Sutherland shooting

Duck and cover
User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by xouper » Tue Nov 07, 2017 11:40 pm

I forgot to add this other point in rebuttal:
TJrandom wrote:At least with cars, one can choose to drive or not, and ones skill, knowledge, and self-control vastly improves your chances of never having an accident or becoming a victim.
Many victims of drunk drivers were not other drivers, or even in a car, so that solution doesn't help those victims.

Also, are you really suggesting that sober drivers can rely on their skill to keep from getting clobbered by a drunk driver?

For example, when driving though an intersection with a green light, how many drivers are always vigilant enough to look to verify that some drunk driver is not running the red light in the cross street?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by xouper » Tue Nov 07, 2017 11:43 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:. . . Soup: thanks for the correction on Trumps legislative record. I remember he did something but thought he had zero legislative actions. I was wrong. Not as wrong as you are in your incessant reference to guns are ok because cars are ok. Its the reverse that is more true: guns are not ok, because cars are not ok. Because of that, we very closely as best we can regulate the later, but not the former. so...to the degree your analogy is useful, you hold the wrong end of the stick. The ONLY argument you have, is that the Supremes are just as nuts as you are........or there are nuts somewhere? I think (again.....everything is again on this subject) the Supremes fail to apply the different levels of lethality of the tech when the 2nd Amend was written to what guns are today. Easy to correct...... just apply original intent (and circumstances) to correct this bad path we have gone down. Then......let Majority Will reign. I expect guns would be outlawed........well before cars..........because arguing cars is .......... nuts.
We've already had this conversation. I do not agree with your opinions.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11695
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by Lance Kennedy » Tue Nov 07, 2017 11:48 pm

On drunk driving.
You need both penalties and policing. You mentioned the former only.

On mass shootings.
Australia stopped them after the Tasmania mass shooting, with a total ban on assault rifles and the like. More guns as a "solution " is like trying to put out a fire by adding more fuel.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 22149
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Tue Nov 07, 2017 11:54 pm

You can be totally cold blooded and still kill a {!#%@} load of people.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14854
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Nov 07, 2017 11:56 pm

I for one have reached "impasse" with Xouper. Positions fully explored and set forth, no movement ....right from the beginning. No need for further discussion.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by xouper » Wed Nov 08, 2017 12:37 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:On drunk driving.
You need both penalties and policing. You mentioned the former only.
OK, sorry, I had assumed that they both went together.

Yes, more policing, stricter penalties.

It does no good to have stricter penalties if they are not also being enforced, which is why I assumed that went without saying.

Lance Kennedy wrote:On mass shootings.
Australia stopped them after the Tasmania mass shooting, with a total ban on assault rifles and the like. More guns as a "solution " is like trying to put out a fire by adding more fuel.
Bad analogy.

I do not agree.

In fact this very case is evidence against your position.

I don't think anyone in Southerland thinks that the neighbor should not have had his "assault rifle" that he used to chase off the bad guy. Quite the contrary, some are even calling him a hero for being brave enough to risk his life to take a shot at the bad guy. And the rifle he used was an effective choice of weapon in that circumstance.

But you seem to think the situation would have had a better outcome if the neighbor had not been armed. How can you possibly know that?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by xouper » Wed Nov 08, 2017 12:45 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:I for one have reached "impasse" with Xouper. Positions fully explored and set forth, no movement ....right from the beginning. No need for further discussion.
The word "impasse" is a good choice. Perhaps that's the best we can get under the circumstances.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11695
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by Lance Kennedy » Wed Nov 08, 2017 12:57 am

Xouper

The last mass shooting we had in NZ, about 30 years ago, was in an isolated community called Aramoana. The perpetrator was accosted by the very brave local policeman, who had a firearm. The policeman was shot dead and the shooter ended up with more guns and ammunition. More guns in this case meant more people being killed.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by xouper » Wed Nov 08, 2017 2:05 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Xouper

The last mass shooting we had in NZ, about 30 years ago, was in an isolated community called Aramoana. The perpetrator was accosted by the very brave local policeman, who had a firearm. The policeman was shot dead and the shooter ended up with more guns and ammunition. More guns in this case meant more people being killed.
This case? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramoana_massacre

Where in that case did the bad guy use the policeman's gun to kill anyone?

