ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Florida incidents , shooting incidents , texting incidents

Reply
Old 17th January 2014, 01:16 PM   #601
joesixpack
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,531
Originally Posted by AlBell View Post
Progressives thinking.
Reactionary conservatism.
__________________
Generally sober 'til noon.
joesixpack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th January 2014, 01:31 PM   #602
Kahalachan
Illuminator
 
Kahalachan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,237
Call me stupid, but isn't shooting someone more disruptive to watching a movie than texting?
Kahalachan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th January 2014, 01:40 PM   #603
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 24,969
Originally Posted by Kahalachan View Post
Call me stupid, but isn't shooting someone more disruptive to watching a movie than texting?
Evidently not; after shooting the texter, this guy is reported to have said nothing and calmly retaken his seat.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th January 2014, 01:41 PM   #604
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
 
BenBurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one.
Posts: 37,535
Originally Posted by Pup View Post
Other than a total ban, or ban of all guns except for active police, what kind of change in gun laws would have prevented the theater shooting?
Ban the concealment of any fireaem. Make this a class-C felony. Then when a cop finds a gun on somebody, the weapon and the person are taken off the street.

I don't support a total ban because some people legitimately need guns. They are a useful tool in a wilderness.

I would require every gun and every gun owner be registered and permitted, and permits for any handgun would require that you be in a profession that requires it or that you have a court order allowing it in your specific circumstance. Rifles and Shotguns pretty much anybody will be able to buy who has no criminal record.

To do this, of course, we have to repeal the second amendment.
__________________
For what doth it profit a man, to fix one bug, but crash the system?
BenBurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th January 2014, 01:58 PM   #605
Cylinder
Philosopher
 
Cylinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 6,060
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
In context, I'm discussing claims of self-defense. I'm discussing cases where a person's assertion that he felt threatened is argued to be sufficient to absolve him of liability for the consequences of his shooting somebody where in the aftermath of the shooting it cannot be demonstrated that the victim actually had the capacity or intent to commit harm that needed to be defended against.
It's an important protection in our criminal courts that a defendant be allowed to present whatever relevant theory of innocence or mitigation that can be produced through evidence - not just those that satisfy some other person's or group's political opinion. Sometimes it's Reade Seligman saying oh, by the way, here's my ATM record with accompanying photo and here's the record from my dorm card. Sometimes it's some guy who shot a person in a movie theater after a texting dispute. Both are equally entitled to a theory of defense.

As has been pointed out, if we accept as factual the narrative that there was a texting dispute, the person using the phone threw popcorn then the defendant shot the person then his claim of justification seems to fall very far outside what would be considered reasonable as required by statute. Though I haven't read this thread completely, I don't see anyone making that argument here. Though mostly subjective in nature, anyone who makes that argument is wrong.

Especially in regard to stories relating to gun control, the media has a record of being wildly wrong or incomplete regarding even the most material details. I need not mention The Case that Shall Not be Named. Another example, this recent case where the man Joe Biden-ed the female looking for help after wrecking her vehicle. When the defendant appeared for bail, his attorney pointed out that the hole in the screen door separating the two was above the height of both people - and the victim was standing some inches lower than the shooter (he was inside the entry door, she was on the outside porch). One way to reconcile this fact is that the screen door had already been wrenched from its frame - it was found by police minutes later laying on the front porch. That seems to support the narrative that she was forcing the door and not simply inquiring for help. Little changes in the fact set can prompt very different outcomes.

I'm guessing there are more material facts available than text dispute, thrown popcorn, victim shot. It's also hard to envision a scenario where this shooter's action was justified with most of what falls under the realm of plausible speculation.

Of course, the shooter in this incident has had a career full of use-of-force training.
__________________
If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed ; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves. - Winston Churchill, The Gathering Storm

Last edited by Cylinder; 17th January 2014 at 02:02 PM.
Cylinder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th January 2014, 02:12 PM   #606
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 31,984
Originally Posted by Polaris View Post
The problem is that the prosecutor isn't out to hold someone accountable, he's out to get a conviction.
Again, that's true for any trial.

