About the Texas massacre and easy access to guns.

[tabzer]

I guess you're not christian then, because you are holding the constitution as an idol.

Lol, what? I'm not idolizing anything nor do I claim to be a Christian. Acknowledging the existence of it and its supporting hierarchy has nothing to do with my reverence of it. If you want to say the constitution doesn't matter, I'm not someone you need to convince. You won't, but that's irrelevant.

 

[Valwinz]

A School Resource Officer Shoots and Kills ‘Suspicious’ Man Trying to Enter Elementary School​

A school resource officer shot and killed a suspect near the Walnut Park Elementary School in Gadsden, Alabama on Thursday
The suspect reportedly was attempting to enter the Alabama school, law enforcement said.

Wait so Locking the doors and Guns do work

 

[Dark_Ansem]

The idea that we should remove 393 million guns from the hands of American civilians

which no one is talking about

 

[smf]

If that’s your preference, you’re more than welcome to not own a gun.

Or I'd protect myself by buying a gun and shooting you.
Claim it's self defense and walk free.
Simple.

which no one is talking about

That would be the only way to make US safer, adding more guns just makes it more dangerous.

 

[smf]

Lol, what? I'm not idolizing anything nor do I claim to be a Christian. Acknowledging the existence of it and its supporting hierarchy has nothing to do with my reverence of it. If you want to say the constitution doesn't matter, I'm not someone you need to convince. You won't, but that's irrelevant.

It's not that the constitution doesn't matter, it's that you are idolizing it by saying the constitution can't be changed. Although I figure if you supported the change, your argument would change.

I don't need to convince you of anything, I'm just pointing out reality.

 

[smf]

Wait so Locking the doors and Guns do work

What do you mean by "work"?

A stopped clock is right twice a day.

In this case though, he was accused of trying to gain access to a car & then was killed when they tried to stop him.
Like the SRO's that body slam students, it doesn't mean that their response was helpful.

 

[tabzer]

It's not that the constitution doesn't matter, it's that you are idolizing it by saying the constitution can't be changed. Although I figure if you supported the change, your argument would change.

I don't need to convince you of anything, I'm just pointing out reality.

I didn't say the constitution can't be changed. I said how it literally can be changed.

 

[Foxi4]

Or I'd protect myself by buying a gun and shooting you.
Claim it's self defense and walk free.
Simple.

If I attack you, go for it.

which no one is talking about

smf stated that he’d much prefer defending himself from someone with a knife rather than someone with a gun. I retorted by pointing out that this premise is unrealistic because there are 393 million guns in the United States and they aren’t going anywhere, so his preference is irrelevant. Was that not obvious? We’re not talking in code.

 

[Creamu]

The idea that anyone is *required* (not expected to, *required*) to risk their life is false. It’s very honourable to do so, but it’s not a requirement. If you *expect* people to take a bullet for you just because they’re soldiers or policemen, you’re going to be very disappointed in your time of need.

Kali yuga, that's unfortunatly true. We need to return to order. Consider reading the hagakure, its a easy and quick read.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagakure

 

[Foxi4]

Kali yuga, that's unfortunatly true. We need to return to order. Consider reading the hagakure, its a easy and quick read.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagakure

Yeah, that’s one thing ancient times were known for - order.

 

[Creamu]

Yeah, that’s one thing ancient times were known for - order.

 

[SyphenFreht]

You could argue that intentionally stifling a country's economy could translate to infringement of many rights, but the economy wasn't an idea added after the fact.

I mean I'll argue to that as well to some extent. A crushing economy limits a lot of things in a lot of different ways.

That's not the argument, that's the disinformation. If I listed all of the regulations/liabilities regarding manufacturing and sales of guns and compared it to the requirements of buying a taco you'd see it as stupid, because it is.

You should list them then. That would be a better point of contention than a graph in which who's OP's intent dropped like a heavy balloon.

 

[tabzer]

You should list them then. That would be a better point of contention than a graph in which who's OP's intent dropped like a heavy balloon.

You may take it to heart because you react to things emotionally and mistake that as being logical, but if you cannot see the disengenuity in comparing regulations and liabilities in running a business to being a customer as a gun regulation problem, this point is over your head. Manufacturers also have liabilities to defective products, almost regardless of the industry.

