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 , school incidents , school shootings , shooting incidents

Reply
Old 18th April 2018, 08:09 AM   #201
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 17,611
Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy View Post
Some people think both are complete fabrications. I think that Sandy Hook and Parkland and every other mass shooting that's been reported in the media actually happened.
Fair enough. Doesn't it concern you that you are hitching your wagon to some nutjobs, though?
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob 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 April 2018, 08:28 AM   #202
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 26,551
Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy View Post
If the goal is reducing the death toll from mass shootings, not just school shootings, taking away assault rifles won't cut it. You'll need to take away handguns as well.
That's an obviously absurd statement. If the aim is reducing the death toll from mass shootings, then taking away "assault rifles" by whatever definition you're using (to avoid the obvious bait-and-switch gotcha attempts) would be expected to achieve that aim, because a shooter with an assault rifle can fire more shots at longer range and thus kill more people than a person with a handgun. The result is that the death toll is reduced, even if it isn't eliminated.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers 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 April 2018, 08:32 AM   #203
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 17,611
Having more stringent and unified background checks for handguns as well as having the purchaser legally liable for any non-justified use would also be useful though.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob 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 April 2018, 09:02 AM   #204
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 19,962
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
It is easy to say that they should have done something. I have not seen anyone actually show what legal options they actually had, or what the calls were actually about. I have heard rumors (unsubstantiated) for example, that many of the calls were due to complaints about the shooter's brother, not the shooter himself.

Can someone tell me what complaints there were that were serious enough or had enough evidence for the police to hold him, or to take his guns away?
In Part 1 of this thread there is lots of information and links about the behavior of Cruz and interactions with police. I know because I was posting it.

Police were called dozens of times for Cruz and also additionally for his brother. Sometimes they would get in fights with each other and police were called. The nature of the various incidents has been reported. Most often the police would talk to Cruz and decide that he was aware and remorseful of his behavior and that he would stop. It just never got beyond that. We don't know what sort of threshold must be passed before real sanctions are inflicted upon him.

He was always in psychotherapy because he always was mentally abnormal. He alternated between behaving crazy out of control and being decent and stable. But he never seriously hurt anyone physically and he certainly didn't shoot anyone even though he had lots of guns.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher 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 April 2018, 09:10 AM   #205
crescent
Master Poster
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,261
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
In Part 1 of this thread there is lots of information and links about the behavior of Cruz and interactions with police. I know because I was posting it.

Police were called dozens of times for Cruz and also additionally for his brother. Sometimes they would get in fights with each other and police were called. The nature of the various incidents has been reported. Most often the police would talk to Cruz and decide that he was aware and remorseful of his behavior and that he would stop. It just never got beyond that.
I saw all of that - but this next bit you said cannot be emphasized enough:

Quote:
We don't know what sort of threshold must be passed before real sanctions are inflicted upon him.
We still honestly don't know if the police dropped the ball on this, or if the laws that existed at the time were just not strong enough for them to act on.
crescent 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 18th April 2018, 09:27 AM   #206
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 19,962
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
We still honestly don't know if the police dropped the ball on this, or if the laws that existed at the time were just not strong enough for them to act on.
I think we can recognize a problem or dilemma that would never go away. In this world, there are really crazy or insane people who have guns and they still never shoot anyone ever for all of their lives. These are examples which show that mental illness and even when combined with scariness doesn't automatically equal murderous.

If guns are confiscated or prevented from being owned by "known crazies" then it will happen to people who never ever would have shot anyone.

If it's enforced with extreme regularity and uniformity then for sure there will be babies thrown out with bathwater, so to speak.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher 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 April 2018, 04:17 PM   #207
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 17,682
Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy View Post
If the goal is reducing the death toll from mass shootings, not just school shootings, taking away assault rifles won't cut it. You'll need to take away handguns as well.
Sounds like another "It won't solve every problem, so we may as well do nothing."

We are never going to solve murder. People murder. It has always happened. It will always happen. I would just like to see it made a little bit more difficult to get a high body count. Let's have people give up on breaking the record. That will save some lives, and "some" is good enough for me, even if there will still be a lot killed.

As for handgun restrictions, I am for tighter controls than we have now, but I am also a huge fan of the US constitution, and the Supreme Court has ruled, correctly in my opinion, that a ban on handguns would violate the constitution, so that's right out.