Originally Posted by Polaris View Post
Duty to retreat makes it easier to get a conviction out of self-defense.
Why is that a bad thing? Shouldn't we hold excusing killing another person to a pretty high standard?

I'm not saying there isn't such thing as killing in self-defense. I'm just saying that it shouldn't be easy to make that defense.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th January 2014, 02:33 PM   #607
Polaris
Penultimate Amazing
 
Polaris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 11,369
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Again, that's true for any trial.
And as such it's even worse to jail someone who is not only not guilty, but would not have been in that situation were it not for a criminal.

Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Why is that a bad thing? Shouldn't we hold excusing killing another person to a pretty high standard?

I'm not saying there isn't such thing as killing in self-defense. I'm just saying that it shouldn't be easy to make that defense.
I disagree. I don't think the decision to have to use deadly force should be made harder than it is by increasing the likelihood that saving your own life means spending it in prison.
__________________
"There's vastly more truth to be found in rocks than in holy books. Rocks are far superior, in fact, because you can DEMONSTRATE the truth found in rocks. Plus, they're pretty. Holy books are just heavy." - Dinwar

"Let your ears hear this beautiful song that's hiding underneath the sound," Ed Kowalczyk.
Polaris is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th January 2014, 02:42 PM   #608
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
YAY!!
More shooting!
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th January 2014, 02:45 PM   #609
Corsair 115
Penultimate Amazing
 
Corsair 115's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 14,519
Originally Posted by joesixpack View Post
Numerically significant or sensationalist headline significance?

I suspect if it was a relative of yours who was shot and killed in such an incident your opinion of whether it's "numerically significant" or "sensationalist headline significance" would be different.
__________________
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve
to organize and measure the best of our abilities and skills, because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and
one which we intend to win."
Corsair 115 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th January 2014, 03:03 PM   #610
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,659
Originally Posted by Corsair 115 View Post
I suspect if it was a relative of yours who was shot and killed in such an incident your opinion of whether it's "numerically significant" or "sensationalist headline significance" would be different.
how far do you want relatives of victims to be able to control public policy and the justice system?

Do you think that victims/relatives of victims should be able to determine verdicts and sentences in trials? Or should that be the duty of independent and hopefully dispassionate persons such as judge and jury?
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th January 2014, 03:11 PM   #611
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 24,969
Originally Posted by Cylinder View Post
It's an important protection in our criminal courts that a defendant be allowed to present whatever relevant theory of innocence or mitigation that can be produced through evidence - not just those that satisfy some other person's or group's political opinion. Sometimes it's Reade Seligman saying oh, by the way, here's my ATM record with accompanying photo and here's the record from my dorm card. Sometimes it's some guy who shot a person in a movie theater after a texting dispute. Both are equally entitled to a theory of defense.
I don't mean to imply that I think the person should be prevented from making any claim he wants in his defense; he can blame it on aliens in open court if he wants. What I'm advocating for is a raising of the bar for the acceptability of that claim as abrogative(specifically, I want a standard of "supported by physical evidence"). I don't think people should be allowed to walk away from an innocent dead body based solely on the believability of their claim of fear.

Originally Posted by Cylinder View Post
As has been pointed out, if we accept as factual the narrative that there was a texting dispute, the person using the phone threw popcorn then the defendant shot the person then his claim of justification seems to fall very far outside what would be considered reasonable as required by statute. Though I haven't read this thread completely, I don't see anyone making that argument here. Though mostly subjective in nature, anyone who makes that argument is wrong.
There have been a number of posts that seem to try to justify a fear-of-imminent-harm reaction to a tossed bag of popcorn (or even the "throwing" motion itself) as well as the inherent credible danger imposed by unarmed people; it is a small number, however.

Originally Posted by Cylinder View Post
Especially in regard to stories relating to gun control, the media has a record of being wildly wrong or incomplete regarding even the most material details. I need not mention The Case that Shall Not be Named. Another example, this recent case where the man Joe Biden-ed the female looking for help after wrecking her vehicle. When the defendant appeared for bail, his attorney pointed out that the hole in the screen door separating the two was above the height of both people - and the victim was standing some inches lower than the shooter (he was inside the entry door, she was on the outside porch). One way to reconcile this fact is that the screen door had already been wrenched from its frame - it was found by police minutes later laying on the front porch. That seems to support the narrative that she was forcing the door and not simply inquiring for help. Little changes in the fact set can prompt very different outcomes.
Hey, maybe; I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of that case. But shot trajectory analysis is an example of a self-defense claim backed by physical evidence.

