Oregon School Shooting - At Least 10 Dead
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 09:03:17 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Oregon School Shooting - At Least 10 Dead
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
Author Topic: Oregon School Shooting - At Least 10 Dead  (Read 5320 times)
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: October 02, 2015, 09:17:47 AM »


Except as expressly authorized by law. As in, if you had a concealed carry permit. As in, not a gun free zone. Jesus.
Logged
Zioneer
PioneerProgress
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,451
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: October 02, 2015, 10:57:19 AM »


Facts won't stop Grumps, you know this.
Logged
tpfkaw
wormyguy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,118
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.58, S: 1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: October 02, 2015, 11:17:25 AM »
« Edited: October 02, 2015, 11:33:15 AM by tpfkaw »

What Sanchez said isn't necessarily that bad.  I don't think the deaths caused by drunk driving  (which are terrible and tragic) justify banning alcohol.

Guns kill way more people than drunk drivers, man.  And yet driving drunk or not is way more regulated.

Like I said... sick.

Not true (and not true).




Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/01/americas-top-killing-machine/384440/

"Gun deaths" are mostly suicides (likewise, "automobile deaths" includes all deaths involving an automobile).

Here are the actual statistics (link 1, link 2).

2009:

Drunk driving fatalities: 10,759
Firearm murders: 9,199

Gap: 1,560 or 17.0%

2010:

Drunk driving fatalities: 10,136
Firearm murders: 8,874

Gap: 1,262 or 14.2%

2011:

Drunk driving fatalities: 9,865
Firearm murders: 8,653

Gap: 1,212 or 14.0%

2012:

Drunk driving fatalities: 10,336
Firearm murders: 8,897

Gap: 1,439 or 16.2%

2013:

Drunk driving fatalities: 10,076
Firearm murders: 8,454

Gap: 1,622 or 19.2%
Logged
Grumpier Than Uncle Joe
GM3PRP
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,081
Greece
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: October 02, 2015, 11:56:44 AM »


I can't imagine how many decimal places I'd need to calculate the percentage of college kids with concealed carry permits. Out of state residents can rarely get them and the in state resident students aren't going to go to classes and stand in a long line to get the anal exam necessary to get one.   And I have a cc permit, yet lots of places don't allow me to bring my gun in, even though I'm authorized to do so by law.  Or maybe I'm not authorized to ignore their policies since I'm not a cop.  Hmmmmmmmmm.  
Logged
Negusa Nagast 🚀
Nagas
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,826
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: October 02, 2015, 02:00:03 PM »

All of the firearms were purchased legally.
Logged
Atlas Has Shrugged
ChairmanSanchez
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,096
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.29, S: -5.04


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: October 02, 2015, 02:11:56 PM »

Ok. Perhaps a background check could have stopped these purchases. Perhaps not. Let's say he didn't have any bad signs in his background and was still allowed to purchase the guns-do you know what that means?

It means that he had a legal right to own these guns. And it means that you can't justify the disarming of millions of law abiding citizens because of the actions of one man. To be blunt: the shooter had the right to own these guns, knowing what we currently do, and the deaths of ten people, horrible as they may be, do not change this.

Logged
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: October 02, 2015, 02:14:47 PM »


It's cute of you to pretend this is the only time anything of this sort has ever happened.
Logged
Atlas Has Shrugged
ChairmanSanchez
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,096
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.29, S: -5.04


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: October 02, 2015, 02:18:00 PM »


It's cute of you to pretend this is the only time anything of this sort has ever happened.
Ok. So it has happened like what, about 70 times in the last few decades? Do the actions of 70 people justify taking the guns away from millions of other Americans.

Your strawman was cute. Try harder.
Logged
Negusa Nagast 🚀
Nagas
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,826
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: October 02, 2015, 02:25:01 PM »


It's cute of you to pretend this is the only time anything of this sort has ever happened.
Ok. So it has happened like what, about 70 times in the last few decades? Do the actions of 70 people justify taking the guns away from millions of other Americans.