Contrary to your claim, it seems the bad guy acquired only a single handgun from the dead policeman and that gun was not used by the bad guy to kill anyone.

Where is your evidence for your claim (marked in yellow above) that the shooter got more guns (plural) from the police and used them to commit further murders? Apparently that detail is not in the wikipedia article.

Seems to me, that case doesn't support your argument that more guns made the situation worse. In this case it did not. In fact it seems clear that more guns came to the rescue and killed the bad guy (and thus saving the taxpayers the expense of a trial and jail time).

Are you seriously arguing that in the Aramoana case there would have been a better outcome if the police had not been armed?

Seriously?

And yet even if that was a valid counter-example (which it is not), we would have the Aramoana anecdote against the Sutherland anecdote.

To break that stalemate, I shall add several hundred thousand more anecdotes per year where the outcome would likely have been worse had the victim not been armed.

To that I will add the FBI evidence that, on average, unarmed victims of assault have a worse outcome than armed victims.

The data are clearly on my side of this argument. In the US, more guns in the hands of the good guys is a better outcome.

Also, please clarify, are you using your anecdote to argue that all guns everywhere should be banned and destroyed, even for law enforcement?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11695
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by Lance Kennedy » Wed Nov 08, 2017 2:37 am

The point, Xouper, is that even a trained policeman with a gun does not help the situation. To end a mass shooting normally takes a squad of highly trained people. Here in NZ, we call them the Armed Offenders Squad. Americans have SWAT teams. Amateurs running around with guns rarely help.

I have never said that all guns need to be destroyed. But rational gun control is needed. No one can legally drive a car without a drivers licence, and drivers even with a licence cannot take an armored vehicle (or many other kinds of dangerous vehicle ) on the road. The same standard with guns is needed. A licensing system, with gun owners needing to pass tests and police checks, and guns limited to a few kinds (such as hunting tools), and all guns registered. Of course, even this system will not stop all mass shootings and all gun murders, but it will, over time, drop the number of people killed.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28915
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by Matthew Ellard » Wed Nov 08, 2017 3:21 am

Some statistics that may be informative.

JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDES WITH A GUN COMPARED TO CRIMINAL GUN HOMICIDES
http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable15.pdf

Guns are rarely used to kill criminals or stop crimes. In 2012, across the nation there were only 259 justifiable homicides1 involving a private citizen using a firearm reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program as detailed in its Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR).2 That same year, there were 8,342 criminal gun homicides tallied in the SHR. In 2012, for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 32 criminal homicides. 3 And this ratio, of course, does not take into account the tens of thousands of lives ended in gun suicides or unintentional shootings that year.4

CONCLUSION
The reality of self-defense gun use bears no resemblance to the exaggerated claims of the gun lobby and gun industry.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by xouper » Wed Nov 08, 2017 3:27 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:The point, Xouper, is that even a trained policeman with a gun does not help the situation.
That is true only in very small percentage of cases. Good luck trying to convince any US police officer otherwise.

Lance Kennedy wrote:Amateurs running around with guns rarely help.
I already cited evidence that contradicts that opinion. Including the case that this thread is about.

Lance Kennedy wrote:I have never said that all guns need to be destroyed.
OK, that's why I asked for clarification. I did not want to make the mistake of creating a straw man.

Lance Kennedy wrote:No one can legally drive a car without a drivers licence,
In the US, on private property, you can drive a car or truck or even dangerous vehicles without a license. For example, farmers and do it all the time.

Lance Kennedy wrote:The same standard with guns is needed.
I do not agree.

