The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Texas professors sue over guns on campus before class begins Options
Chazlee
Posted: Monday, August 8, 2016 2:58:55 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/24/2016
Posts: 443
Neurons: 4,214
FounDit wrote:
Hope123,

For someone who says it is “your problem”, because you don’t even live in the country, and for whom it is merely an academic exercise, you go to great lengths to take the anti-gun position. I have to wonder then why you take so great an interest in supporting that position. If it bothers you so much, you could just stay safely in Canada, could you not?

As to your four points, if you would have read my postings more carefully, you would see that the state of Texas gave colleges a full year to formulate a policy concerning the concealed carry on their campuses, so the professors DID, and continue to, have input as to what happens in their classrooms.

As for your statistics, one can find those to support any position, as you well know. I can do that as well, but it will not convince you any more than your convince me. I’ve seen charts showing the rise in gun crimes in both the U.S. and Britain after gun bans have been put in place. There is also the fact that Mexico, for example, bans guns and ammunition, yet is awash in gun violence. Guns are manufactured in practically every country around the world, so if criminals can’t buy them from one source, they’ll go to another. So clearly, bans don’t work except for law abiding people.

As for Hillary’s statement,

"I believe weapons of war have no place on our streets. We may have our disagreements on gun safety regulations, but we should all be able to agree on a few things. If the FBI is watching you for suspected terrorist links, you shouldn’t be able to just go buy a gun with no questions asked. You shouldn’t be able to exploit loopholes and evade criminal background checks by buying online or at a gun show. And yes, if you’re too dangerous to get on a plane, you are too dangerous to buy a gun in America."

I agree with her. So if the FBI is NOT watching you for suspected terrorist links, you should “be able to just go buy a gun with no questions asked.” I also agree that if someone is too dangerous to get on a plane, they shouldn’t be able to buy a gun, but because they are criminals, they will always be able to do just that, because laws can’t stop that.

The simple fact of the matter is that now that guns have been invented, they cannot be UN-invented. That fact means that guns will always be available, and the only defense against them is another gun. Sometimes that will work out good, and sometimes not, but that's life. We simply have to deal with that fact. This isn't a fantasy, or Utopia, where things are always sweetness and light.

Both Chazlee and Lojte contradict themselves, but I’ll let that go because that isn’t as important as the following. I appreciate the honesty of Chazlee, when he said the number of guns he would allow is “zero”. This proves what we have said all along. The desire is not to control guns, but to prevent every person from owning one. And in that case, as sure as night follows day, only criminals will have them, and the population will be at their mercy, if they choose to show any.

Fortunately, the rest of us will not permit this to happen.




FounDit,

I am glad you appreciated my honesty, but unfortunately, you were not being honest when you misrepresented what I actually said, and I do not appreciate your dishonesty.

“I regret that the press treats me so badly.” Donald Trump.
Hope123
Posted: Monday, August 8, 2016 8:30:40 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,318
Neurons: 47,709
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
FD, I guess I am just the type of person who has empathy for the families of people killed needlessly around the world.

But until this past April, US gun control laws were my concern when I was spending a lot of time there. It did not figure into our decision that we will no longer be spending our winters in FL after 25 years and owning property there. I did not go out every day expecting to be shot. But I must admit every time we crossed the border back into Canada, I breathed a sigh of relief. I don't plan to stay in Canada all year, but I have no plans to visit the mainland US again for many reasons, unless of necessity. That's the plan as of now. But my family is there right now in New York City for a short time.

:::::::::::::::


As for the discussion about the OP - What was not clear is how colleges can now make their own decisions after a law has been passed. But I'll let the courts sort that out.

Chazlee and Lotje are saying the disaster is the high number of gun-related deaths and that they should not just be "collateral damage" to the second amendment.

BTW - it does say a "well-regulated" militia in that ambiguous amendment.

Our criminals have guns the same as in your or any other country but law abiding Canadians don't feel the need to carry for protection. It is a matter of attitude and fear - fear of the "what-if a criminal accosts me."

Statistics comparing the exponential gun-ownership increase since Obama became president and the lowering crime rates at the same time are not really proof of anything. There are a lot more factors such as policing policies or economic betterment (or how the controls were implemented in other countries) as to why crime rates go down or up or in spite of something, despite what might have been expected. Ask any scientist about drawing such conclusions.

I did the percentages in the comparisons but the statistics I posted were a collection of facts to the best of the collector's ability. They were not comparing anything. The original numbers stand as fact.

Also, even though the crime rate has gone down in the US, the public has not caught on to that fact because of the sensational mass shootings. Since the crime rate has gone down, there should be less need for guns, not more.