Originally Posted by Cylinder View Post
I'm guessing there are more material facts available than text dispute, thrown popcorn, victim shot. It's also hard to envision a scenario where this shooter's action was justified with most of what falls under the realm of plausible speculation.
It is hard to imagine in this particular case; however, it seems to me that cases like this one and similar ones are rather inevitable. The people wielding these "effective tools for self-defense" are empowered (in their minds, required) to make decisions with disastrous consequences that they ordinarily wouldn't be able to make - that the average person isn't able to make. I think some gun advocates laugh away or even refuse to acknowledge the fact of that power and its implications as relevant during most debates here about guns, and I don't think that's a reasonable thing.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th January 2014, 03:55 PM   #612
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 31,984
Originally Posted by Polaris View Post
I disagree. I don't think the decision to have to use deadly force should be made harder than it is by increasing the likelihood that saving your own life means spending it in prison.
I dunno. Here we have, essentially, deadly force in response to popcorn. If this self-defense plea actually works, then a self-defense claim is clearly too easy. There has to be a balance.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th January 2014, 03:56 PM   #613
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 24,821
Originally Posted by Xulld View Post
<snip>

Deterrents are what make people abide by the law. What deterrent is greater, a murder conviction, or an illegal weapons violation?

Is there some reason to have to choose between the two?
__________________
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."

"Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th January 2014, 04:14 PM   #614
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 88,910
Originally Posted by joesixpack View Post
Think whatever you want.
I think people tend to be softer on the people they have positive relationships with.

Quote:
You know what I think? Social being determines consciousness. You're not poor, and you've never been poor.
You think I would support lawlessness if I were poor ? Talk about a non sequitur.

Quote:
Feel free to criticize me for a double standard, I just don't like to see people condemned to a life of poverty, because that is what your suggested action would result in.
Taking the bus is cheaper than having a car, so I don't see what you're talking about.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th January 2014, 04:15 PM   #615
Cylinder
Philosopher
 
Cylinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 6,060
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
What I'm advocating for is a raising of the bar for the acceptability of that claim as abrogative(specifically, I want a standard of "supported by physical evidence"). I don't think people should be allowed to walk away from an innocent dead body based solely on the believability of their claim of fear.
Yea - but it's just fundamental to our criminal courts that the state be required to prove the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

Originally Posted by First Congress of the United States, New York
Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
If the claim is specious, the state can disprove it with evidence. If the state can't disprove it with evidence, how can we claim it is specious?
__________________
If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed ; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves. - Winston Churchill, The Gathering Storm
Cylinder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th January 2014, 04:18 PM   #616
DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Front Range, CO
Posts: 10,493
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
I don't think that's a helpful way to introduce another gun tragedy into this discussion.
__________________
For 15 years I never put anyone on ignore. I felt it important to see everyone's view point. Finally I realized the value of some views can be measured in negative terms and were personally destructive.
DavidJames is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th January 2014, 04:21 PM   #617
Gawdzilla Sama
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
 
Gawdzilla Sama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 42,180
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
Evidently not; after shooting the texter, this guy is reported to have said nothing and calmly retaken his seat.
If so the dude probably qualifies as a total nut bag.
__________________
Guns that are instantly available for use are instantly available for misuse.
World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources
Hyperwar, WWII Military History
Buying conspiracy books is a voluntary tax on stupid.
Gawdzilla Sama is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th January 2014, 04:22 PM   #618
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by DavidJames View Post
I don't think that's a helpful way to introduce another gun tragedy into this discussion.
Being upset about it doesn't seem to resonate with the public, so we may as well celebrate our freedoms.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th January 2014, 04:26 PM   #619
DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Front Range, CO
Posts: 10,493
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
Being upset about it doesn't seem to resonate with the public, so we may as well celebrate our freedoms.
I hear ya, but as we know, they will latch on to anything which allows them to avoid dealing and distract the discussion from the murder and destruction caused by their toys.
__________________
For 15 years I never put anyone on ignore. I felt it important to see everyone's view point. Finally I realized the value of some views can be measured in negative terms and were personally destructive.
DavidJames is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th January 2014, 04:53 PM   #620
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 24,969
Originally Posted by Polaris View Post
I disagree. I don't think the decision to have to use deadly force should be made harder than it is by increasing the likelihood that saving your own life means spending it in prison.
People who decide to carry guns create that conundrum for themselves when they choose to turn an ambiguous situation into a life-or-death decision.