Your strawman was cute. Try harder.

There have been 70 school shootings in the past 2 years alone.

Of course, the right of an individual to own a firearm outweighs another individual's right to life in all cases. Because a constitutional amendment written by a bunch of paranoid revolutionaries in an era of muskets ought be universally applicable now.

Gun ownership should be a privilege with a high access bar. Not a right.
Logged
Atlas Has Shrugged
ChairmanSanchez
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,096
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.29, S: -5.04


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: October 02, 2015, 02:35:11 PM »


It's cute of you to pretend this is the only time anything of this sort has ever happened.
Ok. So it has happened like what, about 70 times in the last few decades? Do the actions of 70 people justify taking the guns away from millions of other Americans.

Your strawman was cute. Try harder.

There have been 70 school shootings in the past 2 years alone.

Of course, the right of an individual to own a firearm outweighs another individual's right to life in all cases. Because a constitutional amendment written by a bunch of paranoid revolutionaries in an era of muskets ought be universally applicable now.

Gun ownership should be a privilege with a high access bar. Not a right.
Ok. That doesn't change a thing about my point.

The right to life does not include the right not to get killed. You don't have a right to not be struck down by lightening. You don't have a right to not get killed in a car wreck. Rights fall flat in the face of acts of God or man or disasters. Your rights won't stop a bullet from tearing through your heart.

Coulda shoulda woulda. Oh well. The Constitution is strict on this matter. There is a right, whether you like it or not. If you don't like it, change it. But good luck. We are better funded, more supported, and yes, better armed. So good luck with that.
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: October 02, 2015, 02:36:45 PM »


It's cute of you to pretend this is the only time anything of this sort has ever happened.
Ok. So it has happened like what, about 70 times in the last few decades? Do the actions of 70 people justify taking the guns away from millions of other Americans.

Your strawman was cute. Try harder.

There have been 70 school shootings in the past 2 years alone.

Of course, the right of an individual to own a firearm outweighs another individual's right to life in all cases. Because a constitutional amendment written by a bunch of paranoid revolutionaries in an era of muskets ought be universally applicable now.

Gun ownership should be a privilege with a high access bar. Not a right.
Ok. That doesn't change a thing about my point.

The right to life does not include the right not to get killed. You don't have a right to not be struck down by lightening. You don't have a right to not get killed in a car wreck. Rights fall flat in the face of acts of God or man or disasters. Your rights won't stop a bullet from tearing through your heart.

Coulda shoulda woulda. Oh well. The Constitution is strict on this matter. There is a right, whether you like it or not. If you don't like it, change it. But good luck. We are better funded, more supported, and yes, better armed. So good luck with that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank
Logged
Stockdale for Veep
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 810


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: October 02, 2015, 03:03:06 PM »

Gun nut logic

Not letting 5 year olds drive a car = taking away my freedoms!!!11!!1
Logged
tpfkaw
wormyguy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,118
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.58, S: 1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: October 02, 2015, 03:03:48 PM »


Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Atlas Has Shrugged
ChairmanSanchez
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,096
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.29, S: -5.04


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: October 02, 2015, 03:09:47 PM »

Gun nut logic

Not letting 5 year olds drive a car = taking away my freedoms!!!11!!1
I would call this a strawman but as this post demonstrates, I don't think you have the intelligence to understand what a strawman actually is.
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: October 02, 2015, 03:15:10 PM »

My point is that what Chairmansanchez was saying about the 2nd amendment right, was simply not true
Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

You have many justices who simply don't believe the 2nd amendment guarantees the right for individuals to bear an arm. I quoted this former supreme court to show how much the supreme court's opinion can change about this matter.

In fact, according to this supreme court decision: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
5 supreme court justices agreed that the DC gun ban was unconstitutional, meaning 4 supreme court justices disagreed and believed that the gun ban in the district of Columbia was constitutional.