Lance Kennedy wrote: A licensing system, with gun owners needing to pass tests and police checks, and guns limited to a few kinds (such as hunting tools),
I will agree that it is better that gun owners be properly trained and educated, but I do not agree that such things should be required by law.

Also, why should people be limited to what kind of personal firearm they own? That clearly goes against the ideology of a free society.

Lance Kennedy wrote:and all guns registered.
I assume you know that in the US, those who own guns illegally are constitutionally exempt from any and all laws requiring gun registration?

Lance Kennedy wrote: Of course, even this system will not stop all mass shootings and all gun murders, but it will, over time, drop the number of people killed.
That's nothing more than speculation. In all the years we have been having this conversation you have never once given any evidence to support that opinion.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11695
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by Lance Kennedy » Wed Nov 08, 2017 3:48 am

I have given oodles of evidence. Such as the fact that every other western nation has few mass shootings, while the USA is averaging one a day. The major difference is gun availability. If a person living in Europe, or Japan, decides to carry out a mass shooting, he or she will not do it, for the simple reason that he or she will not be able to get hold of the weapons and ammunition needed.

Matthew will tell you of the stunning success in Australia in preventing mass shootings by restricting access to firearms. How much evidence do you need ?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by xouper » Wed Nov 08, 2017 3:55 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:Some statistics that may be informative.

JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDES WITH A GUN COMPARED TO CRIMINAL GUN HOMICIDES
http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable15.pdf

Guns are rarely used to kill criminals or stop crimes. In 2012, across the nation there were only 259 justifiable homicides1 involving a private citizen using a firearm reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program as detailed in its Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR).2 That same year, there were 8,342 criminal gun homicides tallied in the SHR. In 2012, for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 32 criminal homicides. 3 And this ratio, of course, does not take into account the tens of thousands of lives ended in gun suicides or unintentional shootings that year.4

CONCLUSION
The reality of self-defense gun use bears no resemblance to the exaggerated claims of the gun lobby and gun industry.
That "conclusion" fails to account for all the defensive gun uses that do not result in homicide. According to the study commissioned by President Obama, the CDC reported that defensive gun uses number in the hundreds of thousands per year.

Secondly, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) cited in that report has been criticized for vastly underestimating the number of defensive gun uses that do not involve homicides.

Furthermore, that report is clearly biased in that it does not take into account all sides of the issue, but only considers the work of a single researcher, Hemenway, who has a known bias against guns and whose work is hotly disputed by other experts in the field.

Here is perhaps a more objective overview of defensive gun use:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14854
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Nov 08, 2017 3:55 am

To Lance: I believe that X even agreed his position isn't about saving lives but rather is about saving his right to own and carry a gun. I believe he as much stated as much. If not, its his position, recognized or not: 30K guns deaths per year are worth the Freedom to carry arms as agreed to and ruled by the Supreme Court.

You can't fight the Supreme Court. You have to get them to agree. Then it doesn't matter what the nutters want.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11695
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by Lance Kennedy » Wed Nov 08, 2017 4:12 am

Fair comment, Bobbo.
It really does not matter what Xouper says. Here on this forum, it is clear he is the minority voice.

On defensive use of guns. There is no universally accepted number for this. Estimates vary from perhaps 50,000 a year to several million. The thing is that whatever number you use, it is based on the subjective claims of people who have no reason to tell the truth.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by xouper » Wed Nov 08, 2017 4:16 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:I have given oodles of evidence. Such as the fact that every other western nation has few mass shootings, while the USA is averaging one a day. The major difference is gun availability. If a person living in Europe, or Japan, decides to carry out a mass shooting, he or she will not do it, for the simple reason that he or she will not be able to get hold of the weapons and ammunition needed.
That is factually incorrect.

France, for example, has had more mass shooting deaths in the past eight years than the US, according to FBI statistics. In fact the biggest mass shooting in Paris was done with fully automatic assault rifles that are illegal in the US.

