He instead points to a mystical "dealing with violent people" solution that he insists is the correct approach and would be a better solution.   

Rejecting an incremental solution because it doesn't address a problem completely (as an imaginary perfect solution would) is a logical fallacy that can be used to reject just about any argument for a solution.   This is particularly true where factual data shows that the 1994 assault weapon restriction reduced injuries and deaths from mass shootings.   

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

SC argues that we shouldn't attempt to address assault weapons only because they're only 2% of the problem (let's assume this is correct, even if it probably isn't).  He instead points to a mystical "dealing with violent people" solution that he insists is the correct approach and would be a better solution.   

Rejecting an incremental solution because it doesn't address a problem completely (as an imaginary perfect solution would) is a logical fallacy that can be used to reject just about any argument for a solution.   This is particularly true where factual data shows that the 1994 assault weapon restriction reduced injuries and deaths from mass shootings.   

 

its not "mystical"

everyday our police nationwide and authorities risk their lives dealing with violence - its sick to discredit what they do in an effort to stop criminals -fish ...... you're better than that

banning a least used weapon knowing they'll easily grab other weapons isn't a "incremental solution" if stopping violence/killing is the goal .... its an utter failure . If disarming law abiding people is the goal yeah, it'll do that :( 

Share this post


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

its not "mystical"

everyday our police nationwide and authorities risk their lives dealing with violence - its sick to discredit what they do in an effort to stop criminals -fish ...... you're better than that

banning a least used weapon knowing they'll easily grab other weapons isn't a "incremental solution" if stopping violence/killing is the goal .... its an utter failure . If disarming law abiding people is the goal yeah, it'll do that :( 

What if someone's main goal is to stop the deadliest aka school/church/concert shootings? 

Share this post


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

its not "mystical"

everyday our police nationwide and authorities risk their lives dealing with violence - its sick to discredit what they do in an effort to stop criminals -fish ...... you're better than that

banning a least used weapon knowing they'll easily grab other weapons isn't a "incremental solution" if stopping violence/killing is the goal .... its an utter failure . If disarming law abiding people is the goal yeah, it'll do that :( 

What’s your plan for stopping all violent people?

Share this post


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

What if someone's main goal is to stop the deadliest aka school/church/concert shootings? 

Then he’ll argue that a shotgun would do more damage.  Or a van.  There is never an incremental solution.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I note that SC has no response to the studies that show the 1994 restriction actually did reduce the number of deaths and injuries from mass shootings.  If a fact doesn’t fit your narrative, ignore, lie  and deflect.

Share this post


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

What’s your plan for stopping all violent people?

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? 

Edited by KarmaPolice

Share this post


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

you just covered cigarettes, opioids, automobiles, obesity and other things that people die from ......... are taking away those things the solution ? no ? why not ?

take away the violent people that use guns that are known criminals, that shouldn't have gotten guns etc ... how many are actually legal, law abiding people who never did anything wrong but all of a sudden snapped and killed people ?

10% ?  5%  ?

 

I don't think its high - these people killing others are already known threats to society - its not common for one of the tens of millions of gun owners to actually go crazy and kill 

We, the legal law abiding gun owners are NOT THE PROBLEM. Please focus the attention on the criminals, it'd sure help things a lot

I didn't say anything about taking away.  I said that is when I feel we need to have a discussion about them.

Honestly, if I take your posts at face value, IMO gun owners like you are part of the problem.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's also sad that he thinks "these people killing others are known threats to society".  

Nevermind the FBI report saying there isn't a common link, and that was just with mass shooters.  Bringing up the 2-3 really obvious cases like Cruz isn't proof that we know who these people are ahead of time with any certainty.  

Share this post


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

It's also sad that he thinks "these people killing others are known threats to society".  

Nevermind the FBI report saying there isn't a common link, and that was just with mass shooters.  Bringing up the 2-3 really obvious cases like Cruz isn't proof that we know who these people are ahead of time with any certainty.  

I think handling all of the lead may be an issue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, -fish- said:

I think handling all of the lead may be an issue

lead poisoning? ;)

Share this post


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

What if someone's main goal is to stop the deadliest aka school/church/concert shootings? 

the deadliest have been using airplanes and bombs right ?

the Texas bell tower shooter used a bolt action right? JFK killed with bolt action. The VA Tech was handguns as was Luby's and ... well, you can see for yourself

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States

 

As you can see, handguns are used, a lot .... if semi-auto rifles were banned these shooters would use handguns/shotguns, alter their plan of attack and they'd continue on.

