|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On December 16 2012 15:22 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 15:15 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 15:11 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 15:01 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 14:54 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 14:45 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 14:41 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:37 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 16 2012 14:24 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:20 bluemanrocks wrote:
[quote]
While I understand your issue with the "considering a life" bit, I also buy the cops vs. average joe counter-argument; to my knowledge, cops aren't even supposed to pull weapons unless they are expecting to fire them, and I would venture that a civilian with less training, experience, and ability would not exactly have a cop's judgment, let alone 100% judgment... also, if you don't bother to explain (essentially a "that doesn't even dignify a response"), don't bother to explain THAT you won't bother to explain -- by doing just that you're not contributing you're just saying "I'm right, you're wrong, AND I'm above you." And that doesn't prove your point, disprove the other person's or advance the discussion at all. Cops aren't any more competent at shooting the right target than citizens are. In fact, most citizens have more sense than cops do. Anyone remember the shooting in NYC (where guns are banned btw) and the cops open fired on the guy and shot 9 or 10 innocent bystanders at the same time? Update: The Guardian is reporting that the nine bystanders who were shot (that didn't include the shooter's target) were all shot by police, and that Jeffrey Johnson never fired on police.http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/08/just-how-many-bystanders-did-new-york-police-shoot/56187/ I know the story, but you'd be hard-pressed to find much more consistent even anecdotal evidence to confirm this, and I certainly doubt any (I know of at least one evidencing the opposite conclusion; that the trained are more practically sensible than the untrained). I will edit this post with it once I find it. Furthermore I find that you are moving in the direction of saying generally law enforcement as a force is arbitrary? Perhaps I am expanding too much but it doesn't seem too far-fetched from "citizens are as sensible as police in matters that one might think are police-only" when combined with "equip citizens with police tools". There's nothing cops can do that any normal law-abiding citizen can't do. Any normal person can learn to aim and shoot a gun. I'm against the idea of having government do everything for you and for people to reply completely or even too much on the government for everything. If a robber breaks into your house, who says you can't take care of it yourself if you have to instead of waiting 5-10 mins for the cops to show up hoping they don't acciently shoot instead of the robber. In a free society everyone should have the right to defend their own lives, they shouldn't have to depend on a group of people we put there in the first place to serve us to save our own lives everytime something happens. And this reasoning is why the US averages over 10,000 deaths per year due to gun violence, while countries like japan average about 10. You seriously fail at statistics. You misrepresent data and use correlation = causation arguments. Nobody is going to take you seriously if you stretch the truth to meet your predispositions. I've just read the past 5 pages, and could have made probably 10 different posts telling you where you made an illogical argument (not disagreement, but an actual failure of logic). In 2008, when the United States experienced over 12,000 gun-related homicides, Japan had only 11, or fewer than half as many killed Friday in Newtown, Conn. That same year in the United States, 587 were killed just by accidental gun discharges. In 2006 in Japan, a nation of 128 million people, only two were killed by guns. I'll source it for you as well. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/the-japan-lesson-can-americans-learn-from-the-country-that-has-almost-zero-gun-deaths/ That's awesome, but it gives no context. If you're going to throw out numbers, at least use rates. Aggregates are statistically misleading. Furthermore, using THE lowest gun murder rate as an example to prove someone wrong is just dishonest. You don't prove him wrong by saying "Well look at Japan." Japan has a significantly different culture than us. And not every part of it that leads to less gun violence is necessarily a good thing. It's worth noting that despite a 149x greater rate of gun homocide, they only have a 14x greater rate of total homocide. Japan was just the example used in that article because they have the lowest gun death rates of any populous high income country in the world. If it makes you feel better, of all of the populous high income countries in the world, the us has 15 times the firearm homicide rate than other populous high income countries. Once again, a false statistic. The US rate is only about 3x that of Israel. Unless you consider a country with the 26th Per Capita GDP to be third world. I wouldn't know based on those clear and objective criteria you provided for defining your comparisons. Or lack thereof.
http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2012/jan/27/jim-moran/rep-jim-moran-says-us-gun-homicide-rate-20-times-h/
there you go.