Last edited by Meadmaker; 18th April 2018 at 04:24 PM.
Meadmaker 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 April 2018, 04:23 PM   #208
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 17,682
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
I saw all of that - but this next bit you said cannot be emphasized enough:



We still honestly don't know if the police dropped the ball on this, or if the laws that existed at the time were just not strong enough for them to act on.
As far as I can tell from what I've read, his violence and threats of violence were directed at family members, who declined to press charges. As such, there was no reason for local authorities to do anything. He had no arrest record or any conviction, so nothing could be used to deny him the opportunity to purchase a gun.

The FBI dropped the ball when a threatening message was left on social media, and they failed to follow up on it. However, even that is probably not something that would have resulted in an arrest. It may have given them the opportunity to observe something, and perhaps there was some sort of intervention that conceivably could have happened, but probably it would have been another, "Interviewed subject. No grounds for legal action. Case closed."
Meadmaker 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 April 2018, 04:26 PM   #209
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 17,682
I see today that David Hogg has called for a boycott of major investment firms, Vanguard specifically, doing business with gun companies. That's going to go exactly nowhere. It seems that his celebrity has gotten to his head. He's going to find out the limits of his influence.

CaptainHowdy is probably wondering why Hogg's media handlers let him get away with such a blunder.

Last edited by Meadmaker; 18th April 2018 at 04:58 PM.
Meadmaker 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 April 2018, 07:15 PM   #210
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 7,926
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
If guns are confiscated or prevented from being owned by "known crazies" then it will happen to people who never ever would have shot anyone.

If it's enforced with extreme regularity and uniformity then for sure there will be babies thrown out with bathwater, so to speak.
Better to be safe than have yet another schoolyard full of children turned into a killing field!
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.
smartcooky 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 April 2018, 08:21 PM   #211
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 12,659
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Better to be safe than have yet another schoolyard full of children turned into a killing field!
No, no, no! They're martyrs to the cause! Please use the proper verbiage.
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak 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 April 2018, 11:06 PM   #212
CaptainHowdy
Muse
 
CaptainHowdy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 774
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
Fair enough. Doesn't it concern you that you are hitching your wagon to some nutjobs, though?
I'm not hitching my wagon to any nutjobs. Other people might be hitching me to other nutjobs but that's because they don't understand what I'm saying. Or, to be generous, I'm not explaining myself clearly. Then there are those people who label any idea they don't like a "conspiracy theory" so they don't have to address it.
CaptainHowdy 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 19th April 2018, 12:03 AM   #213
CaptainHowdy
Muse
 
CaptainHowdy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 774
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
That's an obviously absurd statement. If the aim is reducing the death toll from mass shootings, then taking away "assault rifles" by whatever definition you're using (to avoid the obvious bait-and-switch gotcha attempts) would be expected to achieve that aim, because a shooter with an assault rifle can fire more shots at longer range and thus kill more people than a person with a handgun. The result is that the death toll is reduced, even if it isn't eliminated.

Dave
Here's another source with individual mass shooting incidents and the type of weapon used. Count the number of incidents where an "assault rifle" was used.

I'll be generous and let you define all shotguns and all semi-automatic rifles as "assault rifles" even though nobody in their right mind would do so. I'll let you count every incident where a handgun was used with another weapon (a rifle, shotgun, knife, flamethrower, etc) as an "assault rifle" incident. Also, go ahead and count the incidents where the weapon was unknown as an "assault rifle" incident.

Now, count the number of incidents where only handguns were used. Add together the number of people who were killed in handgun only incidents and "assault rifle" incidents.

Now explain to me how it's obviously absurd to say that an "assault rifle" ban would not have helped all those people killed with handguns.
CaptainHowdy 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 19th April 2018, 12:26 AM   #214
CaptainHowdy
Muse
 
CaptainHowdy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 774
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
I see today that David Hogg has called for a boycott of major investment firms, Vanguard specifically, doing business with gun companies. That's going to go exactly nowhere. It seems that his celebrity has gotten to his head. He's going to find out the limits of his influence.