We have had this conversation before, Lance. Not only are their factual errors in your observations, but none of that is evidence that such laws would have the same effect in the US.

For example, you have not shown that what Australia has done would have the same effect in the US. You are merely assuming it without evidence.

You already know that Mexico, for example, has fewer guns and more gun homicides than the US. Same for many other countries. You have already said that the reason for that is not due to gun availability.

Even among the various US states, you concede that gun availability is the not the driving factor in gun homicide rates.

Another example: You conceded that gun availability is not the driving factor in the gun homicide rate in Chicago , which is far higher than in the surrounding states of Illinois and Indiana, despite that gun availability in those states is pretty much the same as it is in Chicago. If gun availability were the driving factor in Chicago, as you seem to want to claim, then why is the gun homicide rate for both Indiana and Illinois not as high as in Chicago? Answer: Gun availability is not the driving factor.

Your entire argument is undermined by the data.

And yet here you are again making the same speculative claim that reducing gun availability will reduce gun homicides in the US. You have given no evidence to support that speculation.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11695
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by Lance Kennedy » Wed Nov 08, 2017 4:23 am

Several straw men there. What we have been discussing in this thread is mass shootings. Not gun homicide rate, which is a different program. Mexico is not a case of normal homicides, since it is in a state of war. Drug gangs versus the authorities. That leads to high death toll.

Mass shootings in Europe are, indeed, way, way less than in the USA. However, there have been some terrorist attacks recently. Also acts of war. The Chicago case we have discussed, and is not relevant to this thread.

Sticking to the point of the thread, it is very clear than reducing gun availability in the USA will reduce mass shootings. It worked in Australia, and it would work in the USA, since sporting rifles are not as effective for mass murder.

Excluding terrorist attacks, there were 19 mass shootings in Europe in 6 years.

https://www.flemishpeaceinstitute.eu/pr ... -2009-2015

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by xouper » Wed Nov 08, 2017 4:26 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:To Lance: I believe that X even agreed his position isn't about saving lives but rather is about saving his right to own and carry a gun. I believe he as much stated as much. If not, its his position, recognized or not: 30K guns deaths per year are worth the Freedom to carry arms as agreed to and ruled by the Supreme Court.
For the record, I confirm that your interpretation of my position is more or less correct.

Morally, my position is no different than people who will accept a similar number of deaths each year for the convenience of having a car to drive.

You might say "but cars have a legitimate purpose and save lives." Well, so do guns. Stalemate. Or "impasse", take your pick.

Further clarification: About two thirds of gun deaths each year are suicides, and while I think that is indeed a tragedy, that is not sufficient reason give up my right to own and carry a gun.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14854
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Nov 08, 2017 4:30 am

X==its good to clarify, simplify, and know one's own position. You weaken your position by any reference to anything except Supreme Court Rulings. The only thing keeping guns on the street is the Supremes. Its the use and functionality of cars that keeps them on the street, There is no right at all to own, drive, use or store a car. ............................. Stuff like that.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by xouper » Wed Nov 08, 2017 4:33 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Fair comment, Bobbo.
It really does not matter what Xouper says. Here on this forum, it is clear he is the minority voice.
It really does not matter what Lance says. Here in the US, it is clear he is the minority voice.

Lance Kennedy wrote:On defensive use of guns. There is no universally accepted number for this. Estimates vary from perhaps 50,000 a year to several million. The thing is that whatever number you use, it is based on the subjective claims of people who have no reason to tell the truth.
I agree.

We do not know what the number is.

So if you will stop using that number in your arguments then so will I. But if you keep using the number you favor, then so will I.