I'm not going to craft disinformation charts to "combat" @Dark_Ansem's Instagram grab. Anyone who has been in a position where they are responsible for things know that it's not a gun argument.

Another example is how difficult it is to cook casserole. So much easier to shoot someone.

I mean I'll argue to that as well to some extent. A crushing economy limits a lot of things in a lot of different ways.

Key word is intentionally.

 

[Dr_Faustus]

Wrong. Barriers do exist. Look at the arsenal one.

Eh, not really a strong enough argument on that one, especially since its been a known problem that has happened before.

The argument should be that while firearms are a common form of massacre based weapon of choice, its by no means the only method of causing mass pain and death. There are many different methods to do that. Firearms typically are just the most simplistic, easiest and most abundant way of getting something with the intent to make everyone around you in reasonable range go down. That's why I stated a few times that even once we do improve gun control restrictions and screenings/technology that massacres will still be a thing, but it will be siginificantly less common, especially with firearms over time. They will have to rely on something like vehicles or other means of weaponry such as explosives or poisons, but even then that would require some more brains than driving a vehicle or pointing and shooting would. The amount of massacres will go down over time, but they will still exist none the less regardless. The goal is to make it not as easy to make happen as it has been, not to somehow make it an impossibility, which in itself is impossible to do so.

The idea that anyone is *required* (not expected to, *required*) to risk their life is false. It’s very honourable to do so, but it’s not a requirement. If you *expect* people to take a bullet for you just because they’re soldiers or policemen, you’re going to be very disappointed in your time of need.

For one, that is untrue, especially for branches of government police such as the Secret Service, which are, in fact required to take a bullet to prevent the death/assassination of those they are protecting. That comes part of the job in that their priority is to protect by all means, even giving up their own life to do so.

Secondly, Accepted risks of death is a common protocol when going into Police and more so in the military. Unless you plan on sitting pretty in a branch office or position in which you yourself will never have to worry about getting your hands dirty on actual outside work. Accepted risks are by all means known to those in this line of work. The same goes to firemen as well as any instance of going into a burning building there is always ALWAYS a strong possibility they may not get out of it alive. Its the accepted risk of the job and if you cannot deal with that then its clearly not the job for you.

Also before you start throwing random articles and bullshit my way trying to conflict this, I have friends and family who were police, fire and yes military. Every one of them knows about the accepted risks, so much so some had pre-written letters they made years ago to be sent out to others in the event that they die while on the job. Its very much something they come to accept as a possibility while in the line of work and not an uncommon expectation of those who know this when going in.

 

[SyphenFreht]

You may take it to heart because you react to things emotionally and mistake that as being logical, but if you cannot see the disengenuity in comparing regulations and liabilities in running a business to being a customer as a gun regulation problem, this point is over your head. Manufacturers also have liabilities to defective products, almost regardless of the industry.

You make that sound like a bad thing when psychologically, that's how people operate. The difference is I respond logically and emotionally, because I'm intelligent enough to understand that both can be done competently, and eliminating emotion entirely from reason is where you get concepts like blanket laws and needless arguments over interpretations and semantics.

The only point going over my head is how you seem to not be able to get the same gist most of us are comprehending. You spend more time arguing over a graphic as opposed to proving your stance, which shows that you're just as liable to arguing over emotion as opposed to logic. You want to say the graph is dumb, but then offer absolutely no data to back up your theory, but then hold this stance that you're above emotional attachment to your supposedly logic based debating.

I'm not going to craft disinformation charts to "combat" @Dark_Ansem's Instagram grab. Anyone who has been in a position where they are responsible for things know that it's not a gun argument.

You're refusing to provide logical data against a stance that you seem to be against? Well it's a good thing you don't react to things emotionally.

Key word is intentionally.

Are you implying that our economy got this way accidentally? Or that the limitations imposed by the current state of economy are falsely created because they weren't done intentionally?

 

[Foxi4]

(…) before you start throwing random articles and bullshit my way trying to conflict this, I have friends and family who…

You can stop right there. Your friends and family don’t “know better” than the Supreme Court. There’s a difference between professional performance expectations and the law - I’m sure more and more of it is expected the higher up the chain you go, but at no point up that chain is it illegal to fail at your job. There’s a degree of expected/acceptable risk, it doesn’t include suicide. Besides, we are discussing the police - that’s what the case is about.