CaptainHowdy is probably wondering why Hogg's media handlers let him get away with such a blunder.
Not only that, but did you hear about him calling for another nationwide student walkout to celebrate Hitler's birthday??!!? Thank God the Columbine people threw acid in his face and told him to sit in the corner over that one.
CaptainHowdy 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 19th April 2018, 12:33 AM   #215
CaptainHowdy
Muse
 
CaptainHowdy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 774
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
I saw all of that - but this next bit you said cannot be emphasized enough:



We still honestly don't know if the police dropped the ball on this, or if the laws that existed at the time were just not strong enough for them to act on.
The laws that existed at the time would have required Nikolas Cruz to be arrested and thereby prevented from buying a gun if they had been enforced. Unfortunately, Broward County has a policy to keep POC from being "disproportionately" arrested and stigmatized with a police record. There's no way a kid named "Cruz" was going to be arrested with that policy in place. 'Cruise' or 'Crews', maybe. But not 'Cruz'
CaptainHowdy 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 19th April 2018, 12:52 AM   #216
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 21,173
Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy View Post
The laws that existed at the time would have required Nikolas Cruz to be arrested and thereby prevented from buying a gun if they had been enforced.

Does being arrested prevent someone from purchasing a firearm in Florida?

Quote:
Unfortunately, Broward County has a policy to keep POC from being "disproportionately" arrested and stigmatized with a police record. There's no way a kid named "Cruz" was going to be arrested with that policy in place. 'Cruise' or 'Crews', maybe. But not 'Cruz'

The agreement you cite seems to be about "school related offences".

What "school related offences" do you think Cruz should have been arrested for which the police declined to do on the basis of this agreement?
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
***********************************************
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep." - Saul Bellow
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 19th April 2018, 01:23 AM   #217
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 26,551
Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy View Post
Here's another source with individual mass shooting incidents and the type of weapon used. Count the number of incidents where an "assault rifle" was used.

I'll be generous and let you define all shotguns and all semi-automatic rifles as "assault rifles" even though nobody in their right mind would do so. I'll let you count every incident where a handgun was used with another weapon (a rifle, shotgun, knife, flamethrower, etc) as an "assault rifle" incident. Also, go ahead and count the incidents where the weapon was unknown as an "assault rifle" incident.

Now, count the number of incidents where only handguns were used. Add together the number of people who were killed in handgun only incidents and "assault rifle" incidents.

Now explain to me how it's obviously absurd to say that an "assault rifle" ban would not have helped all those people killed with handguns.
Nice bait-and-switch strawman argument. First of all, you were the one who introduced the term "assault rifle," and as I predicted you did so purely in order to get a Gotcha! by then quibbling about the definition of your own term. And secondly, you start by saying that a ban on "assault rifles" would not decrease the murder rate at all, a claim you're now trying to morph into one that banning "assault rifles" would not eliminate all killings with guns. Clearly your aim here is to use blatantly dishonest tactics to give the illusion of making a point; I just thought I should let you know just how predictable your lies are.

Your next move, by the way, is to pretend you never claimed banning "assault rifles" wouldn't reduce the number of murders, but that you simply meant that the reduction wouldn't be significant enough to be worth the cost. This, too, will be a lie.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers 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 19th April 2018, 01:30 AM   #218
fagin
Philosopher
 
fagin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 5,793
Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy View Post
Not only that, but did you hear about him calling for another nationwide student walkout to celebrate Hitler's birthday??!!? Thank God the Columbine people threw acid in his face and told him to sit in the corner over that one.
Go on then, humour us with a link...
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
fagin 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 19th April 2018, 02:16 AM   #219
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 26,551
Originally Posted by fagin View Post
Go on then, humour us with a link...
It's only partly a lie. David Hogg has called for a nationwide walk-out tomorrow. Tomorrow just happens to be Hitler's birthday, which a sharp-eyed smearmonger has noticed and publicised. The bit about the walk out being "to celebrate Hitler's birthday" is a fairly obvious malicious lie.

So the lesson to take away from this is that anyone who does anything tomorrow is clearly a Nazi. Hopefully CaptainHowdy will refrain from "celebrating Hitler's birthday" by posting on this forum; if not, I suggest we all call him out on it.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers 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 19th April 2018, 02:45 AM   #220
fagin
Philosopher
 
fagin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 5,793
Yep, I know that, just wanted CaptainHowdy to dig his hole deeper.
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
fagin 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 19th April 2018, 03:35 AM   #221
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 7,926
Originally Posted by fagin View Post
Yep, I know that, just wanted CaptainHowdy to dig his hole deeper.