If you like, I can remind you of this any time in the future when you make specious claims about defensive gun use.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by xouper » Wed Nov 08, 2017 4:34 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:You weaken your position by any reference to anything except Supreme Court Rulings. The only thing keeping guns on the street is the Supremes. Its the use and functionality of cars that keeps them on the street, There is no right at all to own, drive, use or store a car. ............................. Stuff like that.
Obviously, I do not agree.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9833
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by TJrandom » Wed Nov 08, 2017 4:38 am

xouper wrote:I forgot to add this other point in rebuttal:
TJrandom wrote:At least with cars, one can choose to drive or not, and ones skill, knowledge, and self-control vastly improves your chances of never having an accident or becoming a victim.
Many victims of drunk drivers were not other drivers, or even in a car, so that solution doesn't help those victims.

Also, are you really suggesting that sober drivers can rely on their skill to keep from getting clobbered by a drunk driver?

For example, when driving though an intersection with a green light, how many drivers are always vigilant enough to look to verify that some drunk driver is not running the red light in the cross street?
For your analogy to work for mass killings - you need to limit those killed by cars to those who were intentionally mowed down.

And yes - for drivers and cars in general - you are much safer as a licensed, trained, defensive driver - who looks both ways at intersections even though the light is green. Not perfect of course, but safer than with guns where no matter your actions, you are still at risk.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14854
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Nov 08, 2017 4:42 am

xouper wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:You weaken your position by any reference to anything except Supreme Court Rulings. The only thing keeping guns on the street is the Supremes. Its the use and functionality of cars that keeps them on the street, There is no right at all to own, drive, use or store a car. ............................. Stuff like that.
Obviously, I do not agree.
Its not obvious at all. Just the opposite. Equating the obvious with your own personal fever.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by xouper » Wed Nov 08, 2017 4:43 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Several straw men there. What we have been discussing in this thread is mass shootings. Not gun homicide rate, which is a different program. Mexico is not a case of normal homicides, since it is in a state of war. Drug gangs versus the authorities. That leads to high death toll.

Mass shootings in Europe are, indeed, way, way less than in the USA. However, there have been some terrorist attacks recently. Also acts of war. The Chicago case we have discussed, and is not relevant to this thread.
They serve as examples that contradict your general claim that reducing gun availability will reduce gun homicides.

Lance Kennedy wrote:Sticking to the point of the thread, it is very clear than reducing gun availability in the USA will reduce mass shootings. It worked in Australia, and it would work in the USA, since sporting rifles are not as effective for mass murder.
As I already said, that is pure speculation. You have given no evidence that mass shootings in the US will be reduced by reducing gun availability.

Furthermore, you are cherry picking when you exclude the mass shootings in Paris.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by xouper » Wed Nov 08, 2017 4:49 am

TJrandom wrote:
xouper wrote:I forgot to add this other point in rebuttal:
TJrandom wrote:At least with cars, one can choose to drive or not, and ones skill, knowledge, and self-control vastly improves your chances of never having an accident or becoming a victim.
Many victims of drunk drivers were not other drivers, or even in a car, so that solution doesn't help those victims.

Also, are you really suggesting that sober drivers can rely on their skill to keep from getting clobbered by a drunk driver?

For example, when driving though an intersection with a green light, how many drivers are always vigilant enough to look to verify that some drunk driver is not running the red light in the cross street?
For your analogy to work for mass killings - you need to limit those killed by cars to those who were intentionally mowed down.
Drivers who drive drunk have done so intentionally. Being drunk does not absolve them of responsibility for their actions. They should be charged with murder. My analogy stands.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by xouper » Wed Nov 08, 2017 4:58 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
xouper wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:You weaken your position by any reference to anything except Supreme Court Rulings. The only thing keeping guns on the street is the Supremes. Its the use and functionality of cars that keeps them on the street, There is no right at all to own, drive, use or store a car. ............................. Stuff like that.
Obviously, I do not agree.
Its not obvious at all.
The fact that I disagree with your position was quite obvious to you a few posts ago.

Why is it no longer obvious that I disagree?

Fact: I disagree with your position as stated above.

It should now be quite obvious that I disagree.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11695
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by Lance Kennedy » Wed Nov 08, 2017 5:00 am

Here in NZ, drunk drivers who kill are, indeed, charged with murder (well, manslaughter, which is second degree murder in our laws.)