|
On December 16 2012 15:22 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 15:15 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 15:11 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 15:01 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 14:54 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 14:45 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 14:41 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:37 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 16 2012 14:24 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:20 bluemanrocks wrote:
[quote]
While I understand your issue with the "considering a life" bit, I also buy the cops vs. average joe counter-argument; to my knowledge, cops aren't even supposed to pull weapons unless they are expecting to fire them, and I would venture that a civilian with less training, experience, and ability would not exactly have a cop's judgment, let alone 100% judgment... also, if you don't bother to explain (essentially a "that doesn't even dignify a response"), don't bother to explain THAT you won't bother to explain -- by doing just that you're not contributing you're just saying "I'm right, you're wrong, AND I'm above you." And that doesn't prove your point, disprove the other person's or advance the discussion at all. Cops aren't any more competent at shooting the right target than citizens are. In fact, most citizens have more sense than cops do. Anyone remember the shooting in NYC (where guns are banned btw) and the cops open fired on the guy and shot 9 or 10 innocent bystanders at the same time? Update: The Guardian is reporting that the nine bystanders who were shot (that didn't include the shooter's target) were all shot by police, and that Jeffrey Johnson never fired on police.http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/08/just-how-many-bystanders-did-new-york-police-shoot/56187/ I know the story, but you'd be hard-pressed to find much more consistent even anecdotal evidence to confirm this, and I certainly doubt any (I know of at least one evidencing the opposite conclusion; that the trained are more practically sensible than the untrained). I will edit this post with it once I find it. Furthermore I find that you are moving in the direction of saying generally law enforcement as a force is arbitrary? Perhaps I am expanding too much but it doesn't seem too far-fetched from "citizens are as sensible as police in matters that one might think are police-only" when combined with "equip citizens with police tools". There's nothing cops can do that any normal law-abiding citizen can't do. Any normal person can learn to aim and shoot a gun. I'm against the idea of having government do everything for you and for people to reply completely or even too much on the government for everything. If a robber breaks into your house, who says you can't take care of it yourself if you have to instead of waiting 5-10 mins for the cops to show up hoping they don't acciently shoot instead of the robber. In a free society everyone should have the right to defend their own lives, they shouldn't have to depend on a group of people we put there in the first place to serve us to save our own lives everytime something happens. And this reasoning is why the US averages over 10,000 deaths per year due to gun violence, while countries like japan average about 10. You seriously fail at statistics. You misrepresent data and use correlation = causation arguments. Nobody is going to take you seriously if you stretch the truth to meet your predispositions. I've just read the past 5 pages, and could have made probably 10 different posts telling you where you made an illogical argument (not disagreement, but an actual failure of logic). In 2008, when the United States experienced over 12,000 gun-related homicides, Japan had only 11, or fewer than half as many killed Friday in Newtown, Conn. That same year in the United States, 587 were killed just by accidental gun discharges. In 2006 in Japan, a nation of 128 million people, only two were killed by guns. I'll source it for you as well. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/the-japan-lesson-can-americans-learn-from-the-country-that-has-almost-zero-gun-deaths/ That's awesome, but it gives no context. If you're going to throw out numbers, at least use rates. Aggregates are statistically misleading. Furthermore, using THE lowest gun murder rate as an example to prove someone wrong is just dishonest. You don't prove him wrong by saying "Well look at Japan." Japan has a significantly different culture than us. And not every part of it that leads to less gun violence is necessarily a good thing. It's worth noting that despite a 149x greater rate of gun homocide, they only have a 14x greater rate of total homocide. Japan was just the example used in that article because they have the lowest gun death rates of any populous high income country in the world. If it makes you feel better, of all of the populous high income countries in the world, the us has 15 times the firearm homicide rate than other populous high income countries. Once again, a false statistic. The US rate is only about 3x that of Israel. Unless you consider a country with the 26th Per Capita GDP to be third world. I wouldn't know based on those clear and objective criteria you provided for defining your comparisons. Or lack thereof.
Actually about 5x that of Israel; where are you getting your facts??
Edit: I was mistaken, but actually hold that stats on firearm-related death of any kind are more telling than homicide alone.
|
On December 16 2012 15:26 bluemanrocks wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 15:22 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 15:15 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 15:11 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 15:01 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 14:54 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 14:45 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 14:41 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:37 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 16 2012 14:24 Esk23 wrote:[quote] Cops aren't any more competent at shooting the right target than citizens are. In fact, most citizens have more sense than cops do. Anyone remember the shooting in NYC (where guns are banned btw) and the cops open fired on the guy and shot 9 or 10 innocent bystanders at the same time? Update: The Guardian is reporting that the nine bystanders who were shot (that didn't include the shooter's target) were all shot by police, and that Jeffrey Johnson never fired on police.http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/08/just-how-many-bystanders-did-new-york-police-shoot/56187/ I know the story, but you'd be hard-pressed to find much more consistent even anecdotal evidence to confirm this, and I certainly doubt any (I know of at least one evidencing the opposite conclusion; that the trained are more practically sensible than the untrained). I will edit this post with it once I find it. Furthermore I find that you are moving in the direction of saying generally law enforcement as a force is arbitrary? Perhaps I am expanding too much but it doesn't seem too far-fetched from "citizens are as sensible as police in matters that one might think are police-only" when combined with "equip citizens with police tools". There's nothing cops can do that any normal law-abiding citizen can't do. Any normal person can learn to aim and shoot a gun. I'm against the idea of having government do everything for you and for people to reply completely or even too much on the government for everything. If a robber breaks into your house, who says you can't take care of it yourself if you have to instead of waiting 5-10 mins for the cops to show up hoping they don't acciently shoot instead of the robber. In a free society everyone should have the right to defend their own lives, they shouldn't have to depend on a group of people we put there in the first place to serve us to save our own lives everytime something happens. And this reasoning is why the US averages over 10,000 deaths per year due to gun violence, while countries like japan average about 10. You seriously fail at statistics. You misrepresent data and use correlation = causation arguments. Nobody is going to take you seriously if you stretch the truth to meet your predispositions. I've just read the past 5 pages, and could have made probably 10 different posts telling you where you made an illogical argument (not disagreement, but an actual failure of logic). In 2008, when the United States experienced over 12,000 gun-related homicides, Japan had only 11, or fewer than half as many killed Friday in Newtown, Conn. That same year in the United States, 587 were killed just by accidental gun discharges. In 2006 in Japan, a nation of 128 million people, only two were killed by guns. I'll source it for you as well. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/the-japan-lesson-can-americans-learn-from-the-country-that-has-almost-zero-gun-deaths/ That's awesome, but it gives no context. If you're going to throw out numbers, at least use rates. Aggregates are statistically misleading. Furthermore, using THE lowest gun murder rate as an example to prove someone wrong is just dishonest. You don't prove him wrong by saying "Well look at Japan." Japan has a significantly different culture than us. And not every part of it that leads to less gun violence is necessarily a good thing. It's worth noting that despite a 149x greater rate of gun homocide, they only have a 14x greater rate of total homocide. Japan was just the example used in that article because they have the lowest gun death rates of any populous high income country in the world. If it makes you feel better, of all of the populous high income countries in the world, the us has 15 times the firearm homicide rate than other populous high income countries. Once again, a false statistic. The US rate is only about 3x that of Israel. Unless you consider a country with the 26th Per Capita GDP to be third world. I wouldn't know based on those clear and objective criteria you provided for defining your comparisons. Or lack thereof. Actually about 5x that of Israel; where are you getting your facts??