However, sensational mass shootings of 8 or more deaths went from 4 under Clinton after the ban on assault weapons to 18 under Obama. The assault weapons ban was lifted in 2004. Why ordinary citizens feel the need of a weapon of war is beyond me.

Since I doubt something such as a propensity for domestic violence or other violence gets reported routinely to the FBI, the FBI can't know whether or not to put a person on a list if they don't do a background check just because that person found a loophole by buying at a gun sale or online.



The past is to be respected/acknowledged, not worshipped. It is in our future we will find our greatness. Pierre Trudeau
Hope123
Posted: Monday, August 8, 2016 8:40:15 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,318
Neurons: 47,709
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Here's how Australia did gun control the proper way to lower gun related deaths to almost extinction.

http://www.businessinsider.com/canada-australia-japan-britain-gun-control-2013-1

Australia had 30 gun homicides in 2010, which amounted to 0.13 gun deaths for each 100,000 people. Australians hold 3-3.5 million guns, a rate of 15 guns for every 100 people.

Australia is a rare nation that has had a significant shift toward additional gun control in recent years. Following a 1996 shooting spree that left 35 Australians dead at the Port Arthur tourist location in Tasmania, the government launched a major overhaul of gun laws.

In the decade before Port Arthur, Australia saw 11 mass shootings; since then, there has not been a single mass shooting and the gun murder rate has continued its steady decline.

Here's what they did: Pro-gun Conservative John Howard pushed through an ambitious gun control program. The laws banned all automatic and semi-automatic weapons and instituted strict licensing rules involving background checks and waiting periods for purchases.

The conservative government also instituted a buyback program, where people were paid for turning in newly illegal automatic and semi-automatic rifles; 650,000 weapons were voluntarily handed in and destroyed at a cost of roughly $359.6 million.

Today, Australians must demonstrate a justifiable need to have a gun, such as being a farmer or sport shooter. Australia doesn't have a full semi-automatic handgun ban and doesn't have any laws designed to keep guns away from the mentally ill.
:::

Edited -
'Nuff said by me because no matter what facts are given, emotions are involved, and nothing is going to change in the US when money is used legally to "gift" to politicians.

The past is to be respected/acknowledged, not worshipped. It is in our future we will find our greatness. Pierre Trudeau
Lotje1000
Posted: Thursday, August 11, 2016 4:18:23 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 981
Neurons: 479,507
Location: Leuven, Flanders, Belgium
I got reminded today of a situation involving Anita Sarkeesian who has studied the (misogynistic) representation of women in video games. Because of her research, she has received a large number of death threats over the years.

However, in October 2014, Sarkeesian was going to give a speech at the university of Utah...

Quote:
when someone sent an e-mail to several school staffers threatening "the deadliest school shooting in American history" if the event wasn't canceled.
According to the Standard-Examiner newspaper, the e-mail author, who claims to be a student, wrote, "Feminists have ruined my life and I will have my revenge, for my sake and the sake of all the others they've wronged


Sarkeesian decided not to go through with the event once she found out that the school could not enforce pat-downs or ban guns from the speech as "State law allows the carrying of guns in public places".

Quote:
"If a person has a valid concealed firearm permit and is carrying a weapon, they are permitted to have it at the venue," the school said in a statement to CNN.


Apparently the right to bear arms was more important than freedom of speech, or at the very least personal safety. While it was Sarkeesian's own choice not to go through with the event (no one 'forced' her, per se), the laws on guns did force the issue by reducing it to the simple fact: choose between freedom of speech and your own safety.

When something like this is allowed to happen, I'm always reminded of how the media tells us that supposedly "America does not negotiate with/give in to terrorists".
FounDit
Posted: Thursday, August 11, 2016 11:06:39 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 9,578
Neurons: 50,806
Chazlee

I misrepresented what you said? I don't see it. In your reply post on Aug 7, I had asked you how many guns you would permit a civilian to own, and your response was, "...the answer is zero".
So when I quoted you as saying, "the number of guns he [Chazlee] would allow is “zero”, that looks to me like an accurate report of what you actually wrote.


Hope123 wrote:
I guess I am just the type of person who has empathy for the families of people killed needlessly around the world.

I have no doubt of this. In fact, I think this is the major difference between our two camps. I can also empathize with families whose members are killed needlessly.

But as I pointed out earlier, adults and children die everyday from all kinds of methods. The response was, "Well, yes, but things such as automobiles weren't designed to kill". But those adults and children are just as dead. In no other case, however, is there a movement to restrict, or limit, the availability of the thing that killed them.