EDIT: Did a quick fact check - there is no oath that bounds a secret service agent to “take a bullet” for their VIP, even if it’s the president. Sorry - it’s not a thing.

"Contrary to popular belief, special agents do not officially swear an oath to take a bullet. Rather, they are prepared to do what it takes to prevent such a a situation from ever happening. (...) What we'll do is we'll do everything in our power to keep the bullet out of the event. And that's what Secret Service is all about. It's about being prepared"
- Careers in the Secret Service, Adam Woog

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=IJVmDwAAQBAJ

In case there's any confusion, the author is literally interviewing Secret Service members about their job.

Edit 2: As far as military is concerned, this matter is covered in the Uniform Code of Military Justice under Duty to Disobey. Soldiers not only are allowed to disobey orders that are unlawful, they are *expected* to do that as following an unlawful order may (and likely will) result in criminal prosecution. Soldiers are not expected to follow orders that will predictably result in their own death, that's no different than ordering them to commit suicide, which is illegal. With that being said, the same statute indicates that soldiers disobey orders at their own peril as it will not be up to them to determine if an order was lawful or not - that's up to the courts to decide. As such, an officer can order a soldier to perform a duty likely to result in the soldier's death, but the soldier can disobey such an order if they're willing to go through a tribunal to prove they were in the right. Soldiers knowingly choose a dangerous career and there’s an expectation of the possibility of getting into potentially lethal situations, but they cannot be *ordered to die*, that’s patently false.

 

[tabzer]

You make that sound like a bad thing when psychologically, that's how people operate. The difference is I respond logically and emotionally, because I'm intelligent enough to understand that both can be done competently, and eliminating emotion entirely from reason is where you get concepts like blanket laws and needless arguments over interpretations and semantics.

The only point going over my head is how you seem to not be able to get the same gist most of us are comprehending. You spend more time arguing over a graphic as opposed to proving your stance, which shows that you're just as liable to arguing over emotion as opposed to logic. You want to say the graph is dumb, but then offer absolutely no data to back up your theory, but then hold this stance that you're above emotional attachment to your supposedly logic based debating.

If you discard the logical inequivalence of business operation to customer experience as a demonstration of how gun control is lacking, you have forfeited the logical for the emotional. At that point, your idea of competency is delusional. If you compromise one for the other (emotional vs logical), neither can be consistent.

It can be argued that restrictions are high on selling, and comparatively low on buying. These are data points that are referred to in the chart, but there is no correspondence between the difficulty of running a taco stand and the effort it takes to buy a gun. At best, it's juxtaposition, and it's a degree beyond "apples and oranges". Selling guns and buying guns is apples and oranges. Selling tacos and buying guns is apple seeds to orange ice pops. Yeah, apple seeds are lackluster in comparison.

As for the emotional and logical aspects of the law, the best I can correspond this to is the spirit of the law vs the letter of the law. You haven't demonstrated competence of either. You just waffle.

The whole "most of us" reference reeks of desperation. It doesn't read sincere at all.

You're refusing to provide logical data against a stance that you seem to be against? Well it's a good thing you don't react to things emotionally.

Do you know what you are referring to? I've referred to a lack of correlation. If anyone should provide data on a correlation, it's you or the idiot who thought Instagram was reality. The best you have is, "it makes it look bad." Yeah, that's the intention and it's propaganda.

Are you implying that our economy got this way accidentally? Or that the limitations imposed by the current state of economy are falsely created because they weren't done intentionally?

I'm not implying either. I took your retort about how "even economics are infringing" and pointed at how that could actually be true.

The best I can surmise of this interaction is that you find value in that propaganda can influence people. It does. But you go a step beyond and suggest that we should embrace it.

 

[SyphenFreht]

If you discard the logical inequivalence of business operation to customer experience as a demonstration of how gun control is lacking, you have forfeited the logical for the emotional. At that point, your idea of competency is delusional. If you compromise one for the other (emotional vs logical), neither can be consistent.