He's comparing firearm homicides per 100k and you're comparing firearm related deaths. His numbers are correct. The vast amount of deaths are suicides (5.75 per 100k) and accidents (0.27 per 100k) .
USA 2.98 per 100k
Israel 0.94 per 100k
|
On December 16 2012 15:24 Keldrath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 15:18 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 15:11 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 15:04 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:54 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 14:45 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 14:41 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:37 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 16 2012 14:24 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:20 bluemanrocks wrote:
[quote]
While I understand your issue with the "considering a life" bit, I also buy the cops vs. average joe counter-argument; to my knowledge, cops aren't even supposed to pull weapons unless they are expecting to fire them, and I would venture that a civilian with less training, experience, and ability would not exactly have a cop's judgment, let alone 100% judgment... also, if you don't bother to explain (essentially a "that doesn't even dignify a response"), don't bother to explain THAT you won't bother to explain -- by doing just that you're not contributing you're just saying "I'm right, you're wrong, AND I'm above you." And that doesn't prove your point, disprove the other person's or advance the discussion at all. Cops aren't any more competent at shooting the right target than citizens are. In fact, most citizens have more sense than cops do. Anyone remember the shooting in NYC (where guns are banned btw) and the cops open fired on the guy and shot 9 or 10 innocent bystanders at the same time? Update: The Guardian is reporting that the nine bystanders who were shot (that didn't include the shooter's target) were all shot by police, and that Jeffrey Johnson never fired on police.http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/08/just-how-many-bystanders-did-new-york-police-shoot/56187/ I know the story, but you'd be hard-pressed to find much more consistent even anecdotal evidence to confirm this, and I certainly doubt any (I know of at least one evidencing the opposite conclusion; that the trained are more practically sensible than the untrained). I will edit this post with it once I find it. Furthermore I find that you are moving in the direction of saying generally law enforcement as a force is arbitrary? Perhaps I am expanding too much but it doesn't seem too far-fetched from "citizens are as sensible as police in matters that one might think are police-only" when combined with "equip citizens with police tools". There's nothing cops can do that any normal law-abiding citizen can't do. Any normal person can learn to aim and shoot a gun. I'm against the idea of having government do everything for you and for people to reply completely or even too much on the government for everything. If a robber breaks into your house, who says you can't take care of it yourself if you have to instead of waiting 5-10 mins for the cops to show up hoping they don't acciently shoot instead of the robber. In a free society everyone should have the right to defend their own lives, they shouldn't have to depend on a group of people we put there in the first place to serve us to save our own lives everytime something happens. And this reasoning is why the US averages over 10,000 deaths per year due to gun violence, while countries like japan average about 10. You seriously fail at statistics. You misrepresent data and use correlation = causation arguments. Nobody is going to take you seriously if you stretch the truth to meet your predispositions. I've just read the past 5 pages, and could have made probably 10 different posts telling you where you made an illogical argument (not disagreement, but an actual failure of logic). I posted a little while back he was beyond reasoning with. He's made it even more clear the more he posts. I feel like I'm spinning in circles and starting the gun argument all over again. If people scroll back and read what's been posted already it really answers/counters the arguements they're making now. I am not beyond reasoning with, you'r major objection was the fact that I don't count a fetus's life the same as an actual living person. And you even agreed I had a perfectly justified position because the only justification you could even think of to say it's a human life, is by adding spirituality into the mix, which is the exact as saying, well I think it's a human being because MAGIC! If you can't do better than magic, then don't say I'm unreasonable. With all due respect, you are picking an arbitrary, subjective point in time where you think something becomes a human being as well, same as him. I think his moral point is that you think you shouldn't be able to kill someone who's attempting to kill you, yet you're completely OK with killing what will -- scientifically proven -- become a human at a later time. While I'm not a pro-lifer, I also have a hard time understand how you rationalize that concept. It seems like a contradiction without justification. His is at least a contradiction with a justification (not ok with ever taking life, unless they try to take a life first). I believe it to be a last resort, not a first one, which is the main disagreement between me and him. Something that potentially could become a human, is not the same in any sense to someone that already is a human with life experience and everything that goes along with that. It's not a human yet, and no one has ever proven that it is, despite the topic being debated for so long. That's my justification.