This reveals the hypocrisy, because it isn't the death that is truly the issue, it is the item that caused it -- in this case, a gun. So while holding out the death of an innocent as the primary concern, it is really the elimination of the gun that is the focus. The death is just a convenient excuse. There is never a movement to eliminate, or restrict swimming pools, electrical appliances, baths, poisons, water slides (a ten-year-old boy was decapitated on one just last week), or any number of other things from which people, including children, are killed.

But then the argument is shifted to: "we need regulation, more background checks, etc." But we already have background checks, and as we have seen, they wouldn't have stopped the shootings.

So the difference between our two camps is that, while one side accepts the realities of life, and realizes that accidents and bad things happen to people, including guns, the other side lives in the emotional, fearful, empathetic side, believing that restricting, with the hope of eliminating, guns will solve that problem, when evidence from all over the world proves this does not solve the problem. Guns are here to stay. They cannot be UN-invented.

This emotional view is the same for the evidence, factual evidence, that crime has gone down with the increase in gun ownership. If you deny the evidence, preferring to follow emotion, then there really is no point in discussing it. And as we have seen on numerous occasions, this is exactly what is happening.

So like you said, "Nuff said", though I suspect it won't be.





We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Lotje1000
Posted: Thursday, August 11, 2016 12:04:52 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 981
Neurons: 479,507
Location: Leuven, Flanders, Belgium
Decapitated on a water slide is a bit much. He died, yes, but he wasn't decapitated.

The difference between our camps is not that only one side accepts the realities of life. The difference is that only one side is willing to do something about it. We propose regulations. You just want more guns.

You still conveniently ignore the fact that guns are intended to kill. You keep mentioning things that aren't intended for that purpose yet still cause a death. The difference is that we regulate those things. Cars? Driver's license, police checks, mechanical check-ups. Pools? Life guards, restrictions on who's allowed to swim where and how to behave. Theme park attractions? Regulations on size of occupants, regular checks. Electrical appliances? Long manual explaining how to use it and what to avoid. Guns? Not so much.

Yet guns are INTENDED to kill, but no one is bothered with regulating them. I guess your camp feels that, as it kills, it just does its job. No training necessary, no background checks necessary.

ETA - I haven't heard of any studies on the subject that more guns lower crime rates. Could you point me to a few?
progpen
Posted: Thursday, August 11, 2016 1:54:37 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 1,847
Neurons: 298,282
Location: Haddington, Scotland, United Kingdom
Lotje1000 wrote:
I haven't heard of any studies on the subject that more guns lower crime rates. Could you point me to a few?


You haven't heard of any because they don't exist outside the arms industry's alternate reality.

Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
FounDit
Posted: Thursday, August 11, 2016 8:35:10 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 9,578
Neurons: 50,806
Lotje1000 wrote:
Decapitated on a water slide is a bit much. He died, yes, but he wasn't decapitated.
That was the report I read.

Boy Decapitated on Waterslide

In checking it out, however, I find in another place they say he suffered a "neck injury". Well, I guess having your neck cut through would be considered a "neck injury". So it's however you want to look at it, I suppose.

The difference between our camps is not that only one side accepts the realities of life. The difference is that only one side is willing to do something about it. We propose regulations. You just want more guns.

You still conveniently ignore the fact that guns are intended to kill. You keep mentioning things that aren't intended for that purpose yet still cause a death. The difference is that we regulate those things. Cars? Driver's license, police checks, mechanical check-ups. Pools? Life guards, restrictions on who's allowed to swim where and how to behave. Theme park attractions? Regulations on size of occupants, regular checks. Electrical appliances? Long manual explaining how to use it and what to avoid. Guns? Not so much.

Yet guns are INTENDED to kill, but no one is bothered with regulating them. I guess your camp feels that, as it kills, it just does its job. No training necessary, no background checks necessary.
And once again, you present assertions without benefit of facts. We do indeed do something about it. We do background checks, first through the State of Texas, then through the FBI, with any number of things that may deny a person a license.

Of course, criminals don't bother, but you don't worry about them, do you? It's the citizen who must be disarmed, and that in a country you don't even live in. It must be nice to think oneself so ennobled one can dictate how others must live. I'm not quite that full of myself that I'd tell folks in another country how they must live. I suppose I'm lacking something.