As a non-gun-carrier, if I get into a situation where I'm arguing with someone and that person suddenly moves their arm, the most difficult decision I've got to make is whether or not to take a step backwards in case the guy's trying to take a swing at me. If I'm right to act, his swing misses and it's time to back off and cool things down; if I was wrong and the guy's not trying to hit me, the consequence is that I'm one step further away and he's doing nothing more reprehensible than giving me the finger, or angrily throwing a gum wrapper on the ground, or whatever.

Conversely, for some reason when a gun-carrier's in the same situation suddenly the other guy isn't potentially "taking a swing" but now threatening serious bodily harm that puts me in fear for my life - every motion and gesture is a potential "threat"; the guy giving you the bird might just be a diversion while he's pulling out a shiv, and "21-yard-rule" and "unarmed people can still kill you with playing cards I saw it on TV once" and something-something about how this here is ground that is mine and I am entitled to stand it, because I've got the power in my pocket and the law says I can. And the worst case scenario, since your gun is present, is that the other guy can attack you and steal your gun and kill you with it, making killing him first an honest-to-goodness logical course of action. Except that if you act and you're wrong, the consequence is that the innocent guy you were arguing with is dead - convicted and executed for the crime of trying to give you the old one-fingered salute.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002

Last edited by Checkmite; 17th January 2014 at 04:55 PM.
Checkmite is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th January 2014, 04:55 PM   #621
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 24,969
Originally Posted by Cylinder View Post
Yea - but it's just fundamental to our criminal courts that the state be required to prove the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
Usually people claiming self-defense admit to having shot and killed the victim.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th January 2014, 06:11 PM   #622
Corsair 115
Penultimate Amazing
 
Corsair 115's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 14,519
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
how far do you want relatives of victims to be able to control public policy and the justice system?

Do you think that victims/relatives of victims should be able to determine verdicts and sentences in trials? Or should that be the duty of independent and hopefully dispassionate persons such as judge and jury?

Not sure how you get all of that out of a simple observation. In any case, it would be nice for the U.S. to have an adult, rational, evidence-based conversation about firearms and gun control. But that doesn't appear to be in the cards any time soon.

I came to the conclusion long ago that nothing much will change. For whatever reason, the U.S. as a nation seems to have decided that a certain amount of needless and preventable gun deaths is the price it is willing to pay in order to have the kind of gun rights it has.
__________________
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve
to organize and measure the best of our abilities and skills, because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and
one which we intend to win."
Corsair 115 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th January 2014, 06:18 PM   #623
joesixpack
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,531
Originally Posted by Corsair 115 View Post
I suspect if it was a relative of yours who was shot and killed in such an incident your opinion of whether it's "numerically significant" or "sensationalist headline significance" would be different.
Yes, I'm certain that when faced with tragedy people have all sorts of feelings. I know I would.

However, rational decisions are more likely to come from people who are dispassionate and emotionally removed from the situation. Telling me I'd feel differently if it were my child/sibling/spouse/whatever isn't really an argument, it's an appeal to emotion.
__________________
Generally sober 'til noon.
joesixpack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th January 2014, 06:22 PM   #624
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 13,484
Guns = Instant Justice.
Think about how long it would have taken for the cops to kill the patron. Tasers take AWHILE.
__________________
April 13th, 2018:
Ranb: I can't think of anything useful you contributed to a thread in the last few years.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th January 2014, 06:25 PM   #625
joesixpack
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,531
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I think people tend to be softer on the people they have positive relationships with.
No, I'm softer on people less fortunate than myself. There are a number of people for whom I have a personal dislike and who can't afford insurance. I don't have anything like a positive relationship with them but i wouldn't turn them in to the police. Think on that. I tend to doubt you would either if you knew their situation.