You can't call something a "last resort". You cannot know the temperament of and individual who is wielding a knife at you. You CANNOT know his subjective intent. That is the reason "intent" in American law does not refer to subjective intent, but rather objective intent. You cannot know subjective intent as a third party--ever. There is no first or last resort, there is merely a choice you must make.
You are also making a definition of "human" that is yours and yours alone. It's not objective. Your line is that when something has thoughts it cannot be killed. By that reasoning, killing an animal would be just as offensive as killing another human, which makes zero sense to me. You also have no way of proving that unborn children do not have thoughts/experiences either.
|
On December 16 2012 15:34 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 15:26 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 16 2012 15:22 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 15:15 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 15:11 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 15:01 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 14:54 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 14:45 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 14:41 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:37 bluemanrocks wrote:
[quote]
I know the story, but you'd be hard-pressed to find much more consistent even anecdotal evidence to confirm this, and I certainly doubt any (I know of at least one evidencing the opposite conclusion; that the trained are more practically sensible than the untrained). I will edit this post with it once I find it. Furthermore I find that you are moving in the direction of saying generally law enforcement as a force is arbitrary? Perhaps I am expanding too much but it doesn't seem too far-fetched from "citizens are as sensible as police in matters that one might think are police-only" when combined with "equip citizens with police tools". There's nothing cops can do that any normal law-abiding citizen can't do. Any normal person can learn to aim and shoot a gun. I'm against the idea of having government do everything for you and for people to reply completely or even too much on the government for everything. If a robber breaks into your house, who says you can't take care of it yourself if you have to instead of waiting 5-10 mins for the cops to show up hoping they don't acciently shoot instead of the robber. In a free society everyone should have the right to defend their own lives, they shouldn't have to depend on a group of people we put there in the first place to serve us to save our own lives everytime something happens. And this reasoning is why the US averages over 10,000 deaths per year due to gun violence, while countries like japan average about 10. You seriously fail at statistics. You misrepresent data and use correlation = causation arguments. Nobody is going to take you seriously if you stretch the truth to meet your predispositions. I've just read the past 5 pages, and could have made probably 10 different posts telling you where you made an illogical argument (not disagreement, but an actual failure of logic). In 2008, when the United States experienced over 12,000 gun-related homicides, Japan had only 11, or fewer than half as many killed Friday in Newtown, Conn. That same year in the United States, 587 were killed just by accidental gun discharges. In 2006 in Japan, a nation of 128 million people, only two were killed by guns. I'll source it for you as well. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/the-japan-lesson-can-americans-learn-from-the-country-that-has-almost-zero-gun-deaths/ That's awesome, but it gives no context. If you're going to throw out numbers, at least use rates. Aggregates are statistically misleading. Furthermore, using THE lowest gun murder rate as an example to prove someone wrong is just dishonest. You don't prove him wrong by saying "Well look at Japan." Japan has a significantly different culture than us. And not every part of it that leads to less gun violence is necessarily a good thing. It's worth noting that despite a 149x greater rate of gun homocide, they only have a 14x greater rate of total homocide. Japan was just the example used in that article because they have the lowest gun death rates of any populous high income country in the world. If it makes you feel better, of all of the populous high income countries in the world, the us has 15 times the firearm homicide rate than other populous high income countries. Once again, a false statistic. The US rate is only about 3x that of Israel. Unless you consider a country with the 26th Per Capita GDP to be third world. I wouldn't know based on those clear and objective criteria you provided for defining your comparisons. Or lack thereof. Actually about 5x that of Israel; where are you getting your facts?? He's comparing firearm homicides per 100k and you're comparing firearm related deaths. His numbers are correct. The vast amount of deaths are suicides (5.75 per 100k) and accidents (0.27 per 100k) . USA 2.98 per 100k Israel 0.94 per 100k
Israel wasn't a country that was on the list. It had Australia, Austria, Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom (England and Wales), United Kingdom (Northern Ireland) and United Kingdom (Scotland).