"Texas Concealed Handgun Law

The concealed handgun law sets out the eligibility criteria that must be met. For example, an applicant must be qualified to purchase a handgun under the state and federal laws. Additionally, a number of factors may make a person ineligible (temporarily or permanently) to obtain a license, including: felony convictions (permanent) and Class A or B misdemeanors (5 years, permanent in cases of domestic violence), including charges that resulted in probation or deferred adjudication; pending criminal charges (indefinite until resolved); chemical or alcohol dependency (defined as 2 convictions for substance-related offenses; 10-year ban from the date of the first conviction); certain types of psychological diagnoses (indefinite until the condition is testified by a medical professional as being in remission); protective or restraining orders (indefinite until rescinded); or defaults on taxes, governmental fees, student loans or child support (indefinite until resolved). This last category, though having little to do with a person's ability to own a firearm, is in keeping with Texas policy for any licensing; those who are delinquent or in default on State-regulated debts are generally barred from obtaining or renewing any State-issued license (including driver licenses), as an incentive to settle those debts.

A person wishing to obtain a CHL must also take a State-set instruction course covering topics such as applicable laws, conflict resolution, criminal/civil liability, and handgun safety, and pass a practical qualification at a firing range with a weapon of the type they wish to use (revolver or semi-automatic) and of a caliber greater than .32". They may then apply, providing a picture, fingerprints and other documentation, to the DPS, which processes the application, runs a federal background check, and if all is well, issues the permit."

From:
http://fbinicsystem.com/us-gun-laws-by-state/texas-background-check-and-gun-laws.html
The interesting part of this is that Hope123 thinks the military is "expert" in their training, but it doesn't even come close to requiring what Texas requires. So the state and the police go far beyond what the military require.



ETA - I haven't heard of any studies on the subject that more guns lower crime rates. Could you point me to a few?

Is it too much work to look up some facts? Okay, I'll provide just a few. There are any number of sites that substantiate the same. I just typed in "murder rates vs. gun ownership" into a search engine and took a couple off the top of the first page.

http://crimeresearch.org/2014/03/comparing-murder-rates-across-countries/

Using the developed nations as defined by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), developed countries in fact show that more gun ownership as measured by the Small Arms Survey is associated with fewer homicides.


http://americangunfacts.com/

A recent study published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy concluded that there is a negative correlation between gun ownership and violent crime in countries internationally (more guns = less crime).

Nations with strict gun control laws have substantially higher murder rates than those who do not in general. In fact, the 9 European nations with the lowest gun ownership rate have a combined murder rate 3x that of the 9 European nations with the highest gun ownership rate!8

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/05/14/disarming-realities-as-gun-sales-soar-gun-crimes-plummet/#d8ce9ff7de9e
Disarming Realities: As Gun Sales Soar, Gun Crimes Plummet


And as usual, progpen is simply wrong, or as we say in Texas...
"He's so full of s**t, he squishes when he walks."


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
progpen
Posted: Thursday, August 11, 2016 10:39:50 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 1,847
Neurons: 298,282
Location: Haddington, Scotland, United Kingdom
Well, first off FD, the first link I clicked took me to a site that showed exactly what I've been saying all along. The US does not even rank among the rest of the developed countries, so the best they can do is show how the US compares to developing countries. Also, like I've shown previously, the US ranks right in the middle of the global pack, right there with Estonia and Chile (both wonderful countries, I'm sure).

So thank you FD, for proving me correct. As I've said previously, I do like it when the people I debate prove my points for me. It saves a lot of time.

Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
progpen
Posted: Thursday, August 11, 2016 10:43:56 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 1,847
Neurons: 298,282
Location: Haddington, Scotland, United Kingdom
Also, showing links to a gun lobby site is just a wee bit skewed, even for you doncha think FD? It took just a couple of clicks to find out who is behind the site.

Oh, and FD. The kindergarten personal attacks.....keeping it classy as usual.

Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
Hope123
Posted: Thursday, August 11, 2016 11:32:41 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,318
Neurons: 47,709
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Quote FounDit. - "The interesting part of this is that Hope123 thinks the military is "expert" in their training, but it doesn't even come close to requiring what Texas requires. So the state and the police go far beyond what the military require."

She does?

::::::::

Just curious - don't answer if you don't want to but - not including war/military or a job such as police/security guard, how many times have you drawn your gun in self defence in everyday life to protect yourself, your family, or your home in your seventy years?


The past is to be respected/acknowledged, not worshipped. It is in our future we will find our greatness. Pierre Trudeau
FounDit
Posted: Friday, August 12, 2016 11:24:33 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 9,578
Neurons: 50,806
progpen

Lotje1000 wrote:
I haven't heard of any studies on the subject that more guns lower crime rates. Could you point me to a few?

So the point of the link was to show that having more guns does lower crime rates. Do try to keep up, please.


