Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-28-2022, 08:22 PM
 
1,829 posts, read 803,916 times
Reputation: 2541

Advertisements

think about guns:
90% are in the gun safe and dont come out for years, most are collectors


those that do walk around with anything but a pistol, are crazy and needs to be lock up
its the crazys that are the problem, not the other 90% of the people

 
Old 05-28-2022, 08:22 PM
 
7,491 posts, read 3,637,689 times
Reputation: 14157
Quote:
Originally Posted by b29510 View Post
here a reasonable gun law:


commit a crime with a gun, life in prison
commit a crime and somebody dies, death pentaly within 180 days
somebody in your crew, kills someone, ditto
A couple comments.

The above can lead to some perverse incentives where the city District Attorney will not pursue a case.

For example, Vice-President Kamala Harris, when she was District Attorney of San Francisco, was the keynote speaker at a NAACP event honoring the business achievements of several noted business people, including a close friend of mine.

I had the honor of attending the event, supporting my friend, and hearing Kamala speak first-hand.

Kamala, during her remarks, said she would not pursue any capital case against any black person whatsoever, because, in her words, "there are too many black people on Death Row, which is evidence that the system suffers from systemic racial bias. The way to fix it is to stop prosecuting black people."


Many crimes can be thought of in the context of a model of conditional probabilities, such as:
  • the probability of a crime being reported GIVEN a crime has been committed
  • the probability of Law Enforcement Officers (LEOs) investigating a crime GIVEN that a crime is reported
  • the probability of identifying a suspect GIVEN that a crime is investigated
  • the probability of procuring an indictment or arrest warrant GIVEN a suspect is identified
  • the probability of an arrest GIVEN the existence of an indictment or arrest warrant
  • the probability of prosecution GIVEN an arrest
  • the probability of conviction GIVEN prosecution (either through a plea deal or through judgment rendering)
  • the probability of being sentenced to prison time GIVEN a conviction
  • the probability of serving prison time GIVEN being sentenced to prison

So what's the cause? The above set of conditional probabilities are such that the perpetrator believes s/he will not be punished. What can be done? Raise each of the constituent probabilities.

But that doesn't work for shoot-up-the-elementary-school crimes. In those, the killer has already decided to die - either death by cop or at his own hand.
 
Old 05-28-2022, 08:28 PM
 
Location: Jacksonville, FL
11,120 posts, read 10,668,910 times
Reputation: 9771
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk View Post
Why must every defense of gun rights resort to the slippery slope argument? I just don't get it. Isn't there another logical fallacy that can be used to defend that stance. Why can't it just be guns are far too easy to purchase in this country and we cannot have that? I haven't heard anyone asking for prohibition of firearms at all.
Because the antigun crowd is never satisfied with any compromise made. They always come back for another try by saying it's for the children, and nothing that they have enacted seems to have accomplished the goal of making children safe. If it had, we wouldn't be wondering why the mods deleted every thread about Uvalde.
 
Old 05-28-2022, 08:54 PM
 
14,944 posts, read 8,555,251 times
Reputation: 7360
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk View Post
Why must every defense of gun rights resort to the slippery slope argument? I just don't get it. Isn't there another logical fallacy that can be used to defend that stance. Why can't it just be guns are far too easy to purchase in this country and we cannot have that? I haven't heard anyone asking for prohibition of firearms at all.
Then pull your fingers out of your ears, or get a wax job.

There are dozens of bills each congressional session that have varying degrees of gun control land mines scattered throughout, which are as deceptive as this comment you just made.

The reason every defense of gun rights must keep the slippery slope argument in sight at all times is because of how slippery your side is about being honest. OK
 
Old 05-28-2022, 08:56 PM
 
14,944 posts, read 8,555,251 times
Reputation: 7360
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk View Post
Why must every defense of gun rights resort to the slippery slope argument? I just don't get it. Isn't there another logical fallacy that can be used to defend that stance. Why can't it just be guns are far too easy to purchase in this country and we cannot have that? I haven't heard anyone asking for prohibition of firearms at all.
Then pull your fingers out of your ears, or get a wax job.