I am not cherry picking when I exclude the mass shootings in Paris, since they were not domestic incidents such as happen in the USA. They were terrorist action, where the perpetrators believed they were soldiers in war. However, even If you include those, the mass shootings in Europe are still way, way less than in the USA, where there is one a day on average.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14854
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Nov 08, 2017 5:11 am

X==what do you disagree on? Specifically? the only open issue is whether or not you have a constitutional right to own a car. I say you do not. Do you disagree?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4354
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by ElectricMonk » Wed Nov 08, 2017 5:12 am

xouper wrote: Image
Michele Bachmann?
Aren't you dying of shame, posting something from her?

This is such a stupid argument against gun-free zones that only intentional moronism can explain why anyone would use it.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by xouper » Wed Nov 08, 2017 5:17 am

TJrandom wrote:And yes - for drivers and cars in general - you are much safer as a licensed, trained, defensive driver - who looks both ways at intersections even though the light is green.
OK, I can agree with that.

That's true in general, not just as a defense against drunk drivers.

TJrandom wrote: Not perfect of course, but safer than with guns where no matter your actions, you are still at risk.
We are all always at risk for bad things to happen.

But I beg to differ that there is nothing that Americans can do to mitigate the risks of getting shot by a mass shooter.

If you carry concealed, you have more options when someone around starts shooting.

See for example
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlando_n ... b_shooting

Imagine if you will, if you had been trapped in the bathroom in Orlando when the shooting started. You might have had a chance to stop the shooter before he killed you and others.

Imagine if you will that if one of the teachers in Sandy Hook had been armed, she might have prevented many of those deaths. Not guaranteed, of course, but if the right person has a gun, he can stop the mass shooting from getting worse.

Imagine if you will, what might have happened in Sutherland (the topic of this thread) if the neighbor had not started shooting at the bad guy. How many more deaths might there have been? We can only speculate.

Or consider the Uber driver who stopped a mass shooting in Chicago because he was carrying a gun and shot the bad guy.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... story.html

Contrary to your assertion, I argue that there are things you can do to reduce the risk of being a victim in a mass shooting. Being armed is one of them. That choice may not be suitable for everyone, but I argue that everyone should be allowed to make the choice for themselves, and that the government should not be making it for them.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28915
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by Matthew Ellard » Wed Nov 08, 2017 5:18 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Matthew will tell you of the stunning success in Australia in preventing mass shootings by restricting access to firearms.
Frankly, if people shoot each other in extreme numbers in the USA and can't propose any way of reducing those numbers......well that's a scenario for Charles Darwin to comment on. I only have to worry about Australia. :D

Our problem is how to reduce domestic violence towards zero.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by xouper » Wed Nov 08, 2017 5:43 am

ElectricMonk wrote:Michele Bachmann?
Aren't you dying of shame, posting something from her?

This is such a stupid argument against gun-free zones that only intentional moronism can explain why anyone would use it.
Wow, three fallacies in a single post. A new record for you, Monk.

I did not cite Bachman as any sort of authority. She has zilch to do with this. It is merely a coincidence that her tweet was the one I chose to post. I could have posted any number of other versions of that same image that did not come from her.

My point was to show the image, not who tweeted it. To remedy your ridiculous objection, pretend I posted one of those other versions of the image.

Image

It doesn't make any difference who tweeted it. But the fact that you attempt to discredit me or the image merely because someone you don't like tweeted it, that is a textbook case of the fallacy called argumentum ad hominem.

So that's fail #1.

Here's fail #2: You have made several false accusations and insinuations about my character, which is against the rules on this forum.

Fail #3: You are trying to refute the argument with the fallacy of "appeal to emotion" by calling it stupid and moronic, but without justifying that assertion.

In fact it is not stupid, it is directly on point, and is a valid rebuttal to the idea of gun-free zones because it clearly shows the flaw in having gun-free zones.