Oh, he needs no help with that. He is a veritable human Komatsu Excavator
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.
smartcooky 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 19th April 2018, 04:48 AM   #222
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 17,682
Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy View Post
Here's another source with individual mass shooting incidents and the type of weapon used. Count the number of incidents where an "assault rifle" was used.

I'll be generous and let you define all shotguns and all semi-automatic rifles as "assault rifles" even though nobody in their right mind would do so. I'll let you count every incident where a handgun was used with another weapon (a rifle, shotgun, knife, flamethrower, etc) as an "assault rifle" incident. Also, go ahead and count the incidents where the weapon was unknown as an "assault rifle" incident.

Now, count the number of incidents where only handguns were used. Add together the number of people who were killed in handgun only incidents and "assault rifle" incidents.

Now explain to me how it's obviously absurd to say that an "assault rifle" ban would not have helped all those people killed with handguns.
I don't know how to tell you this, but this post is bizarre.

Dave Rogers was pointing out that if you reduce the number of deaths by a small amount, it is still reduced. Your response has nothing at all to do with what Dave Rogers was saying. It doesn't even come close.
Meadmaker 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 19th April 2018, 04:56 AM   #223
alfaniner
Penultimate Amazing
 
alfaniner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 18,042
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
... Tomorrow just happens to be Hitler's birthday, which a sharp-eyed smearmonger has noticed and publicised. The bit about the walk out being "to celebrate Hitler's birthday" is a fairly obvious malicious lie.
...
Tomorrow is also a very significant date among a certain element of the population. Especially now since it's legal in many states. I imagine many young people may partake whether it's legal or not.

420 or 4/20 is code for pot smoking.
__________________
Science is self-correcting.
Woo is self-contradicting.
alfaniner 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 19th April 2018, 06:36 AM   #224
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 11,216
I doubt these kids even knew it was Hitler’s birthday. Why would they?

Meanwhile, the people making this ridiculous claim seem to have that information right at their fingertips.

Gosh, I wonder why...
johnny karate 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 19th April 2018, 07:17 AM   #225
Steve
Illuminator
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,525
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
It's only partly a lie. David Hogg has called for a nationwide walk-out tomorrow. Tomorrow just happens to be Hitler's birthday, which a sharp-eyed smearmonger has noticed and publicised. The bit about the walk out being "to celebrate Hitler's birthday" is a fairly obvious malicious lie.

So the lesson to take away from this is that anyone who does anything tomorrow is clearly a Nazi. Hopefully CaptainHowdy will refrain from "celebrating Hitler's birthday" by posting on this forum; if not, I suggest we all call him out on it.

Dave
Originally Posted by alfaniner View Post
Tomorrow is also a very significant date among a certain element of the population. Especially now since it's legal in many states. I imagine many young people may partake whether it's legal or not.

420 or 4/20 is code for pot smoking.
Nazis!!! Every last one of 'em!!!
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve 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 19th April 2018, 07:20 AM   #226
P.J. Denyer
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 3,707
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
I doubt these kids even knew it was Hitler’s birthday. Why would they?

Meanwhile, the people making this ridiculous claim seem to have that information right at their fingertips.

Gosh, I wonder why...
Show some sympathy, they've planned all year for the big day and then at the last minute these teenagers decide on a demonstration that clashes with their event!
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion
P.J. Denyer 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 19th April 2018, 07:25 AM   #227
crescent
Master Poster
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,261
Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy View Post
Not only that, but did you hear about him calling for another nationwide student walkout to celebrate Hitler's birthday??!!? .
Cite or retract.

Another CT? Since Columbine happened on Hitler's B-day, any commemoration of Columbine gets painted as a celebration of that B-day?
crescent 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 19th April 2018, 07:51 AM   #228
AJM8125
Potsing Whiled Runk
Tagger
 
AJM8125's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 19,940
Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy View Post
Not only that, but did you hear about him calling for another nationwide student walkout to celebrate Hitler's birthday??!!? Thank God the Columbine people threw acid in his face and told him to sit in the corner over that one.
Poe. Gotta be.
__________________
AJM8125 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 19th April 2018, 09:40 AM   #229
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 17,682
Originally Posted by AJM8125 View Post
Poe. Gotta be.
I assumed trolling.
Meadmaker 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 19th April 2018, 09:57 AM   #230
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 14,792
Originally Posted by AJM8125 View Post
Poe. Gotta be.

If it's not then it's the worst case of 'being factually wrong and having one's arse handed to one multiple times, over and over and over again' that I've ever seen on these fora.