So, if for instance the democrats retake the Supreme Court, any gun restriction would likely be deemed valid.
Logged
Stockdale for Veep
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 810


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: October 02, 2015, 03:16:43 PM »

Gun nut logic

Not letting 5 year olds drive a car = taking away my freedoms!!!11!!1
I would call this a strawman but as this post demonstrates, I don't think you have the intelligence to understand what a strawman actually is.

Depends, is it a bendy-strawman, or McDonald's style?
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,192
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: October 02, 2015, 03:18:16 PM »


It's cute of you to pretend this is the only time anything of this sort has ever happened.
Ok. So it has happened like what, about 70 times in the last few decades? Do the actions of 70 people justify taking the guns away from millions of other Americans.

Your strawman was cute. Try harder.

There have been 70 school shootings in the past 2 years alone.

Of course, the right of an individual to own a firearm outweighs another individual's right to life in all cases. Because a constitutional amendment written by a bunch of paranoid revolutionaries in an era of muskets ought be universally applicable now.

Gun ownership should be a privilege with a high access bar. Not a right.
Ok. That doesn't change a thing about my point.

The right to life does not include the right not to get killed. You don't have a right to not be struck down by lightening. You don't have a right to not get killed in a car wreck. Rights fall flat in the face of acts of God or man or disasters. Your rights won't stop a bullet from tearing through your heart.

True, but most people expect the government or other authorities to strive to limit automobile accidents, through regulation and urban planning, and other such moves. Even though it is impossible to end gun violence, car accidents, food contamination etc. it seems fairly defeatist to say, eh, why bother? Why are guns so different? (Note I'm not talking about how effective individual measures are - gun control is one of those debates where everybody has an opinion far before they receive evidence - but simply questioning why guns occupy this special place in your mind. Is it for entirely constitutional reasons? Or something mor personal?

(Obviously, I know the traditions surrounding gun ownership in America that make it different from owing firearms in my country, so I don't wish to poke that hornets nest too hard...)
Logged
Atlas Has Shrugged
ChairmanSanchez
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,096
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.29, S: -5.04


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: October 02, 2015, 03:20:23 PM »

Gun nut logic

Not letting 5 year olds drive a car = taking away my freedoms!!!11!!1
I would call this a strawman but as this post demonstrates, I don't think you have the intelligence to understand what a strawman actually is.

Depends, is it a bendy-strawman, or McDonald's style?
McDonalds.

My point is that what Chairmansanchez was saying about the 2nd amendment right, was simply not true
Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

You have many justices who simply don't believe the 2nd amendment guarantees the right for individuals to bear an arm. I quoted this former supreme court to show how much the supreme court's opinion can change about this matter.

In fact, according to this supreme court decision: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
5 supreme court justices agreed that the DC gun ban was unconstitutional, meaning 4 supreme court justices disagreed and believed that the gun ban in the district of Columbia was constitutional.

So, if for instance the democrats retake the Supreme Court, any gun restriction would likely be deemed valid.
I don't think you get how the SCOTUS works. You put Donald Trump on the Court for God's sake. Four justices disagreed. Five did. And the five who made the majority ruling are the five who count.

A few justices opposed gay marriage. I guess gays don't have equal rights because 4 justices disagree.
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: October 02, 2015, 03:25:06 PM »
« Edited: October 02, 2015, 03:42:06 PM by windjammer »

Gun nut logic

Not letting 5 year olds drive a car = taking away my freedoms!!!11!!1
I would call this a strawman but as this post demonstrates, I don't think you have the intelligence to understand what a strawman actually is.

Depends, is it a bendy-strawman, or McDonald's style?
McDonalds.

My point is that what Chairmansanchez was saying about the 2nd amendment right, was simply not true
Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

You have many justices who simply don't believe the 2nd amendment guarantees the right for individuals to bear an arm. I quoted this former supreme court to show how much the supreme court's opinion can change about this matter.

In fact, according to this supreme court decision: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
5 supreme court justices agreed that the DC gun ban was unconstitutional, meaning 4 supreme court justices disagreed and believed that the gun ban in the district of Columbia was constitutional.