|
On December 16 2012 15:41 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 15:24 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 15:18 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 15:11 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 15:04 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:54 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 14:45 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 14:41 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:37 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 16 2012 14:24 Esk23 wrote:[quote] Cops aren't any more competent at shooting the right target than citizens are. In fact, most citizens have more sense than cops do. Anyone remember the shooting in NYC (where guns are banned btw) and the cops open fired on the guy and shot 9 or 10 innocent bystanders at the same time? Update: The Guardian is reporting that the nine bystanders who were shot (that didn't include the shooter's target) were all shot by police, and that Jeffrey Johnson never fired on police.http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/08/just-how-many-bystanders-did-new-york-police-shoot/56187/ I know the story, but you'd be hard-pressed to find much more consistent even anecdotal evidence to confirm this, and I certainly doubt any (I know of at least one evidencing the opposite conclusion; that the trained are more practically sensible than the untrained). I will edit this post with it once I find it. Furthermore I find that you are moving in the direction of saying generally law enforcement as a force is arbitrary? Perhaps I am expanding too much but it doesn't seem too far-fetched from "citizens are as sensible as police in matters that one might think are police-only" when combined with "equip citizens with police tools". There's nothing cops can do that any normal law-abiding citizen can't do. Any normal person can learn to aim and shoot a gun. I'm against the idea of having government do everything for you and for people to reply completely or even too much on the government for everything. If a robber breaks into your house, who says you can't take care of it yourself if you have to instead of waiting 5-10 mins for the cops to show up hoping they don't acciently shoot instead of the robber. In a free society everyone should have the right to defend their own lives, they shouldn't have to depend on a group of people we put there in the first place to serve us to save our own lives everytime something happens. And this reasoning is why the US averages over 10,000 deaths per year due to gun violence, while countries like japan average about 10. You seriously fail at statistics. You misrepresent data and use correlation = causation arguments. Nobody is going to take you seriously if you stretch the truth to meet your predispositions. I've just read the past 5 pages, and could have made probably 10 different posts telling you where you made an illogical argument (not disagreement, but an actual failure of logic). I posted a little while back he was beyond reasoning with. He's made it even more clear the more he posts. I feel like I'm spinning in circles and starting the gun argument all over again. If people scroll back and read what's been posted already it really answers/counters the arguements they're making now. I am not beyond reasoning with, you'r major objection was the fact that I don't count a fetus's life the same as an actual living person. And you even agreed I had a perfectly justified position because the only justification you could even think of to say it's a human life, is by adding spirituality into the mix, which is the exact as saying, well I think it's a human being because MAGIC! If you can't do better than magic, then don't say I'm unreasonable. With all due respect, you are picking an arbitrary, subjective point in time where you think something becomes a human being as well, same as him. I think his moral point is that you think you shouldn't be able to kill someone who's attempting to kill you, yet you're completely OK with killing what will -- scientifically proven -- become a human at a later time. While I'm not a pro-lifer, I also have a hard time understand how you rationalize that concept. It seems like a contradiction without justification. His is at least a contradiction with a justification (not ok with ever taking life, unless they try to take a life first). I believe it to be a last resort, not a first one, which is the main disagreement between me and him. Something that potentially could become a human, is not the same in any sense to someone that already is a human with life experience and everything that goes along with that. It's not a human yet, and no one has ever proven that it is, despite the topic being debated for so long. That's my justification. You can't call something a "last resort". You cannot know the temperament of and individual who is wielding a knife at you. You CANNOT know his subjective intent. That is the reason "intent" in American law does not refer to subjective intent, but rather objective intent. You cannot know subjective intent as a third party--ever. There is no first or last resort, there is merely a choice you must make. You are also making a definition of "human" that is yours and yours alone. It's not objective. Your line is that when something has thoughts it cannot be killed. By that reasoning, killing an animal would be just as offensive as killing another human, which makes zero sense to me. You also have no way of proving that unborn children do not have thoughts/experiences either.
Killing is always the last resort.
And your understanding on science leaves much to be desired, we know a lot more than you think we know.
|
On December 16 2012 15:41 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 15:24 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 15:18 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 15:11 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 15:04 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:54 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 14:45 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 14:41 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:37 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 16 2012 14:24 Esk23 wrote:[quote] Cops aren't any more competent at shooting the right target than citizens are. In fact, most citizens have more sense than cops do. Anyone remember the shooting in NYC (where guns are banned btw) and the cops open fired on the guy and shot 9 or 10 innocent bystanders at the same time? Update: The Guardian is reporting that the nine bystanders who were shot (that didn't include the shooter's target) were all shot by police, and that Jeffrey Johnson never fired on police.http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/08/just-how-many-bystanders-did-new-york-police-shoot/56187/ I know the story, but you'd be hard-pressed to find much more consistent even anecdotal evidence to confirm this, and I certainly doubt any (I know of at least one evidencing the opposite conclusion; that the trained are more practically sensible than the untrained). I will edit this post with it once I find it. Furthermore I find that you are moving in the direction of saying generally law enforcement as a force is arbitrary? Perhaps I am expanding too much but it doesn't seem too far-fetched from "citizens are as sensible as police in matters that one might think are police-only" when combined with "equip citizens with police tools". There's nothing cops can do that any normal law-abiding citizen can't do. Any normal person can learn to aim and shoot a gun. I'm against the idea of having government do everything for you and for people to reply completely or even too much on the government for everything. If a robber breaks into your house, who says you can't take care of it yourself if you have to instead of waiting 5-10 mins for the cops to show up hoping they don't acciently shoot instead of the robber. In a free society everyone should have the right to defend their own lives, they shouldn't have to depend on a group of people we put there in the first place to serve us to save our own lives everytime something happens. And this reasoning is why the US averages over 10,000 deaths per year due to gun violence, while countries like japan average about 10. You seriously fail at statistics. You misrepresent data and use correlation = causation arguments. Nobody is going to take you seriously if you stretch the truth to meet your predispositions. I've just read the past 5 pages, and could have made probably 10 different posts telling you where you made an illogical argument (not disagreement, but an actual failure of logic). I posted a little while back he was beyond reasoning with. He's made it even more clear the more he posts. I feel like I'm spinning in circles and starting the gun argument all over again. If people scroll back and read what's been posted already it really answers/counters the arguements they're making now. I am not beyond reasoning with, you'r major objection was the fact that I don't count a fetus's life the same as an actual living person. And you even agreed I had a perfectly justified position because the only justification you could even think of to say it's a human life, is by adding spirituality into the mix, which is the exact as saying, well I think it's a human being because MAGIC! If you can't do better than magic, then don't say I'm unreasonable. With all due respect, you are picking an arbitrary, subjective point in time where you think something becomes a human being as well, same as him. I think his moral point is that you think you shouldn't be able to kill someone who's attempting to kill you, yet you're completely OK with killing what will -- scientifically proven -- become a human at a later time. While I'm not a pro-lifer, I also have a hard time understand how you rationalize that concept. It seems like a contradiction without justification. His is at least a contradiction with a justification (not ok with ever taking life, unless they try to take a life first). I believe it to be a last resort, not a first one, which is the main disagreement between me and him. Something that potentially could become a human, is not the same in any sense to someone that already is a human with life experience and everything that goes along with that. It's not a human yet, and no one has ever proven that it is, despite the topic being debated for so long. That's my justification. You can't call something a "last resort". You cannot know the temperament of and individual who is wielding a knife at you. You CANNOT know his subjective intent. That is the reason "intent" in American law does not refer to subjective intent, but rather objective intent. You cannot know subjective intent as a third party--ever. There is no first or last resort, there is merely a choice you must make. You are also making a definition of "human" that is yours and yours alone. It's not objective. Your line is that when something has thoughts it cannot be killed. By that reasoning, killing an animal would be just as offensive as killing another human, which makes zero sense to me. You also have no way of proving that unborn children do not have thoughts/experiences either.