Has to be a Poe. No-one can maintain that level of cognitive dissonance in the face of overwhelming evidence for that long. Can they?
__________________
Up the River!
3point14 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 19th April 2018, 11:16 AM   #231
CaptainHowdy
Muse
 
CaptainHowdy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 774
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Nice bait-and-switch strawman argument. First of all, you were the one who introduced the term "assault rifle," and as I predicted you did so purely in order to get a Gotcha! by then quibbling about the definition of your own term. And secondly, you start by saying that a ban on "assault rifles" would not decrease the murder rate at all, a claim you're now trying to morph into one that banning "assault rifles" would not eliminate all killings with guns. Clearly your aim here is to use blatantly dishonest tactics to give the illusion of making a point; I just thought I should let you know just how predictable your lies are.

Your next move, by the way, is to pretend you never claimed banning "assault rifles" wouldn't reduce the number of murders, but that you simply meant that the reduction wouldn't be significant enough to be worth the cost. This, too, will be a lie.

Dave
No, I didn't introduce the term "assault rifle." I never said that banning assault rifles wouldn't reduce the murder rate at all. I was responding to Meadmaker's musings about what to call the different factions on the gun control issue where he said "I suppose "pro gun control" describes me fairly well, although even that could be easily misinterpreted (perhaps deliberately) to make it seem like I want to take away your handgun."

I was responding to his handgun reference. In forty nine mass shootings between 2009 and 2013, twenty seven of them were accomplished with only pistols. Shotguns were among the weapons used in seven of those mass shootings. An "assault rifle" was one of the weapons used in five of those mass shootings and in only three of them was an "assault rifle" the only weapon.

If you're to reduce mass shootings by eliminating a certain type of weapon, why would you stop at banning the type of weapon that was used in 6% of mass shootings while not touching the type of weapon that was used in 55% of the mass shootings?

I apologize for using the facts to counter your argument. That's not a bait and switch strawman.
CaptainHowdy 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 19th April 2018, 12:15 PM   #232
P.J. Denyer
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 3,707
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
If it's not then it's the worst case of 'being factually wrong and having one's arse handed to one multiple times, over and over and over again' that I've ever seen on these fora.

Has to be a Poe. No-one can maintain that level of cognitive dissonance in the face of overwhelming evidence for that long. Can they?
Possibly just a tragic lack of empathy and basic compassion for fellow human beings?
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion
P.J. Denyer 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 19th April 2018, 03:14 PM   #233
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 17,682
Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy View Post
No, I didn't introduce the term "assault rifle." I never said that banning assault rifles wouldn't reduce the murder rate at all. I was responding to Meadmaker's musings about what to call the different factions on the gun control issue where he said "I suppose "pro gun control" describes me fairly well, although even that could be easily misinterpreted (perhaps deliberately) to make it seem like I want to take away your handgun."

I was responding to his handgun reference. In forty nine mass shootings between 2009 and 2013, twenty seven of them were accomplished with only pistols. Shotguns were among the weapons used in seven of those mass shootings. An "assault rifle" was one of the weapons used in five of those mass shootings and in only three of them was an "assault rifle" the only weapon.

If you're to reduce mass shootings by eliminating a certain type of weapon, why would you stop at banning the type of weapon that was used in 6% of mass shootings while not touching the type of weapon that was used in 55% of the mass shootings?

I apologize for using the facts to counter your argument. That's not a bait and switch strawman.
It seems odd that you would reply to me in a post that quoted Dave Rogers, but I don't want to get into a typical ISF debate about whether someone said something or not.

My answer to the question of why ban assault rifles but not handguns remains the same as when it was asked earlier. The US Supreme Court has ruled that it is unconstitutional to ban handguns.

The actual question of whether or not handguns ought to be banned is a very complex topic, but because the Supreme Court says we can't do it, I consider such a proposal a non-starter, so even debating it isn't something I'm interested in at this time.
Meadmaker 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 19th April 2018, 08:29 PM   #234
Ambrosia
Good of the Fods
 
Ambrosia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,434
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
You are misinformed. Where do you come up with this stuff? Some states (like CA or WA) require that any unlicensed buyer buy a gun through an FFL. In all states no individual can buy certain types of firearms unless they obtain a bkgd check and wait weeks or months for it.
I come up with this stuff by reading threads here and news articles from the BBC/UK facing press.

thanks for the corrections.