Hope123

Sorry, my mistake. It was Lojte who said,

“Secondly, you are making the mistake of comparing the military to average civilians. By contrast to civilians (and that includes the police force) the military is trained to use the weapons they have.”

My point being that civilians are trained to an even greater degree than the military, and in areas the military don’t even cover.

To your point on drawing a gun, I have never drawn a gun for self defense in civilian life. I don't even carry a gun. But it's nice to know I have the right to do so, if I think it necessary. And I would never support any politician who would put my life or my family's lives in danger by stripping me of that right, merely to serve a political purpose.




We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
progpen
Posted: Friday, August 12, 2016 12:47:39 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 1,847
Neurons: 298,282
Location: Haddington, Scotland, United Kingdom
FounDit wrote:
But it's nice to know I have the right to do so, if I think it necessary.


And that right is not about to go away.


FounDit wrote:
And I would never support any politician who would put my life or my family's lives in danger by stripping me of that right, merely to serve a political purpose.


And there are no politicians who are talking about this, so this seems like a bit of an empty threat.

Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
progpen
Posted: Friday, August 12, 2016 12:54:44 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 1,847
Neurons: 298,282
Location: Haddington, Scotland, United Kingdom
FounDit wrote:
So the point of the link was to show that having more guns does lower crime rates.


Which it failed to do.

Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
Hope123
Posted: Friday, August 12, 2016 2:20:08 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,318
Neurons: 47,709
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
"merely to serve a political purpose". Really? You think that?

My point is that you've never had to draw a gun in seventy years or even carry one, are afraid you might need one someday, and yet have never responded to the point that it is fear of the 'what if' a criminal attacks me that makes you need to have the option. All the while accusing those who just want a little more control over who gets one as being fearful of the 'what-if' and only doing it for political gains, ignoring the thousands killed every year.

You know full well Hillary's views and yet insist with the Republican and Trump line that she wants to 'take away your second amendment'. No American politician would ever try that, even if not running again.

Progpen responded with my thoughts to the links you provided.

In another thread about Trump, I told Chazlee that people only double down with their beliefs when challenged with facts, so there is no sense discussing this further.

We know your opinions, and you know ours and 'never the twain shall meet’.





The past is to be respected/acknowledged, not worshipped. It is in our future we will find our greatness. Pierre Trudeau
FounDit
Posted: Friday, August 12, 2016 11:10:27 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 9,578
Neurons: 50,806
progpen wrote:

FounDit wrote:
So the point of the link was to show that having more guns does lower crime rates.


Which it failed to do.

Wrong. But then, I don't know how you could read the links I posted and come away with the opposite conclusion to that they plainly and specifically say. Are you a little slow, or what? If so, I sympathize and will take that into account. Just let me know.

FounDit wrote:
And I would never support any politician who would put my life or my family's lives in danger by stripping me of that right, merely to serve a political purpose.


And there are no politicians who are talking about this, so this seems like a bit of an empty threat.

No? According to the Washington Post on June 5, 2016,

"In an interview on ABC's This Week, Clinton deflected twice when asked whether she agrees with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment. The court ruled in 2008 that the Constitution affords private citizens the right to keep firearms in their homes and that such possession need not be connected to military service."

So the Supreme Court ruled that citizens have the right to keep firearms in their homes. The State of Texas permits carrying those firearms. Yet Hillary Clinton said "The Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment, and I am going to make that case every chance I get.”

You can hear her in her own words at this link. She makes the comment near the end, about one minute into the recording:
https://soundcloud.com/washington-free-beacon

So if she makes the case every chance she gets that the Supreme Court go it wrong, I would say there is someone talking about it, and it's not an empty threat.



We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
FounDit
Posted: Friday, August 12, 2016 11:20:45 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 9,578
Neurons: 50,806
Hope123 wrote:
"merely to serve a political purpose". Really? You think that?
So Hillary isn't using the Second Amendment for political purposes? Is progpen rubbing off on you? That's a rhetorical question because I already know there is no difference between you two on this issue.

My point is that you've never had to draw a gun in seventy years or even carry one, are afraid you might need one someday, and yet have never responded to the point that it is fear of the 'what if' a criminal attacks me that makes you need to have the option. All the while accusing those who just want a little more control over who gets one as being fearful of the 'what-if' and only doing it for political gains, ignoring the thousands killed every year.
And once again you project onto me things I never said, nor do I feel. I don't need the option because I live in fear of "what if" a criminal attacks me. I already have the option because of the Bill of Rights. I can choose to exercise my right, or I can choose not to. It's my choice. See, it's called Freedom -- the freedom to choose.