There are dozens of bills each congressional session that have varying degrees of gun control land mines scattered throughout, which are as deceptive as this comment you just made.

The reason every defense of gun rights must keep the slippery slope argument in sight at all times is because of how slippery your side is about being honest. OK
 
Old 05-28-2022, 08:56 PM
 
Location: Buckeye, AZ
38,936 posts, read 23,819,762 times
Reputation: 14125
Quote:
Originally Posted by tewest86 View Post
The reason is you give someone and inch and they’d take a mile. I remember my hs days with my girl friend. I would ask for a touch here or a feel there, nothing major. All alone I wanted her to get comfy so that we could go all the way.
Once again, back to the slippery slope argument. Do you have anything else to the gun argument besides this logical fallacy?
 
Old 05-28-2022, 08:57 PM
 
14,944 posts, read 8,555,251 times
Reputation: 7360
We know the democrats are liars when it comes to their true intentions, and at various times, some have been antagonistic enough to say so. Can’t remember which one said this, but one of the female democrat congress critters said “if I had the power, I would tell Mr and Mrs America, turn them all in, and I would do it tomorrow”

The current legislation that the Sandy Hook Alumni are pushing with their propaganda commercials calls for a total ban on AR15s. That’s not making them more difficult for criminals to acquire them, it’s a flat out prohibition, plain and simple.

Previous attempts covered banning all semi-automatics, which would cover a very large majority of firearms today. Other attempts were aimed at eliminating any firearms with the capacity exceeding 5 rounds, which would cover even revolvers, which typically have a capacity of 6.

No, sorry … this game has been going on for too long, and those of us keeping an eye on your side know exactly what the ultimate goal is, and how much the left is willing to lie their way to achieving it. And they have been relentless in their continuing efforts. Many of which were very stealthy ….from an enormous tax applied which would be prohibitive to all but the wealthy few, to restrictions on ammo, which they claimed did not interfere with the second amendment regarding firearms directly, but just ammunition. Every trick, every lie, every deception has been engaged, and continues. So, we are not buying the BS about “reasonable gun laws”, because none of them are reasonable when one considers that criminals don’t obey laws, including gun laws. The truth is, based on everything we’ve seen from the democrats in recent years … they love criminals. It’s the law abiding American people they hate so much. That’s why they destroyed border security starting day one of the Biden criminal regime. It’s why they defend BLM and ANTIFA destroying cities …. it’s why they want to defund police and allow criminals to thrive. Haven’t you been paying attention? Or do YOU ALSO LOVE CRIMINALS? Don’t say you don’t love criminals, when you vote for them!!

You are probably not aware of this, but the Japanese had seriously considered an invasion of the West Coast, after their assault on Pearl Harbor. The reason they decided not to was very simple … their military leaders concluded that there would be an armed American citizen hiding behind every blade of grass, and would be impossible to defeat in a ground invasion.

There is nothing to prevent a similar situation from appearing in the future, or a radical shift in the disposition of an already authoritarian federal bureaucracy, led by Marxist extremists here at home.

For the very reasons now being used to promote such a ban on rifles like the AR15, it is those same reasons why law abiding citizens must vigorously defend the legal ownership of such weapons.

I don’t believe the Japanese of 1941 would have decided to abandon a US invasion if we were left to defend ourselves with only bows and arrows.

Tomorrow’s Chinese or Russians might find a disarmed America too temping to pass up. Therefore, those of us who understand what is at stake, aren’t just considering the NOW, we are looking at future consequences, based on lessons from the past. Unfortunately, to protect ourselves and our future, some of America’s enemies are not as far away as China and Russia, but are much closer indeed.

Had King George been successful in his attempts to disarm the Colonials of the time, you might still be a British Subject, Governor…. with a fancy for fish and chips., and driving on the wrong side of the road.