It can be argued that restrictions are high on selling, and comparatively low on buying. These are data points that are referred to in the chart, but there is no correspondence between the difficulty of running a taco stand and the effort it takes to buy a gun. At best, it's juxtaposition, and it's a degree beyond "apples and oranges". Selling guns and buying guns is apples and oranges. Selling tacos and buying guns is apple seeds to orange ice pops. Yeah, apple seeds are lackluster in comparison.

As for the emotional and logical aspects of the law, the best I can correspond this to is the spirit of the law vs the letter of the law. You haven't demonstrated competence of either. You just waffle.

The whole "most of us" reference reeks of desperation. It doesn't read sincere at all.

It's not so much that gun control is lacking, it's that control is in the wrong spots, which is what the intent of the original graph was attempting to imply. That's where logic comes into play moreso than the emotional; logically, we can pull from the graph that regulation on both parts is ineffective at best, while the emotional argument behind it would come down to where these regulations should be placed and tightened.

Again, it's not about comparing the sale and purchase of said "apples and oranges", it's how regulation means different things to different corporations. The reason why regulations on guns are far more pertinent than tacos is because A) people equate regulation with infringement and b) there has yet to be an incident where someone used an assault taco to spree kill dozens of kids.

I don't need to display competence for anything other than my interpretation of the law at hand because I'm not in charge of creating or applying laws. Everything I stand for in the face of gun regulation could fall in an instant should guns suddenly become wholesale and legal in every aspect. Up until that point though, I will vehemently argue morality against 200+ year old ideals because, statistics or not, times have changed and the parameters are different.

"Most of us" doesn't reek of desperation when only two people have consistently argued against the implications behind the graph. Maybe I'm over assuming how other people have interpreted it, but then I can only go based on the statistical data presented before me. Otherwise I'd be discarding logical arguments in favor of only emotional.

Do you know what you are referring to? I'm referred to a lack of correlation. If anyone should provide data on a correlation, it's you or the idiot who thought Instagram was reality. The best you have is, "it makes it look bad." Yeah, that's the intention and it's propaganda.

I believe it's a general understanding that if you oppose data of any form you should at least provide your own on a similar premise. Otherwise you're discarding logic in favor of emotional debate.

Also, it would be propaganda if it were posted everywhere and expected to be taken as unequivocal fact. As it was only used to convey an idea that at least you failed to understand, I wouldn't call that propaganda so much as a swing and a miss.

I'm not implying either. I took your retort about how "even economics are infringing" and pointed at how that could actually be true.

I appreciate your clarification and I'm genuinely happy we've found something we can both agree on. I apologize that it took a retort to get to that point.

 

[Dr_Faustus]

You can stop right there. Your friends and family don’t “know better” than the Supreme Court. There’s a difference between professional performance expectations and the law - I’m sure more and more of it is expected the higher up the chain you go, but at no point up that chain is it illegal to fail at your job. There’s a degree of expected/acceptable risk, it doesn’t include suicide. Besides, we are discussing the police - that’s what the case is about.

Ah yes, the Supreme Court, the privileged few that have gotten through their years on the backs of good family money and pre-existing status of influence never once having to actually know the troubles of having to be in a situation where they would have to accept the risks of their job being dangerous, because they never had to be involved in such.

The same people so high in the clouds ignoring the problems down below them they are more concerned with removing Woman's right to their bodies and more so trying to pass a bill protecting their own privileged guided asses so no crazy shooters go and try to do to them like so many have done before in schools, public places and so on, but hey those people and kids are unimportant and do not deserve to have their concerns be raised when it should only be the important and powerful that demand to have their asses be protected. Also the same people that seem to believe that federal officials should be immune to personal lawsuits as well. Plus since you yourself are not American the Supreme Court itself operates on other principles of election being pushed between a President's choice and the Senate giving the OK for it with them serving their term until they retire or pass away. Its also been something that the republican party has been very hard in trying to fill up with their own people over the years so they would have influence in what laws can be overturned, not a shock given recent events and the fact that our last president had the fortunate luck of installing 3 new members. Once these people are in office they will most likely remain in their position until they decide its time to go. Its one of the few positions in this country where once you are in the seat there is very little that can get you out of it. But sure, these are the people that sure know better about how difficult life can be when it comes to saving lives or protecting the peace at the potential cost of their own.