If a mugger was tried in court who had not actually attempted to kill the muggee it would likely be argued the intent was to steal and not to kill.
|
On December 16 2012 15:25 Keldrath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 15:22 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 15:15 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 15:11 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 15:01 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 14:54 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 14:45 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 14:41 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:37 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 16 2012 14:24 Esk23 wrote:[quote] Cops aren't any more competent at shooting the right target than citizens are. In fact, most citizens have more sense than cops do. Anyone remember the shooting in NYC (where guns are banned btw) and the cops open fired on the guy and shot 9 or 10 innocent bystanders at the same time? Update: The Guardian is reporting that the nine bystanders who were shot (that didn't include the shooter's target) were all shot by police, and that Jeffrey Johnson never fired on police.http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/08/just-how-many-bystanders-did-new-york-police-shoot/56187/ I know the story, but you'd be hard-pressed to find much more consistent even anecdotal evidence to confirm this, and I certainly doubt any (I know of at least one evidencing the opposite conclusion; that the trained are more practically sensible than the untrained). I will edit this post with it once I find it. Furthermore I find that you are moving in the direction of saying generally law enforcement as a force is arbitrary? Perhaps I am expanding too much but it doesn't seem too far-fetched from "citizens are as sensible as police in matters that one might think are police-only" when combined with "equip citizens with police tools". There's nothing cops can do that any normal law-abiding citizen can't do. Any normal person can learn to aim and shoot a gun. I'm against the idea of having government do everything for you and for people to reply completely or even too much on the government for everything. If a robber breaks into your house, who says you can't take care of it yourself if you have to instead of waiting 5-10 mins for the cops to show up hoping they don't acciently shoot instead of the robber. In a free society everyone should have the right to defend their own lives, they shouldn't have to depend on a group of people we put there in the first place to serve us to save our own lives everytime something happens. And this reasoning is why the US averages over 10,000 deaths per year due to gun violence, while countries like japan average about 10. You seriously fail at statistics. You misrepresent data and use correlation = causation arguments. Nobody is going to take you seriously if you stretch the truth to meet your predispositions. I've just read the past 5 pages, and could have made probably 10 different posts telling you where you made an illogical argument (not disagreement, but an actual failure of logic). In 2008, when the United States experienced over 12,000 gun-related homicides, Japan had only 11, or fewer than half as many killed Friday in Newtown, Conn. That same year in the United States, 587 were killed just by accidental gun discharges. In 2006 in Japan, a nation of 128 million people, only two were killed by guns. I'll source it for you as well. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/the-japan-lesson-can-americans-learn-from-the-country-that-has-almost-zero-gun-deaths/ That's awesome, but it gives no context. If you're going to throw out numbers, at least use rates. Aggregates are statistically misleading. Furthermore, using THE lowest gun murder rate as an example to prove someone wrong is just dishonest. You don't prove him wrong by saying "Well look at Japan." Japan has a significantly different culture than us. And not every part of it that leads to less gun violence is necessarily a good thing. It's worth noting that despite a 149x greater rate of gun homocide, they only have a 14x greater rate of total homocide. Japan was just the example used in that article because they have the lowest gun death rates of any populous high income country in the world. If it makes you feel better, of all of the populous high income countries in the world, the us has 15 times the firearm homicide rate than other populous high income countries. Once again, a false statistic. The US rate is only about 3x that of Israel. Unless you consider a country with the 26th Per Capita GDP to be third world. I wouldn't know based on those clear and objective criteria you provided for defining your comparisons. Or lack thereof. http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2012/jan/27/jim-moran/rep-jim-moran-says-us-gun-homicide-rate-20-times-h/there you go.