If that sounds appealing to you, fine. Leave. But stop trying to destroy this country, because we are not going to allow it. Capice’
 
Old 05-28-2022, 09:06 PM
 
14,944 posts, read 8,555,251 times
Reputation: 7360
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk View Post
Once again, back to the slippery slope argument. Do you have anything else to the gun argument besides this logical fallacy?
We’re dealing with slippery slime, who aren’t honest. Simple. The slippery slope is where your side takes this issue.

Heard of the Camel’s Nose proverb? That’s you and your slimy leftists in a nutshell. It’s always just the nose … that’s all, we just want to stick that nose under the tent … promise, cross my heart.

Uhhh, no. Nope. Keep out, nose too. Stick that nose sunder the tent, and it’s gonna get whacked.
 
Old 05-28-2022, 09:07 PM
 
Location: Richland, Washington
4,903 posts, read 6,005,119 times
Reputation: 3533
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk View Post
This was taught to me the first time I shot rifle at Boy Scout camp when I just turned 11 and again at 14 when I went through hunter safety and the rifle shooting merit badge. I don't understand why this part of gun safety is so hard to understand. This is something that the gun rights side doesn't get, the bad guys with the guns aren't following that and just spray bullets.



Start with the police in Texas who were too scared to actually go into the school. They should be all fired for dereliction of duty and charged with accessory to murder for waiting an hour to enter the building. Yet gun rights advocates want teachers and school aides armed? I work in a program where having an arm in the classroom is a horrible idea.



I think you meant "Put criminals who are an immediate threat to the health and safety of others in the dirt." Being violent and an immediate threat to the health and safety of others are two different things pal. There have been several shootings by police to people that had guns in shooter situations that weren't the suspect.
When I say violent criminals, I mean in situations like Dennis Butler. The lady that shot him saved the lives of everyone at the graduation party. I know there's a difference between a violent criminal and a violent criminal that's an immediate threat. The problem with these "reasonable gun laws" that gun control advocates propose is that all they do is take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. The criminals don't care about gun safety or whether guns are illegal which is why it's necessary law abiding citizens are armed and trained. My list was just meant that all these "common sense" gun laws that gun control advocates want are foolish. When gun rights advocates talk about gun safety, they're talking about law abiding citizens knowing and practicing gun safety so that should they ever be in a situation with an active shooter, they will know how to effectively handle their weapon instead of being dangerous to innocents themselves. Gun control advocates think that everyone with a gun is like a mass shooter, however, this is not true. The overwhelming majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens. Communities where most law abiding citizens are armed and trained in gun safety and how to use guns always have much lower rates of gun violence than all these cities where people are unarmed and believe in gun control.
 
Old 05-28-2022, 09:10 PM
 
Location: Buckeye, AZ
38,936 posts, read 23,819,762 times
Reputation: 14125
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimRom View Post
Because the antigun crowd is never satisfied with any compromise made. They always come back for another try by saying it's for the children, and nothing that they have enacted seems to have accomplished the goal of making children safe. If it had, we wouldn't be wondering why the mods deleted every thread about Uvalde.
But here is the problem, any time there is one of these mass shootings, nothing changed on a national basis. Since Collumbine High School got shot up 23 years ago, nothing changed on a national basis and in fact we let the federal assault weapons ban run out. Since Virginia Tech 15 years ago, nothing happened on a national basis, even when we saw issues with NICS that proved the shooter shouldn't have had his guns that could have avoided the Dark Knight Rises premier shooting five years later. Since Sandy Hook, we did nothing and in fact called the parents crisis actors and that they didn't really have their children killed off. Since Majorey Stoneman Douglas got shot up four years ago, nothing has happened. Gee, you think if we actually did something that maybe these would stop or at least not happen as consistently.

I am dam sick and tired to listening to that G-D slippery slope of "but they will take it all away." The only reason that may happen is because we wait too long and some Republican member of Congress actually is related to a school shooting victim and learns a thing called empathy to the families of the slain victims from these acts of senseless violence that easily could have been stopped if Congress wasn't bought and paid for by the gun lobby and scared chitless by the NRA.
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.



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:41 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top