Quote:
You think I would support lawlessness if I were poor ? Talk about a non sequitur.
You have no idea what you would support if you were poor and had children depending on you. That is fact.

Quote:
Taking the bus is cheaper than having a car, so I don't see what you're talking about.
Living in a large city, there are some public transit options that aren't available to the rural poor. Living in the sticks like I do, the poor have no other options. Either drive on a suspended license and without insurance, or get thrown out of your home. It gets cold at night. People need homes.
__________________
Generally sober 'til noon.

Last edited by joesixpack; 17th January 2014 at 06:33 PM.
joesixpack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th January 2014, 09:01 PM   #626
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
Originally Posted by Corsair 115 View Post
Not sure how you get all of that out of a simple observation. In any case, it would be nice for the U.S. to have an adult, rational, evidence-based conversation about firearms and gun control. But that doesn't appear to be in the cards any time soon.

I came to the conclusion long ago that nothing much will change. For whatever reason, the U.S. as a nation seems to have decided that a certain amount of needless and preventable gun deaths is the price it is willing to pay in order to have the kind of gun rights it has.
American Democracy is an experimental system. In the long historical trend, giving this much freedom to the citizens is the anomaly.

Leave us alone, quit rapping on our cage and keep the water dish clean. If you want to join the experimental "let the citizens be armed" group, you may. If you don't want that, you are allowed to stay in your "unarmed citizen" control group.
Jrrarglblarg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th January 2014, 09:15 PM   #627
DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Front Range, CO
Posts: 10,493
Originally Posted by ApolloGnomon View Post
Leave us alone, quit rapping on our cage and keep the water dish clean. If you want to join the experimental "let the citizens be armed" group, you may. If you don't want that, you are allowed to stay in your "unarmed citizen" control group.
That would be great if the "let the citizens be armed" group kept their bloodshed within the group. If they want to spread their blood and testosterone over their own turf, let it be. But the problem is they can't seem to only kill their own kind.
__________________
For 15 years I never put anyone on ignore. I felt it important to see everyone's view point. Finally I realized the value of some views can be measured in negative terms and were personally destructive.
DavidJames is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th January 2014, 10:35 PM   #628
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
Originally Posted by ApolloGnomon View Post
I was told many years ago that CIA agents carried those (back when the caps were pointy and not hollow-tipped) and agents were taught 9 different ways to kill someone with one. The person telling me this then taught me 4 of the strike targets and made me practice it with him, using a highligher. We went home with yellow all over our necks, sides of the head and AF uniforms that day. Fortunately the marks washed out after a couple of washings. We also did a lot of pushups in that office -- the guys I was working with were training up to apply for Combat Control Technician school, basically behind-the-lines air traffic controllers guiding planes in for strikes and insertions.
Did 8 of them have four on each side of the body (i.e. 4 on right and duplicate 4 on left). If so they are the ones I would use for Bic or knife.
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th January 2014, 11:06 PM   #629
AbleSugar
Toilet Smuggler
 
AbleSugar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Alaska
Posts: 340
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
How come you still haven't addressed the LA cops who shot up the van and the 2 women delivering newspapers and yet faced no charges whatsoever?
Do you need the link again?
Reason I didn't address it was it wasn't relevant to your statement of:
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
Why would you want people used to routinely getting away with killing people who weren't a threat to be armed?
I still maintain, and you have not presented any evidence, that police officers routinely kill people and get away with it.
There are a great many police officers who go their whole career without ever even pulling their gun out.

I do agree with you that compared to us, there is a far greater chance of them getting cleared of what you and I would see from a distance as being stupid actions
(such as mistaking Latina newspaper carriers for a 6-foot-4-inch black man and shooting at them).
If a normal citizen, thinking he was going to be a hero, had shot the heck out of those newspaper ladies truck he would still be in jail.
There is a possibility that the city is hoping the $4.2 million they gave the ladies will make the incident go away.
As I understand it, the officers have been cleared and no charges will be pressed.