Try instead to refute the argument on its merits, if you can.

While yer at it, try refuting this one too:

Image

And this one:

Image

And this one:

Image

They all pretty much make the same argument: criminals who are already going to violate the law by killing people are not going to be dissuaded from that by a gun-free zone. to them, one more minor crime is not going to stop them. All it does is make the law abiding citizens defenseless against such criminals.

If you wish to claim that's a stupid argument, then it is your burden to justify your claim. And it is not sufficient or even relevant to attack me personally.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4354
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by ElectricMonk » Wed Nov 08, 2017 5:51 am

The fallacies are all yours, X, which should be obvious if you and Michele Bachmann are agreeing on something.

You deliberately misunderstand the point of gun-free zones to make a fake argument.

Typical textbook pro-gun lobby tactics, but they don't work with people willing to think for themselves.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by xouper » Wed Nov 08, 2017 5:53 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:I am not cherry picking when I exclude the mass shootings in Paris, since they were not domestic incidents such as happen in the USA. They were terrorist action, where the perpetrators believed they were soldiers in war. However, even If you include those, the mass shootings in Europe are still way, way less than in the USA, where there is one a day on average.
That is factually incorrect, according to official FBI data.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by xouper » Wed Nov 08, 2017 6:00 am

ElectricMonk wrote:The fallacies are all yours, X, which should be obvious if you and Michele Bachmann are agreeing on something.
Fail #4: Yet another fallacy of argumentum ad hominem.

Edited to add:  You are trying to discredit my argument merely on the basis that someone you don't like agrees with my argument. That is clearly a faulty argument on your part. I have no idea who Ms Bachman is or why you don't like her. What other people think has no relevance to my argument.

ElectricMonk wrote:You deliberately misunderstand the point of gun-free zones to make a fake argument.
Fail #5: There you go again, making a claim without any supporting evidence.

If you're going to run your mouth with bogus accusations, especially on a skeptic forum intended to promote critical thinking, then at least you should back them up with something more than just arm-waving.

ElectricMonk wrote:Typical textbook pro-gun lobby tactics, but they don't work with people willing to think for themselves.
Fail #6: Yet another fallacy of argumentum ad hominem.

You haven't given any hint of your "thinking" on this issue. All you have done is post insults.

I have stated my argument. You have stated nothing of any substance at all.

You are now 0 for 6.


Edited to add further clarification of #4.
Last edited by xouper on Wed Nov 08, 2017 6:45 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4354
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by ElectricMonk » Wed Nov 08, 2017 6:02 am

X, what is the point of pedestrian zones?
of non-smoking zones?
of signs asking people to wear a shirt or trousers in a restaurant?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by xouper » Wed Nov 08, 2017 6:29 am

ElectricMonk wrote:X, what is the point of pedestrian zones?
of non-smoking zones?
of signs asking people to wear a shirt or trousers in a restaurant?
If you have a point to make about gun-free zones, then make it. I am not going to play your guessing games.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14854
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Nov 08, 2017 6:40 am

ElectricMonk wrote:X, what is the point of pedestrian zones?
of non-smoking zones?
of signs asking people to wear a shirt or trousers in a restaurant?
This is sooooooooooooooooo easy:

pedestrian zones: indicates where you can shoot pedestrians and people without guns....except for those who do..

non-smoking zones: indicates where you can shoot non-smokers and people without guns....except for those who do.

restaurant: indicates where you can shoot people wearing shirts or trousers (sic!) and people without guns....except for those who do.

Bonus: no-gun zones: indicates where you can shoot people without guns....except for those who do.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Pyrrho
Administrator
Posts: 9554
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:31 am

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by Pyrrho » Wed Nov 08, 2017 6:51 am

If I've done this right, this subforum is now on moderated status. All new posts are subject to my review and approval. I suggest that you keep drafts of your posts, because when they are disapproved, they are gone.
For any forum questions or concerns please e-mail skepticforum@gmail.com or send a PM.

The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.