You agree right ? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, -fish- said:

What’s your plan for stopping all violent people?

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, -fish- said:

I note that SC has no response to the studies that show the 1994 restriction actually did reduce the number of deaths and injuries from mass shootings.  If a fact doesn’t fit your narrative, ignore, lie  and deflect.

if I were like you I'd just say they're not credible enough for me 

seems like you use that a lot as a scapegoat to points made huh ?

if semi-auto rifles are so horrible .... how can tens of millions of people hunt every fall, putting in literally hundreds of millions of hours .... and nobody is murdered and rare rare is there an accident. 

its not the gun, it never has been

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, -fish- said:

Then he’ll argue that a shotgun would do more damage.  Or a van.  There is never an incremental solution.   

 

36 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

the deadliest have been using airplanes and bombs right ?

the Texas bell tower shooter used a bolt action right? JFK killed with bolt action. The VA Tech was handguns as was Luby's and ... well, you can see for yourself

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States

 

As you can see, handguns are used, a lot .... if semi-auto rifles were banned these shooters would use handguns/shotguns, alter their plan of attack and they'd continue on.

You agree right ? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, -fish- said:

I note that SC has no response to the studies that show the 1994 restriction actually did reduce the number of deaths and injuries from mass shootings.  If a fact doesn’t fit your narrative, ignore, lie  and deflect.

If you have a particular study in mind and can link it or refer me to it I would like to read it.  I have seen some such efforts in the past.  I would be appreciative of the opportunity to read that study or those studies which have shaped your opinions on this subject. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, 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

You love a very simplified reading of the 2nd amendment but completely ignore the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 14th amendments. 

Also, as you noted, drugs are illegal. I don’t disagree that drugs can sometimes lead to violent crime, but we’ve made drugs illegal and punish the possession and sales of them relatively harshly. What’s your proposal on this issue? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"We should do something about evil people!"

"Agreed.  What if we started by making it harder for them to get military-grade weaponry to do evil with?"

"No. Anything but that."

Share this post


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

You love a very simplified reading of the 2nd amendment but completely ignore the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 14th amendments. 

Also, as you noted, drugs are illegal. I don’t disagree that drugs can sometimes lead to violent crime, but we’ve made drugs illegal and punish the possession and sales of them relatively harshly. What’s your proposal on this issue? 

I do not and never will support recreational drug use. Blowing the mind for fun? Sorry, I can't get on board. 

Exceptionally harsh penalties for drug traffickers .... not the users, the traffickers. Make it so that its not worth the risk. 

Share this post


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

"We should do something about evil people!"

"Agreed.  What if we started by making it harder for them to get military-grade weaponry to do evil with?"

"No. Anything but that."

"We should do something about evil people!"

"Agreed.  Lets stop them before they act, lets punish harshly and send a clear message that people are tired of being terrorized ?"

"No. Anything but that."

Share this post


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

I do not and never will support recreational drug use. Blowing the mind for fun? Sorry, I can't get on board. 

Exceptionally harsh penalties for drug traffickers .... not the users, the traffickers. Make it so that its not worth the risk. 

So harsh penalties will work on drug traffickers but making possessing certain guns unlawful (and therefore punishable by harsh penalties) won't work on assailants/mass shooters? 

Share this post


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

"We should do something about evil people!"

"Agreed.  Lets stop them before they act, lets punish harshly and send a clear message that people are tired of being terrorized ?"

"No. Anything but that."

I don't think you understand or grasp how difficult it is to accomplish the bold. 

Share this post


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

if I were like you I'd just say they're not credible enough for me 

seems like you use that a lot as a scapegoat to points made huh ?

if semi-auto rifles are so horrible .... how can tens of millions of people hunt every fall, putting in literally hundreds of millions of hours .... and nobody is murdered and rare rare is there an accident. 

its not the gun, it never has been

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. 

Share this post


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

So harsh penalties will work on drug traffickers but making possessing certain guns unlawful (and therefore punishable by harsh penalties) won't work on assailants/mass shooters? 

sigh

why would you think that making my semi-auto hunting rifle would impact a violent person in any way, shape or form ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Zow said:

I don't think you understand or grasp how difficult it is to accomplish the bold. 

and you think 60 million Americans are going to turn their semi-auto rifles in easily ?

you think that's going to be easy ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, 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. 

link ?

when you count the millions of hours that hunters are in the field .... yes, its rare that there is an accident 

Share this post


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

sigh

why would you think that making my semi-auto hunting rifle would impact a violent person in any way, shape or form ? 