I wasn't there. I don't know what they were thinking but I seriously doubt that they had
gone out that day looking for somebody to kill because they routinely get away with it.
`
AbleSugar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2014, 12:26 AM   #630
Corsair 115
Penultimate Amazing
 
Corsair 115's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 14,519
Originally Posted by ApolloGnomon View Post
American Democracy is an experimental system. In the long historical trend, giving this much freedom to the citizens is the anomaly.

Leave us alone, quit rapping on our cage and keep the water dish clean. If you want to join the experimental "let the citizens be armed" group, you may. If you don't want that, you are allowed to stay in your "unarmed citizen" control group.

I'm in the "outside in another country looking in" group. Some of what goes on in the U.S. seems... well, perplexing, to some outsiders. But the U.S. will do what the U.S. will do, however odd or curious it may seem to others. (Which is of course is the American prerogative.)
__________________
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve
to organize and measure the best of our abilities and skills, because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and
one which we intend to win."
Corsair 115 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2014, 12:44 AM   #631
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
Originally Posted by fuelair View Post
Did 8 of them have four on each side of the body (i.e. 4 on right and duplicate 4 on left). If so they are the ones I would use for Bic or knife.
Temples, carotid, heart and kidneys were the ones he taught us. I'm not sure if the temple strikes would really work but the heart strike is scary. The advantage of the old clear Bic is even if the thing broke the shards were still stiff enough to penetrate. Or so we were told.
Jrrarglblarg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2014, 02:26 AM   #632
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
People who decide to carry guns create that conundrum for themselves when they choose to turn an ambiguous situation into a life-or-death decision.

As a non-gun-carrier, if I get into a situation where I'm arguing with someone and that person suddenly moves their arm, the most difficult decision I've got to make is whether or not to take a step backwards in case the guy's trying to take a swing at me. If I'm right to act, his swing misses and it's time to back off and cool things down; if I was wrong and the guy's not trying to hit me, the consequence is that I'm one step further away and he's doing nothing more reprehensible than giving me the finger, or angrily throwing a gum wrapper on the ground, or whatever.

Conversely, for some reason when a gun-carrier's in the same situation suddenly the other guy isn't potentially "taking a swing" but now threatening serious bodily harm that puts me in fear for my life - every motion and gesture is a potential "threat"; the guy giving you the bird might just be a diversion while he's pulling out a shiv, and "21-yard-rule" and "unarmed people can still kill you with playing cards I saw it on TV once" and something-something about how this here is ground that is mine and I am entitled to stand it, because I've got the power in my pocket and the law says I can. And the worst case scenario, since your gun is present, is that the other guy can attack you and steal your gun and kill you with it, making killing him first an honest-to-goodness logical course of action. Except that if you act and you're wrong, the consequence is that the innocent guy you were arguing with is dead - convicted and executed for the crime of trying to give you the old one-fingered salute.
21 foot rule. At 21 feet knife guy wins (assuming gunner starts with gun holstered. Mythbusters demoed this. At 21 yards, knifeman has two or three holes through him. They also tried this with thrown knife. Since comparatively few people are that good at throwing knives it mostly is not a big problem for gunman. Note: I am not good at throwing knives so mine won't be popping up until needed. I prefer gun.

Also note: I have seen two or three fast draw practitioners - all were over 60 when I saw them - who could easily beat the 21 foot rule, but for the vast majority of gunners, it's guy with knife who walks away un/minimally damaged.
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2014, 02:29 AM   #633
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
Unless the playing cards are printed on very dense but solid edge holding metal (let me know if you find that somewhere - remember, the thickness of a playing card) I would not let that concern me.
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2014, 03:49 AM   #634
RenaissanceBiker
Eats shoots and leaves.
 
RenaissanceBiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 8,217
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
People who decide to carry guns create that conundrum for themselves when they choose to turn an ambiguous situation into a life-or-death decision.