You know full well Hillary's views and yet insist with the Republican and Trump line that she wants to 'take away your second amendment'. No American politician would ever try that, even if not running again.
I never said that, but she herself said she thinks SCOTUS is wrong on the Second Amendment. So for me I could never support her for President.

Progpen responded with my thoughts to the links you provided.
You mean you can't read their conclusions either? Somehow, I'm not surprised.

In another thread about Trump, I told Chazlee that people only double down with their beliefs when challenged with facts, so there is no sense discussing this further.
I didn't double down with beliefs. I provided links that displayed facts. If you choose not to accept them, or willingly blind yourself to them, then as you say, there is nothing more to be said.

We know your opinions, and you know ours and 'never the twain shall meet’.
You finally found a truth. Congratulations!




We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
progpen
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2016 4:13:21 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 1,847
Neurons: 298,282
Location: Haddington, Scotland, United Kingdom
Chazlee wrote:
...some professors see a possible problem when discussions in the classroom are dealing with "emotionally and politically charged topics such as gay rights and abortion."


That is precisely the reason Texas and other places have taken these giant steps backwards. To silence opposing voices through intimidation and threats of violence.

Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
progpen
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2016 4:16:05 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 1,847
Neurons: 298,282
Location: Haddington, Scotland, United Kingdom
And again FD, the kindergarten insults are just too cute, especially for a septuagenarian.

Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
Hope123
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2016 5:01:26 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,318
Neurons: 47,709
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
My answers are in red.

FounDit wrote:
Hope123 wrote:
"merely to serve a political purpose". Really? You think that?
So Hillary isn't using the Second Amendment for political purposes? Is progpen rubbing off on you? That's a rhetorical question because I already know there is no difference between you two on this issue.


An Irrelevant comment. Although I am happy to be associated with Progpen and hope he/she feels the same.

Hillary is actually hampered politically as she would not have a problem with the Republican vote ON THE GUN ISSUE if she were for all that the NRA stands for - as Trump is. In fact you say yourself you could never vote for her because of her gun stance - see below re Second Amendment, SCOTUS, and sound bite.

Also, I have seen the works Hillary has done and the causes she has sponsored to help people even as a student before she even met Bill, and how she worked tirelessly to get healthcare and other necessities for the vctims and first responders after 9/11. I have used that information to understand that she cares about those high gun violence numbers and I am not cynically believing politics is her only motive.



My point is that you've never had to draw a gun in seventy years or even carry one, are afraid you might need one someday, and yet have never responded to the point that it is fear of the 'what if' a criminal attacks me that makes you (general purpose you) need to have the option. All the while accusing those who just want a little more control over who gets one as being fearful of the 'what-if' and only doing it for political gains, ignoring the thousands killed every year.
And once again you project onto me things I never said, nor do I feel. I don't need the option because I live in fear of "what if" a criminal attacks me. I already have the option because of the Bill of Rights. I can choose to exercise my right, or I can choose not to. It's my choice. See, it's called Freedom -- the freedom to choose.


So all the carping about criminals and protection as a reason for wanting/needing a gun (which shows fear of a possible attack) is just rhetoric?


You know full well Hillary's views and yet insist with the Republican and Trump line that she wants to 'take away your second amendment'. No American politician would ever try that, even if not running again.

I never said that, but she herself said she thinks SCOTUS is wrong on the Second Amendment. So for me I could never support her for President.


As for Hillary and the Second Amendment and SCOTUS sound bite you posted and to which I listened, you took six words out of context, ignoring that she was talking about civilians having a specific war weapon, an AK 47, in a supermarket. Or do you believe an AK47 is necessary for a civilian to have?



I'm ignoring the rest of your post since it is full of snide comments. (And the joke defence you've used more than once before won't cut it.) I see disparity in how you view yourself as a restrained mature poster in some other threads and how you actually behave.


The past is to be respected/acknowledged, not worshipped. It is in our future we will find our greatness. Pierre Trudeau
FounDit
Posted: Sunday, August 14, 2016 1:26:01 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 9,578
Neurons: 50,806
Progpen wrote:

Chazlee wrote:
...some professors see a possible problem when discussions in the classroom are dealing with "emotionally and politically charged topics such as gay rights and abortion."
Some (?) professors see a problem with disagreement on emotionally and politically charged topics? Well, gee, we can’t have that, can we?

That is precisely the reason Texas and other places have taken these giant steps backwards. To silence opposing voices through intimidation and threats of violence.
And once again you have reached exactly the opposite conclusion from the facts. Disagreements in the classroom are NOT the reason for the CHL (Concealed Handgun Law).