I don't. I'm not for more restrictive gun laws. I just find your proffered resolutions to be weak. 

Share this post


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

and you think 60 million Americans are going to turn their semi-auto rifles in easily ?

you think that's going to be easy ? 

No, not at all. Which, again, is why I am not advocating for more restrictive gun laws. 

Share this post


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

"We should do something about evil people!"

"Agreed.  Lets stop them before they act, lets punish harshly and send a clear message that people are tired of being terrorized ?"

"No. Anything but that."

We're doing all that whenever possible.  Many of these incidents are suicide missions.  Do you really think those people are easily deterred?

Edited by parrot

Share this post


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

link ?

when you count the millions of hours that hunters are in the field .... yes, its rare that there is an accident 

There would probably be more, but three times as many people get hurt falling out of tree stands each year. I mean those guys cant even stay in the tree long enough to accidentally shoot themselves or somebody else. 

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


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

I don't. I'm not for more restrictive gun laws. I just find your proffered resolutions to be weak. 

 

2 minutes ago, Zow said:

No, not at all. Which, again, is why I am not advocating for more restrictive gun laws. 

SC assumes anyone who wants any increase in gun regulations ultimately wants to ban guns. They're just not admitting it.

Share this post


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

There would probably be more, but three times as many people get hurt falling out of tree stands each year. I mean those guys cant even stay in the tree long enough to accidentally shoot themselves or somebody else. 

Hunting sober is like fishing..... sober. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Zow said:

I don't. I'm not for more restrictive gun laws. I just find your proffered resolutions to be weak. 

 

15 minutes ago, Zow said:

No, not at all. Which, again, is why I am not advocating for more restrictive gun laws. 

 

Liberals are going bonkers over BETO's honest ... a few agree with him openly, some privately and many are like dang BETO, you're telling the truth :(

if we go the liberal route - allow all illegal drugs and there will be no drug dealing thugs/cartel/gangs etc right? maybe we treat guns the same way, make everything legal and that would solve the violence ?

no ... because guns isn't needed for violence, drugs are needed for drug addiction.  Violence is the core problem .... its never been the guns.  

 

 

Share this post


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

Hunting sober is like fishing..... sober. 

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?

  

Share this post


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

We're doing all that whenever possible.  Many of these incidents are suicide missions.  Do you really think those people are easily deterred?

not many no - a few yes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

There would probably be more, but three times as many people get hurt falling out of tree stands each year. I mean those guys cant even stay in the tree long enough to accidentally shoot themselves or somebody else. 

ban tree stands ?

where is that link /

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Politician Spock said:

 

SC assumes anyone who wants any increase in gun regulations ultimately wants to ban guns. They're just not admitting it.

that's historically correct

age limits pushed, restrictions on guns pushed, more age laws pushed, background checks pushed ............ always something more restrictive, more laws affecting law abiding people

at least Beto is honest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Politician Spock said:

Hunting sober is like fishing..... sober. 

no

its actually insulting to say hear such a blanket statement of ignorance 

Share this post


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

ban tree stands ?

where is that link /

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" 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎9‎/‎22‎/‎2019 at 4:16 PM, -fish- said:

The term assault rifle was first used by the gun industry for marketing purposes.   It is now a legally defined term.  Arguing otherwise is ignorant and pointless.

That doesn't sound right at all. 

Source? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, 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

would your approach prevent all violence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, zDragon said:

That doesn't sound right at all. 

Source? 

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:

Quote

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, 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" 

 

more die DRIVING to deer hunting ......... ban cars is next ?

 

Share this post


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

would your approach prevent all violence?

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

If you have a particular study in mind and can link it or refer me to it I would like to read it.  I have seen some such efforts in the past.  I would be appreciative of the opportunity to read that study or those studies which have shaped your opinions on this subject. 

two studies described here:

https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/764628-usa-shootings/?do=findComment&comment=22170844

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 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

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, -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.

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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, 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

 

no.   you are conflating the legal concept of assault with a definition of "assault rifle" or "assault weapon."  you're just wrong.  

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.