Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I referred to news articles (anecdotes), not aggregate data or formal studies. Here is my exact, unedited quote again:
Trading anecdotal evidence gets us nowhere. The plural of anecdote is not evidence. So we're left with trading news story links in that scenario, and I will not engage in that. It's sophomoric to trade news articles. Sorry.
I still haven't seen you address my main point, LearnMe: children killed by gunfire is tragic, but at the very very very bottom of the priority list. I've provided evidence showing this (directly from the CDC). Do you have any evidence to the contrary, or do you agree with my evidence/point?
Alright, I better understand you were not trying to suggest those numbers are equal, but it seemed to me from reading your comment that somehow those numbers were comparable, whether by exchange of anecdote or numbers. Now I see you were not making that claim -- understood. I most certainly agree that exchanging anecdotes does not a good argument or position make. I was not the one exchanging trade news articles. I am forever trying to point at their bias and propaganda agenda over truth.
RE: children killed by gunfire, I don't view the issue of gun violence according to the various sub-sets of tragedy or what portion of the total numbers they comprise. I might agree that dealing with each one individually requires different strategy, but as a whole the problem is gun violence as a whole, whether those children killed accidentally, those who kill others accidentally, those who kill others in defense or suicide, those who kill others because they are killers, mass murderers and so on. They all individually and as a whole deserve our serious attention as a society, just like we deal with all other serious societal problems, like say drugs for example.
There are those who O.D., those who simply party. The issue of gateway drugs, dealers, connection to crime, influence of money, the use of guns..., (where there are drug dealers there are usually guns too). Lots of subset groups, including children here too, but all a problem as a whole no matter how you look at it.
You probably didn't mean what I thought when I read your "thinking of the children" as some sort of "fallacy," statement as well, or maybe it's just a question of being lose with the language we use, but I wouldn't say that sort of thing either way, especially when we are still fresh with the memories of all those kids shot and killed at school...
Much like exchanging anecdotes, just offering a few links does not a case make, more like wasting time, but curious, I had a look at the first one...
Gray told prosecutors in the deposition that Alexander came back into the house holding the weapon and told him to leave. He refused, and what happened next is somewhat unclear. In his deposition, Gray said "she shot in the air one time," prompting him and the children to run out the front door. But when Gray called 911 the day of the incident, he said "she aimed the gun at us and she shot."
In August 2011, a judge rejected a motion by Alexander's attorney to grant her immunity under the "Stand your Ground" law. According to the judge's order, "there is insufficient evidence that the Defendant reasonably believed deadly force was needed to prevent death or great bodily harm to herself," and that the fact that she came back into the home, instead of leaving out the front or back door "is inconsistent with a person who is in genuine fear for her life."
Maybe it's just me, but having the opportunity to go into the garage and fetch a gun would not have been any less difficult than grabbing the children and walking out the front door, but I wasn't there. That's why a jury is called upon to decide. That's also why we should not pass quick judgement based on headlines but maybe consider the facts. Just saying (again).
I won't bother with the other links, because like I always say, when the intro is bad, the rest is not likely to get much better...
Kidding aside, why do you think you can skip the NFA laws? I'd really like to know.
Because I can.
It is called freedom.
It is a private sale.
Was I suppose to notify government, when granpa gave it to me, when I turned 18, 40 years ago?
How about the other he gave my dad, and the one my dad got when he passed away and now that my dad has passed away, I have all 3 BAR's and a Thompson trench broom.(tommygun) .45AC + 38 other firarms of different types and configurations....
Much like exchanging anecdotes, just offering a few links does not a case make, more like wasting time, but curious, I had a look at the first one...
Gray told prosecutors in the deposition that Alexander came back into the house holding the weapon and told him to leave. He refused, and what happened next is somewhat unclear. In his deposition, Gray said "she shot in the air one time," prompting him and the children to run out the front door. But when Gray called 911 the day of the incident, he said "she aimed the gun at us and she shot."
In August 2011, a judge rejected a motion by Alexander's attorney to grant her immunity under the "Stand your Ground" law. According to the judge's order, "there is insufficient evidence that the Defendant reasonably believed deadly force was needed to prevent death or great bodily harm to herself," and that the fact that she came back into the home, instead of leaving out the front or back door "is inconsistent with a person who is in genuine fear for her life."