Quote:
Maybe your definition of "rubber stamp" is different than mine,
seems more than likely.

Quote:
but Walmart uses an FFL and a bkgd check to make a sale. Do you think that the bkgd check used by the feds is a hoax? Sounds like it. Or perhaps most people are not denied when applying for the bkgd check because the vast majority are not prohibited from owning a gun?
No I don't think the background check is a hoax. I just think it's woefully inadequate and I think a good deal more things ought to disqualify a person from being able to own a gun. Having a criminal record for example.

It boggles my mind that after Sandy Hook that the US voted down legislation to increase background checks. It seems to me to be a no brainer to want to keep guns out of the hands of people that have no business holding them.

By all means keep the 2nd amendment and the generally pro gun culture if that's what most people support, but make it much harder for certain people to get hold of an easy mans to kill a bunch of people.
Ambrosia 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 20th April 2018, 01:00 AM   #235
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 26,551
Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy View Post
No, I didn't introduce the term "assault rifle." I never said that banning assault rifles wouldn't reduce the murder rate at all.
A provable lie.

Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy View Post
If the goal is reducing the death toll from mass shootings, not just school shootings, taking away assault rifles won't cut it. You'll need to take away handguns as well.
(a) You introduced the term "assault rifles" as one you presumably had a working definition for; you then went on to criticise me for using the term.
(b) You stated that if the goal was reducing the death toll, banning assault rifles "won't cut it."

Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy View Post
I apologize for using the facts to counter your argument. That's not a bait and switch strawman.
I apologise for pointing out that you're misrepresenting your own arguments in order to make other people's appear invalid. Which, of course, is a bait-and-switch strawman argument.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right

Last edited by Dave Rogers; 20th April 2018 at 02:19 AM.
Dave Rogers 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 20th April 2018, 01:31 AM   #236
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 7,926
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
A provable lie.

(a) You introduced the term "assault rifles" as one you presumably had a weorking definition for; you then went on to criticise me for using the term.
(b) You stated that if the goal was reducing the death toll, banning assault rifles "won't cut it."

I apologise for pointing out that you're misrepresenting your own arguments in order to make other people's appear invalid. Which, of course, is a bait-and-switch strawman argument.

Dave
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.

Last edited by smartcooky; 20th April 2018 at 01:34 AM.
smartcooky 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 20th April 2018, 01:34 PM   #237
CaptainHowdy
Muse
 
CaptainHowdy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 774
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
A provable lie.
Feel free to prove it.



Quote:
(a) You introduced the term "assault rifles" as one you presumably had a working definition for; you then went on to criticise me for using the term.
The term was introduced in the post I was responding to. "Assault rifle" was probably used on the first page of this discussion.
Quote:
(b) You stated that if the goal was reducing the death toll, banning assault rifles "won't cut it."
Because it won't. And this gets back to the original point of contention which you've been trying to avoid answering: How is it "obviously absurd" to think that trying to reduce or eliminate mass shootings by restricting or completely banning certain types of gun isn't going to work if all you're proposing is restricting a type of gun that is very popular with gun owners in general but rarely used in mass shootings without also restricting or banning the most popular type of gun among mass shooters?

Quote:
I apologise for pointing out that you're misrepresenting your own arguments in order to make other people's appear invalid. Which, of course, is a bait-and-switch strawman argument.
If I misrepresent my argument, and by doing so, I am successful in making other people's arguments appear invalid, then I win. But the argument I win is not the argument I am making. So it would be "obviously absurd" for me to do that.
CaptainHowdy 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 20th April 2018, 02:33 PM   #238
Lambchops
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Norvegr
Posts: 95
That hole you're digging for yourself is getting pretty damn deep.
Lambchops 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 20th April 2018, 04:40 PM   #239
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 19,962
Broward Sheriff Scott Israel faces 'no confidence' vote by his deputies

Originally Posted by Sun Sentinel
Upset with Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel, members of a union of rank-and-file deputies will vote electronically over the next week on whether they have faith in his leadership. The so-called “no confidence” vote, slated to begin tonight, is a first for the office...

The catalyst for the public show of displeasure was the Parkland school shooting Feb. 14, where a former student opened fire with an assault-style rifle in the freshman building of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High, killing 17.