I didn't realize this argument was restricted to rich EU nations. Must be nice when you can just arbitrarily limit the debate to groups that give you the result you desire.
|
On December 16 2012 15:41 Keldrath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 15:34 heliusx wrote:On December 16 2012 15:26 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 16 2012 15:22 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 15:15 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 15:11 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 15:01 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 14:54 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 14:45 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 14:41 Esk23 wrote:
[quote]
There's nothing cops can do that any normal law-abiding citizen can't do. Any normal person can learn to aim and shoot a gun. I'm against the idea of having government do everything for you and for people to reply completely or even too much on the government for everything. If a robber breaks into your house, who says you can't take care of it yourself if you have to instead of waiting 5-10 mins for the cops to show up hoping they don't acciently shoot instead of the robber.
In a free society everyone should have the right to defend their own lives, they shouldn't have to depend on a group of people we put there in the first place to serve us to save our own lives everytime something happens. And this reasoning is why the US averages over 10,000 deaths per year due to gun violence, while countries like japan average about 10. You seriously fail at statistics. You misrepresent data and use correlation = causation arguments. Nobody is going to take you seriously if you stretch the truth to meet your predispositions. I've just read the past 5 pages, and could have made probably 10 different posts telling you where you made an illogical argument (not disagreement, but an actual failure of logic). In 2008, when the United States experienced over 12,000 gun-related homicides, Japan had only 11, or fewer than half as many killed Friday in Newtown, Conn. That same year in the United States, 587 were killed just by accidental gun discharges. In 2006 in Japan, a nation of 128 million people, only two were killed by guns. I'll source it for you as well. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/the-japan-lesson-can-americans-learn-from-the-country-that-has-almost-zero-gun-deaths/ That's awesome, but it gives no context. If you're going to throw out numbers, at least use rates. Aggregates are statistically misleading. Furthermore, using THE lowest gun murder rate as an example to prove someone wrong is just dishonest. You don't prove him wrong by saying "Well look at Japan." Japan has a significantly different culture than us. And not every part of it that leads to less gun violence is necessarily a good thing. It's worth noting that despite a 149x greater rate of gun homocide, they only have a 14x greater rate of total homocide. Japan was just the example used in that article because they have the lowest gun death rates of any populous high income country in the world. If it makes you feel better, of all of the populous high income countries in the world, the us has 15 times the firearm homicide rate than other populous high income countries. Once again, a false statistic. The US rate is only about 3x that of Israel. Unless you consider a country with the 26th Per Capita GDP to be third world. I wouldn't know based on those clear and objective criteria you provided for defining your comparisons. Or lack thereof. Actually about 5x that of Israel; where are you getting your facts?? He's comparing firearm homicides per 100k and you're comparing firearm related deaths. His numbers are correct. The vast amount of deaths are suicides (5.75 per 100k) and accidents (0.27 per 100k) . USA 2.98 per 100k Israel 0.94 per 100k Israel wasn't a country that was on the list. It had Australia, Austria, Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom (England and Wales), United Kingdom (Northern Ireland) and United Kingdom (Scotland).
I never once commented on any of your links. I didn't even click them. Do you even read what I wrote before you respond?
|
On December 16 2012 15:46 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 15:25 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 15:22 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 15:15 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 15:11 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 15:01 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 14:54 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 14:45 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 14:41 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:37 bluemanrocks wrote:
[quote]
I know the story, but you'd be hard-pressed to find much more consistent even anecdotal evidence to confirm this, and I certainly doubt any (I know of at least one evidencing the opposite conclusion; that the trained are more practically sensible than the untrained). I will edit this post with it once I find it. Furthermore I find that you are moving in the direction of saying generally law enforcement as a force is arbitrary? Perhaps I am expanding too much but it doesn't seem too far-fetched from "citizens are as sensible as police in matters that one might think are police-only" when combined with "equip citizens with police tools". There's nothing cops can do that any normal law-abiding citizen can't do. Any normal person can learn to aim and shoot a gun. I'm against the idea of having government do everything for you and for people to reply completely or even too much on the government for everything. If a robber breaks into your house, who says you can't take care of it yourself if you have to instead of waiting 5-10 mins for the cops to show up hoping they don't acciently shoot instead of the robber. In a free society everyone should have the right to defend their own lives, they shouldn't have to depend on a group of people we put there in the first place to serve us to save our own lives everytime something happens. And this reasoning is why the US averages over 10,000 deaths per year due to gun violence, while countries like japan average about 10. You seriously fail at statistics. You misrepresent data and use correlation = causation arguments. Nobody is going to take you seriously if you stretch the truth to meet your predispositions. I've just read the past 5 pages, and could have made probably 10 different posts telling you where you made an illogical argument (not disagreement, but an actual failure of logic). In 2008, when the United States experienced over 12,000 gun-related homicides, Japan had only 11, or fewer than half as many killed Friday in Newtown, Conn. That same year in the United States, 587 were killed just by accidental gun discharges. In 2006 in Japan, a nation of 128 million people, only two were killed by guns. I'll source it for you as well. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/the-japan-lesson-can-americans-learn-from-the-country-that-has-almost-zero-gun-deaths/ That's awesome, but it gives no context. If you're going to throw out numbers, at least use rates. Aggregates are statistically misleading. Furthermore, using THE lowest gun murder rate as an example to prove someone wrong is just dishonest. You don't prove him wrong by saying "Well look at Japan." Japan has a significantly different culture than us. And not every part of it that leads to less gun violence is necessarily a good thing. It's worth noting that despite a 149x greater rate of gun homocide, they only have a 14x greater rate of total homocide. Japan was just the example used in that article because they have the lowest gun death rates of any populous high income country in the world. If it makes you feel better, of all of the populous high income countries in the world, the us has 15 times the firearm homicide rate than other populous high income countries. Once again, a false statistic. The US rate is only about 3x that of Israel. Unless you consider a country with the 26th Per Capita GDP to be third world. I wouldn't know based on those clear and objective criteria you provided for defining your comparisons. Or lack thereof. http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2012/jan/27/jim-moran/rep-jim-moran-says-us-gun-homicide-rate-20-times-h/there you go. I didn't realize this argument was restricted to rich EU nations. Must be nice when you can just arbitrarily limit the debate to groups that give you the result you desire.