And:

And again FD, the kindergarten insults are just too cute, especially for a septuagenarian.
Did you like that? I’m glad. It takes seventy years to get good at it. Here’s another one for you:

Lojte asked for websites that showed that more guns lower crime rates. I provided just such sites. You stated they did not do that. That is patently untrue. Therefore, only one of two conclusions could be reached:

One, you can’t understand what your read, perhaps because you are a little slow, or

Two, you have said something untrue, a lie. That would make you a liar. I gave you the benefit of the doubt. Was I wrong to do that?

But okay, I admit I’m having a little fun poking at you guys a bit (y'all are so-o-o sensitive). It’s my way of dealing with the annoyance of having my words twisted to say things I didn’t say, or having you flat-out state a falsehood about what I wrote.



We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
FounDit
Posted: Sunday, August 14, 2016 1:35:21 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 9,578
Neurons: 50,806
My responses are in green.
Hope123 wrote:
My answers are in red.

FounDit wrote:
Hope123 wrote:
"merely to serve a political purpose". Really? You think that?
So Hillary isn't using the Second Amendment for political purposes? Is progpen rubbing off on you? That's a rhetorical question because I already know there is no difference between you two on this issue.


An Irrelevant comment. Although I am happy to be associated with Progpen and hope he/she feels the same.

Hillary is actually hampered politically as she would not have a problem with the Republican vote ON THE GUN ISSUE if she were for all that the NRA stands for - as Trump is. In fact you say yourself you could never vote for her because of her gun stance - see below re Second Amendment, SCOTUS, and sound bite.
Right. Her position is inconsistent with her ability to swear she “will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”. I cannot support her for President if she thinks any part of it is wrong. How can she be trusted to keep her oath? Obama certainly hasn’t.

Also, I have seen the works Hillary has done and the causes she has sponsored to help people even as a student before she even met Bill, and how she worked tirelessly to get healthcare and other necessities for the vctims and first responders after 9/11. I have used that information to understand that she cares about those high gun violence numbers and I am not cynically believing politics is her only motive.

Okay, that’s fine. I don’t. I believe Hillary is out for Hillary – period. So we disagree on that, too.

My point is that you've never had to draw a gun in seventy years or even carry one, are afraid you might need one someday, and yet have never responded to the point that it is fear of the 'what if' a criminal attacks me that makes you (general purpose you) need to have the option. All the while accusing those who just want a little more control over who gets one as being fearful of the 'what-if' and only doing it for political gains, ignoring the thousands killed every year.
And once again you project onto me things I never said, nor do I feel. I don't need the option because I live in fear of "what if" a criminal attacks me. I already have the option because of the Bill of Rights. I can choose to exercise my right, or I can choose not to. It's my choice. See, it's called Freedom -- the freedom to choose.


So all the carping about criminals and protection as a reason for wanting/needing a gun (which shows fear of a possible attack) is just rhetoric?

Not at all, and I’ll explain that in a following post.

You know full well Hillary's views and yet insist with the Republican and Trump line that she wants to 'take away your second amendment'. No American politician would ever try that, even if not running again.

I never said that, but she herself said she thinks SCOTUS is wrong on the Second Amendment. So for me I could never support her for President.


As for Hillary and the Second Amendment and SCOTUS sound bite you posted and to which I listened, you took six words out of context, ignoring that she was talking about civilians having a specific war weapon, an AK 47, in a supermarket. Or do you believe an AK47 is necessary for a civilian to have?


Well, firstly, no one walks around with an AK47 in a supermarket. That was her engaging in ridiculous hyperbole to make a point. Secondly, I did not take her words out of context, because her statement was made precisely in that context.

I'm ignoring the rest of your post since it is full of snide comments. (And the joke defence you've used more than once before won't cut it.) I see disparity in how you view yourself as a restrained mature poster in some other threads and how you actually behave.

That is true. I do sometimes poke fun at you guys on the political Left. But I do so, as I told progpen, when I become annoyed at having my words twisted to say what I never said, or when what you say is untrue. But I never try to get nasty, or mean about it. It’s always done in the spirit of a tease, or a jest. I apologize if attempting to be nice to you all is offensive (jab, jab, laugh).

We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
FounDit
Posted: Sunday, August 14, 2016 1:42:33 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 9,578
Neurons: 50,806
On the gun Issue:

A favorite defense of the political Left is the logical fallacy of Appeal to Pity. We saw it earlier in the tales of women and children killed by guns. The argument for restricting to near elimination, if not outright banning in some countries, is based on the fact that there are innocent victims of guns. This is a very myopic view of the topic. A much larger view is necessary to see what the realities are.