As a non-gun-carrier, if I get into a situation where I'm arguing with someone and that person suddenly moves their arm, the most difficult decision I've got to make is whether or not to take a step backwards in case the guy's trying to take a swing at me. If I'm right to act, his swing misses and it's time to back off and cool things down; if I was wrong and the guy's not trying to hit me, the consequence is that I'm one step further away and he's doing nothing more reprehensible than giving me the finger, or angrily throwing a gum wrapper on the ground, or whatever.

Conversely, for some reason when a gun-carrier's in the same situation suddenly the other guy isn't potentially "taking a swing" but now threatening serious bodily harm that puts me in fear for my life - every motion and gesture is a potential "threat"; the guy giving you the bird might just be a diversion while he's pulling out a shiv, and "21-yard-rule" and "unarmed people can still kill you with playing cards I saw it on TV once" and something-something about how this here is ground that is mine and I am entitled to stand it, because I've got the power in my pocket and the law says I can. And the worst case scenario, since your gun is present, is that the other guy can attack you and steal your gun and kill you with it, making killing him first an honest-to-goodness logical course of action. Except that if you act and you're wrong, the consequence is that the innocent guy you were arguing with is dead - convicted and executed for the crime of trying to give you the old one-fingered salute.
What an amazing load of nonsense. You seem to be saying that all non-weapon carrying people can simply take a step back and use their "cool down the situation" super powers on an attacker. Soon they will be rationally discussing their different socio-economic status over coffee. I'm not sure whether you are trying to say that carrying a weapon somehow negates this ability or transforms people into hyper-vigilantes. Does carrying a gun make waving at the mailman a life and death struggle or does it make ridding society of those pesky litterbugs a noble cause?

Maybe when a weapon-carrying person uses his "cool down the situation" super powers it makes the national news as often as when you do it (seldom if ever).
__________________
"Truth does not contradict truth." - St. Augustine
"Faith often contradicts faith. Therefore faith is not an indication of truth." - RenaissanceBiker
RenaissanceBiker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2014, 03:58 AM   #635
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 88,910
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
Evidently not; after shooting the texter, this guy is reported to have said nothing and calmly retaken his seat.
By whom ? Wouldn't everyone empty the theatre in panic ?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2014, 04:01 AM   #636
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 88,910
Originally Posted by joesixpack View Post
No, I'm softer on people less fortunate than myself.
Fair enough.

Quote:
You have no idea what you would support if you were poor and had children depending on you. That is fact.
It's also a fact that YOU have no idea what I'd support, either. So why even go there ?

Quote:
Living in a large city, there are some public transit options that aren't available to the rural poor.
Perhaps, but even in relatively small towns I've lived in, what I said holds true. At least up here.

Tell you what: drive safely and you won't lose your lisence.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2014, 04:02 AM   #637
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 88,910
Originally Posted by Gawdzilla View Post
If so the dude probably qualifies as a total nut bag.
Well at least he's not a popcorn bag. That would be scary enough to shoot for.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2014, 04:30 AM   #638
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
Originally Posted by ApolloGnomon View Post
Temples, carotid, heart and kidneys were the ones he taught us. I'm not sure if the temple strikes would really work but the heart strike is scary. The advantage of the old clear Bic is even if the thing broke the shards were still stiff enough to penetrate. Or so we were told.
To be more precise, if you strike properly and fast enough you have the point and the shard (s) making a much worse wound (larger, irregular). That's why I have a good supply of the Crystals (I also actually do use them to write with. Also)

As to heart, up under xiphoid process or direct (not easy unless you deflect just right off a rib)? Also, did he use a normal hand hold or use the Bic against palm and through middle/forefinger or middle /ring finger (my pref.)?

Last edited by fuelair; 18th January 2014 at 04:32 AM.
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2014, 04:37 AM   #639
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
Should also work for brachial and femoral arteries though admittedly they are a bit harder to aim for.......but both are fast outflow...
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2014, 05:12 AM   #640
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by NWO Sentryman View Post
Here it goes again: America needs STRONG LEADERS to make the HARD DECISIONS to save them from themselves: http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...exting-florida

Anyhoo, good luck repealing the 2nd amendment.
The longest journey begins with a single step.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:42 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.