Word of advice, don't go spouting that shit you said to anyone who actually works for the police, retired or served their duty to protect and serve. It will take an immense amount of will for them to not back hand you for such gross disrespect to their line of work and the lives they have lost during. You know nothing about the amount of pressure and danger anyone in those positions have to accept and deal with and to act as if some privileged group of pampered jerkoffs know the real strife of the average American people is a fucking laughing stock. It just shows how really out of touch you are with how things really are, and that is nothing short of disrespectful for those who do put their lives on the line every day.

EDIT: Did a quick fact check - there is no oath that bounds a secret service agent to “take a bullet” for their VIP, even if it’s the president. Sorry - it’s not a thing.

Its not an oath, but it's an understanding that its part of the job.

"The willingness to possibly be called upon to sacrifice one’s life for that of the office of the presidency is simply understood, with no official oath or affirmation required."

If you do not know what that means, it means its an accepted risk of the line of work. There is no need to bound yourself to any official word, its explicitly understood when you take on that position that line of work you know what scenarios you have to be ready to take on even if it may result in your sacrificing your life. That is accepted risk in a nutshell, everyone that works in a job where there is an accepted risk of fatality knows this.

 

[tabzer]

It's not so much that gun control is lacking, it's that control is in the wrong spots, which is what the intent of the original graph was attempting to imply.

How does it demonstrate that? The best I can come up with is this idea that selling tacos are so very regulated, so it would "make sense" if the purchase of guns were too... but I'm still missing the logical connection. Manufacturing and sales seem to always carry more liability than purchases from customers. Also, just because one thing is shitty doesn't mean that something else has to be shitty. Based on this, it could be argued that amendments are actually effective in keeping the government out of it, not that I believe that is the reality. For example, it is a lot more difficult to buy a taco than it is to buy a gun, but there is no amendment guaranteeing us tacos. Shouldn't it be more difficult to buy a taco than a gun, if we are to have difficulty with either?

logically, we can pull from the graph that regulation on both parts is ineffective at best

Ok. Entertain the point. How?

Again, it's not about comparing the sale and purchase of said "apples and oranges", it's how regulation means different things to different corporations. The reason why regulations on guns are far more pertinent than tacos is because A) people equate regulation with infringement and b) there has yet to be an incident where someone used an assault taco to spree kill dozens of kids.

Selling guns is comparatively as inhibiting as selling tacos ("infringement"). Because selling tacos includes "manufacturing" aspects to which selling guns is isolated from, there is a slight, even proportional, degree of difference. On the manufacturing end of guns, there is liability placed on the nature of defects, vs selling bad meat on the vendor end.

If we could punish all of humanity for the people who would harbor malicious intent, should we? I'm undecided myself. So, I could agree with you, but I'm not jumping the gun.

I don't need to display competence for anything other than my interpretation of the law at hand because I'm not in charge of creating or applying laws.

Fair.

Up until that point though, I will vehemently argue morality against 200+ year old ideals because, statistics or not, times have changed and the parameters are different.

Okay. So if you are suggesting that "times have changed" and "we have evolved" how do you propose an approach to "refurnishing" the law?

"Most of us" doesn't reek of desperation when only two people have consistently argued against the implications behind the graph.

It reeks of desperation because of a couple of things. It's a bandwagon appeal plus, statistically, it's 2 vs 3, and you are losing on that account. I don't respect the appeal, flat out. I know I generally don't agree with anybody. But when you try that and misrepresent, It's embarrassing to me. Maybe you can solicit more likes from other members of this forum. I know there are more people who don't like how I present myself.

I believe it's a general understanding that if you oppose data of any form you should at least provide your own on a similar premise

I didn't oppose the data, I opposed the presentation of an ambiguous inference. I did take the extra step in suggesting a contrary juxtaposition which would have yielded predictably contrary results. I assumed you would be more reasonable than some others, here.

As it was only used to convey an idea that at least you failed to understand, I wouldn't call that propaganda so much as a swing and a miss.

Lol. I saw the intention, but I've been pointing out the absurdity for a minute.

Ah yes, the Supreme Court, the privileged few that have gotten through their years on the backs of good family money and pre-existing status of influence never once having to actually know the troubles of having to be in a situation where they would have to accept the risks of their job being dangerous, because they never had to be involved in such.

You mean the magistrate responsible for sanctifying the holy text of America?