It quickly came to light that the Broward deputy assigned to protect the school, Scot Peterson, did not storm the building to confront the killer, but remained outside and even gave incorrect information to other arriving deputies. The union does not represent Peterson, because he chose not to join. However, Bell said morale at the sheriff’s office “has been absolutely crushed.”

Bell said Israel has refused to take responsibility for the disastrous performance at the school, where several other arriving deputies also stayed outside or took cover behind cars, unsure of where the gunfire was coming from. “The sheriff still blames one person,” Bell said, referring to Peterson. “As an agency we’ve not taken any responsibility for this.” The sheriff, as well as a commander on the scene and street-level deputies have been pilloried nationally by the media and the public for their seeming cowardice or incompetence in responding to the assault by Nikolas Cruz, a scrawny 19-year-old former student...
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/br...420-story.html
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher 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 20th April 2018, 06:32 PM   #240
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 17,682
Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy View Post
Because it won't. (ed. Banning assault rifles won't reduce deaths in mass shootings) And this gets back to the original point of contention which you've been trying to avoid answering: How is it "obviously absurd" to think that trying to reduce or eliminate mass shootings by restricting or completely banning certain types of gun isn't going to work if all you're proposing is restricting a type of gun that is very popular with gun owners in general but rarely used in mass shootings without also restricting or banning the most popular type of gun among mass shooters?
Here's why it would work. First, some preliminaries. In the paragraph above, you say "reduce or eliminate". It's important to understand that very few people, and no one here at ISF, believes that banning or restricting assault rifles will eliminate mass shootings. It won't even eliminate mass shootings that use assault rifles. Therefore, you shouldn't say "reduce or eliminate" because the "eliminate" isn't even part of the discussion. (Introducing it is perilously close to a straw man.)

With that in mind, we now go on to the type of gun that is "rarely used in mass shootings". Now, if we follow typical ISF patterns, we could argue about what constitutes "rare", but I don't want to do that. We know that they are used in some mass shootings, and we know that if we reduce gun deaths in mass shootings by one, we have reduced gun deaths in mass shootings. The exact degree by which they will be reduced could be refined by analysis of the statistics, but a reduction of one is a reduction. That's what we're talking about, right? All agreed so far?

So, now we move on to whether the banning of sales of assault rifles will reduce deaths from mass shootings. The NRA sometimes claims that even though those weapons are illegal, that will not prevent them from being used by criminals, specifically by mass shooters. We call B.S. Of course it will. Nick Cruz could not have obtained an illegal AR-15. Adam Lanza used his mother's perfectly legal gun. She, being a law abiding citizen, would not have had one had it been illegal. Of course it would reduce the number of assault rifles available to would-be mass shooters.

Your post focuses on the fact that a lot of mass shooters use other sorts of guns. It seems to suggest that a would-be mass shooter would just use a different sort of gun, the way his "peers" do, so the number of mass shootings would not be reduced by getting rid of the less popular form of gun. They would just turn to other guns that were still legal.

This is not so absurd that it deserves to be called B.S. but it's still wrong. For one thing, having such a powerful weapon makes these insecure, weak, people feel powerful. These people are compensating. You can see it all over Cruz' writings. The message is "I have a big gun! Fear me!" Some of them literally want to make sure that people remember them, and, let's be real, 2 dead and 2 wounded will make you a "mass shooter", but strictly from the bush leagues. Who wants to go out as a second rate mass shooter? When it comes to people that do use the AR-15 or other similar weapons, some of them wouldn't do it without the combination of confidence and lethality inspired by having a very powerful weapon. They would not turn to a simple pistol or shotgun. They might just stay home and grow out of it.

Second, among those who are determined to kill as many as they can on their way out, and would content themselves with low capacity magazines or slow fire weapons, the body count would be lowered. You say that assault rifles are not used by the majority of mass shooters, but when you get into the double digit killings, they become a lot more prominent. They exist for a reason. They are purchased because of their high rates of fire and fast reload capability. They work. If you want a high body count, an AR-15 is a better weapon than a revolver or a double barreled shotgun. If you lower the rate of fire, you lower the body count. The killer still achieves a mass shooting, but those 2 dead and 2 wounded are a lot less than 17 dead and 15 wounded.

So, if you outlaw or severely restrict assault rifles, some mass shootings would not happen at all, and other mass shootings would have a lower body count. Both mechanisms would result in a reduction in deaths from mass shootings.
Meadmaker 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 01:35 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.