So, if for instance the democrats retake the Supreme Court, any gun restriction would likely be deemed valid.
I don't think you get how the SCOTUS works. You put Donald Trump on the Court for God's sake. Four justices disagreed. Five did. And the five who made the majority ruling are the five who count.

A few justices opposed gay marriage. I guess gays don't have equal rights because 4 justices disagree.


 What I mean is that you can"t the constitution is strictly clear on this issue when it isn't 9-0 or 8-1 ruling. Of course, right now any total gun ban would be struck down. But maybe not in the future (especially with 4 supreme court who are really old and will likely retire in the next decade).

My point is that you can't say the constitution is strict on the matter when you have basically 4/9 of the supreme court justices that don't share your point of you.
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,192
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: October 02, 2015, 03:28:11 PM »

From what I understand of the Supreme Court, they dislike striking past decisions down. It makes them look silly.
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: October 02, 2015, 03:31:04 PM »

From what I understand of the Supreme Court, they dislike striking past decisions down. It makes them look silly.
They allowed segregation in the past, they overturned that as well.
They allowed sodomy laws in the fast, they overturned that as well.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: October 02, 2015, 06:58:17 PM »


Cruikshank was decided well before SCOTUS adopted the Incorporation Doctrine.  If such a case came before the court today, it certainly would be decided differently, and it's already been significantly weakened by case law since then,
Logged
Grumpier Than Uncle Joe
GM3PRP
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,081
Greece
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: October 12, 2015, 12:54:19 PM »
« Edited: October 12, 2015, 01:20:09 PM by Grumps »


I can't imagine how many decimal places I'd need to calculate the percentage of college kids with concealed carry permits. Out of state residents can rarely get them and the in state resident students aren't going to go to classes and stand in a long line to get the anal exam necessary to get one.   And I have a cc permit, yet lots of places don't allow me to bring my gun in, even though I'm authorized to do so by law.  Or maybe I'm not authorized to ignore their policies since I'm not a cop.  Hmmmmmmmmm.  

Hey Figgy......sometimes a good guy with a gun, authorized by law, still isn't wanted around.

http://news.yahoo.com/video/officer-says-restaurant-asked-him-132018713.html

I'll be avoiding Olive Garden for a while.  It's not safe there.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 on: October 12, 2015, 02:08:05 PM »

Hey Figgy......sometimes a good guy with a gun, authorized by law, still isn't wanted around.

http://news.yahoo.com/video/officer-says-restaurant-asked-him-132018713.html

I'll be avoiding Olive Garden for a while.  It's not safe there.
Did you even bother to look at that story, or was the headline enuf to fuel your outrage? It was a waitress who asked him to leave, and not a manager. Olive Garden's made it clear that officers with guns are supposed to be welcome there. That said, if the cop was in plain clothes and not uniform, I could understand what happened, tho even then, it shouldn't have gone beyond making certain he actually was a cop.
Logged
Grumpier Than Uncle Joe
GM3PRP
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,081
Greece
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #74 on: October 12, 2015, 02:31:46 PM »

Hey Figgy......sometimes a good guy with a gun, authorized by law, still isn't wanted around.

http://news.yahoo.com/video/officer-says-restaurant-asked-him-132018713.html

I'll be avoiding Olive Garden for a while.  It's not safe there.
Did you even bother to look at that story, or was the headline enuf to fuel your outrage? It was a waitress who asked him to leave, and not a manager. Olive Garden's made it clear that officers with guns are supposed to be welcome there. That said, if the cop was in plain clothes and not uniform, I could understand what happened, tho even then, it shouldn't have gone beyond making certain he actually was a cop.

They need to educate their people better.  The good guys (plain clothes and uniformed) should never be chased away.  But back to my earlier point which you highlight in your last sentence, there is no law against bringing a gun into an Olive Garden, but if they weren't cops, they might also be asked to leave.......and the good guy with a gun, who hasn't violated any laws is gone.  Authorized /=/ allowed to be there with one.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.071 seconds with 12 queries.