Maybe it's just me, but having the opportunity to go into the garage and fetch a gun would not have been any less difficult than grabbing the children and walking out the front door, but I wasn't there. That's why a jury is called upon to decide. That's also why we should not pass quick judgement based on headlines but maybe consider the facts. Just saying (again).
I won't bother with the other links, because like I always say, when the intro is bad, the rest is not likely to get much better...
So, as has been typical throughout this thread, you ignore anything that doesn't already confirm your previously set belief.
That's the problem. They are not getting culled from society and then you let them roam the streets.
Tell me, that 18-year old burglar in North Carolina, did he deserve the death penalty? Better he be shot than live another day?
If that's what you believe or how you feel, you must have a lot of trouble and heartburn over our legal system in general, and thank goodness you are not one of our civic leaders (or please don't tell me you are).
Let's now turn to kids with criminal records that went on to better things, shall we? Or maybe we just consider how much better off we would all be if we just killed all them "scum" vigilante like instead of allowing them to "roam the streets" again.
Tell me, that 18-year old burglar in North Carolina, did he deserve the death penalty? Better he be shot than live another day?
If that's what you believe or how you feel, you must have a lot of trouble and heartburn over our legal system in general, and thank goodness you are not one of our civic leaders (or please don't tell me you are).
Let's now turn to kids with criminal records that went on to better things, shall we? Or maybe we just consider how much better off we would all be if we just killed all them "scum" vigilante like instead of allowing them to "roam the streets" again.
Another great offering by BentBow...
Evil will exploit good, every chance it gets.
Plant them like a crossword puzzle. 6 down & 3 across.
Natural law, is hard to beat.
The air, the water & the soil.... Flesh & blood.
So, as has been typical throughout this thread, you ignore anything that doesn't already confirm your previously set belief.
Ironic, don't you think, that most of these sorts of comments are because I am NOT ignoring much. If anything, I should ignore more of these comments than I do, but if there is an argument or fact or statistic that deserves the attention that I have not given, at least please provide the example rather than just toss these lazy lobs from the "peanut gallery" without any substantiation.
Lots of people would argue I should ignore these comments for sure, and I have to agree, yet...
I just ask for something of an example instead, so I can be convinced as you are that my bias is somehow keeping me from seeing what you are seeing. That too much to ask?
Alright, I better understand you were not trying to suggest those numbers are equal, but it seemed to me from reading your comment that somehow those numbers were comparable, whether by exchange of anecdote or numbers. Now I see you were not making that claim -- understood. I most certainly agree that exchanging anecdotes does not a good argument or position make. I was not the one exchanging trade news articles. I am forever trying to point at their bias and propaganda agenda over truth.
RE: children killed by gunfire, I don't view the issue of gun violence according to the various sub-sets of tragedy or what portion of the total numbers they comprise. I might agree that dealing with each one individually requires different strategy, but as a whole the problem is gun violence as a whole, whether those children killed accidentally, those who kill others accidentally, those who kill others in defense or suicide, those who kill others because they are killers, mass murderers and so on. They all individually and as a whole deserve our serious attention as a society, just like we deal with all other serious societal problems, like say drugs for example.
There are those who O.D., those who simply party. The issue of gateway drugs, dealers, connection to crime, influence of money, the use of guns..., (where there are drug dealers there are usually guns too). Lots of subset groups, including children here too, but all a problem as a whole no matter how you look at it.
You probably didn't mean what I thought when I read your "thinking of the children" as some sort of "fallacy," statement as well, or maybe it's just a question of being lose with the language we use, but I wouldn't say that sort of thing either way, especially when we are still fresh with the memories of all those kids shot and killed at school...
And this is the root of our disagreement. Right or wrong, I look at it AS a numbers problem, I think we have to. If we were financial planners, and we had a client that was losing $3500 a year, focusing on the children lost to gun accidents/violence is like focusing on $44. I think the $3,456 deserves a closer look first, since there are bigger wins that can save even more money (children's lives).
Or to look at it a third and final way, imagine you're in a room with 100 children. They're all going to die if you do nothing. If you focus on gun violence, you *may* save one of the kids. If you focus on drownings, you could save 10. Medical malpractice, 30. Etc. I think we should focus on the categories that could save more lives first. Once we've tackled the big issues, then we can go down to the minor ones.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Okay...