Nothing happens in a vacuum. Everything has an influence on the other things around it. Nature has a self-regulating system that tends to keep things in equilibrium, and so should we, for the simple fact that things tend to function best when balance is achieved. It isn’t always possible, but it should be a goal to strive for.

The first thing that must be established is that every creature has the natural right to defend its own life. Humans are no different. Each person has that same natural right, and no person has the authority to arbitrarily remove that right. If guns are one of the ways that a person’s life can be taken, then guns must also be seen as a defense against having one’s life taken. Therefore, no person has the authority to arbitrarily remove that defense either -- balance. The instrument to take life is also the instrument to save life.

At the same time, humans don’t always behave properly. This means that bad people will do bad things to other people. This also means there will be accidents that happen because of foolish behavior. On the other side of that equation is the fact that the majority of people with guns do behave responsibly – balance that favors proper behavior, saving life over the taking of life.

To severely restrict, or outright ban, access to guns, tilts the balance in favor of more harm done, because the defense mechanism is restricted or removed. Those who would do harm are less incentivized to restrain themselves. Balance is removed because the system is tilted to one side, permitting an increase in victims by removing the defense. Therefore, the reasons for having access to guns is not fear or rhetoric, but is based on the realities of life and its preservation. The Middle East is a prime example, where a small group with guns, drives great numbers of unarmed populations from their homeland.




We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
progpen
Posted: Sunday, August 14, 2016 1:43:32 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 1,847
Neurons: 298,282
Location: Haddington, Scotland, United Kingdom
So, FD, when we get annoyed with you when you say things that aren't true that's different and we are still in the wrong, right?

And when we respond to your exact words, that is still twisting them? That's rich.

Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
progpen
Posted: Sunday, August 14, 2016 1:44:53 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 1,847
Neurons: 298,282
Location: Haddington, Scotland, United Kingdom
The appeal to pity is a right wing strawman. It isn't pity, it's responsibility, logic and reason.

Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
progpen
Posted: Sunday, August 14, 2016 1:46:08 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 1,847
Neurons: 298,282
Location: Haddington, Scotland, United Kingdom
And, FD, when you put up B.S. data, we will call B.S.. It's really quite simple.

Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
progpen
Posted: Monday, August 15, 2016 6:59:03 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 1,847
Neurons: 298,282
Location: Haddington, Scotland, United Kingdom
Oh, and the "it's all in fun" B.S. is just that. B.S. If you can't talk to people without belittling, insulting or name calling it says more about you than about those you are calling names.

Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
Lotje1000
Posted: Monday, August 22, 2016 9:48:58 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 981
Neurons: 479,507
Location: Leuven, Flanders, Belgium
progpen wrote:
If you can't talk to people without belittling, insulting or name calling it says more about you


I believe what it says is that he's so-o-o sensitive.

While I'm not from Texas, as FD has so cleverly pointed out, I find it hard to believe that civilians get better training than the military. Some courses I've found:
1-day course for basic handgun training (including safety, maintenance, draw techniques)
4-hour course for a license to carry (laws, storage, non-violent solutions)
2-day course for defensive handgun (legal aspects, techniques, laws, threat engagements)
2-day course for defensive handgun level 2 (techniques, draw techniques, cover, scenarios)
2-day course for carbines (characteristics, fundamentals, reloads)
2-day tactical pistol course (tactical movements, position shooting, reload techniques)

If, with those trainings, you're better equipped to handle a weapon than the military, I weep for your military.

And you, do you still do regular refresher courses? How often do you do them?
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Monday, August 22, 2016 10:46:52 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 30,176
Neurons: 177,168
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
There is 'special' licensing for fully automatic rifles.

But guess what? This ad/article shows -
Quote:

Phoenix, Arizona based Tactical Fire Control Inc., has just teased out a drop-in trigger group that promises to turn your basic AR [assault rifle] into a (nearly) full-auto rifle with no need for the onerous NFA licensing process.
. . .
Tactical Fire Control has a copy of the ATF letter certifying their 3MR trigger as a non-NFA semi-auto trigger.


Also Steyr have a new 'bullpup' assault rifle which is specially made so short that it doesn't qualify as a rifle, and can be bought on a handgun permit in some states.

So, the gun manufacturers are starting to produce "modifier kits" which change your legal rifle to an 'almost' fully automatic rifle, but using another name so you don't need a license.

THIS sort of thing is why the laws need to be properly sorted out.
No private person needs an assault rifle - or even automatic pistol.


Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2018 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.