Right, so while I compare us to other first world countries, you want to compare us to third world nations like mexico.
|
On December 16 2012 15:48 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 15:41 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 15:34 heliusx wrote:On December 16 2012 15:26 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 16 2012 15:22 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 15:15 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 15:11 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 15:01 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 14:54 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 14:45 Keldrath wrote:
[quote]
And this reasoning is why the US averages over 10,000 deaths per year due to gun violence, while countries like japan average about 10.
You seriously fail at statistics. You misrepresent data and use correlation = causation arguments. Nobody is going to take you seriously if you stretch the truth to meet your predispositions. I've just read the past 5 pages, and could have made probably 10 different posts telling you where you made an illogical argument (not disagreement, but an actual failure of logic). In 2008, when the United States experienced over 12,000 gun-related homicides, Japan had only 11, or fewer than half as many killed Friday in Newtown, Conn. That same year in the United States, 587 were killed just by accidental gun discharges. In 2006 in Japan, a nation of 128 million people, only two were killed by guns. I'll source it for you as well. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/the-japan-lesson-can-americans-learn-from-the-country-that-has-almost-zero-gun-deaths/ That's awesome, but it gives no context. If you're going to throw out numbers, at least use rates. Aggregates are statistically misleading. Furthermore, using THE lowest gun murder rate as an example to prove someone wrong is just dishonest. You don't prove him wrong by saying "Well look at Japan." Japan has a significantly different culture than us. And not every part of it that leads to less gun violence is necessarily a good thing. It's worth noting that despite a 149x greater rate of gun homocide, they only have a 14x greater rate of total homocide. Japan was just the example used in that article because they have the lowest gun death rates of any populous high income country in the world. If it makes you feel better, of all of the populous high income countries in the world, the us has 15 times the firearm homicide rate than other populous high income countries. Once again, a false statistic. The US rate is only about 3x that of Israel. Unless you consider a country with the 26th Per Capita GDP to be third world. I wouldn't know based on those clear and objective criteria you provided for defining your comparisons. Or lack thereof. Actually about 5x that of Israel; where are you getting your facts?? He's comparing firearm homicides per 100k and you're comparing firearm related deaths. His numbers are correct. The vast amount of deaths are suicides (5.75 per 100k) and accidents (0.27 per 100k) . USA 2.98 per 100k Israel 0.94 per 100k Israel wasn't a country that was on the list. It had Australia, Austria, Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom (England and Wales), United Kingdom (Northern Ireland) and United Kingdom (Scotland). I never once commented on any of your links. I didn't even click them. Do you even read what I wrote before you respond? I could have just quoted him if that would have made you feel better. I just figured id quote you because you were the last person to speak on the israel thing and i just wanted to clear up that it wasn't a factor in the statistics anyways.
|
On December 16 2012 15:46 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 15:25 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 15:22 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 15:15 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 15:11 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 15:01 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 14:54 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 14:45 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 14:41 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:37 bluemanrocks wrote:
[quote]
I know the story, but you'd be hard-pressed to find much more consistent even anecdotal evidence to confirm this, and I certainly doubt any (I know of at least one evidencing the opposite conclusion; that the trained are more practically sensible than the untrained). I will edit this post with it once I find it. Furthermore I find that you are moving in the direction of saying generally law enforcement as a force is arbitrary? Perhaps I am expanding too much but it doesn't seem too far-fetched from "citizens are as sensible as police in matters that one might think are police-only" when combined with "equip citizens with police tools". There's nothing cops can do that any normal law-abiding citizen can't do. Any normal person can learn to aim and shoot a gun. I'm against the idea of having government do everything for you and for people to reply completely or even too much on the government for everything. If a robber breaks into your house, who says you can't take care of it yourself if you have to instead of waiting 5-10 mins for the cops to show up hoping they don't acciently shoot instead of the robber. In a free society everyone should have the right to defend their own lives, they shouldn't have to depend on a group of people we put there in the first place to serve us to save our own lives everytime something happens. And this reasoning is why the US averages over 10,000 deaths per year due to gun violence, while countries like japan average about 10. You seriously fail at statistics. You misrepresent data and use correlation = causation arguments. Nobody is going to take you seriously if you stretch the truth to meet your predispositions. I've just read the past 5 pages, and could have made probably 10 different posts telling you where you made an illogical argument (not disagreement, but an actual failure of logic). In 2008, when the United States experienced over 12,000 gun-related homicides, Japan had only 11, or fewer than half as many killed Friday in Newtown, Conn. That same year in the United States, 587 were killed just by accidental gun discharges. In 2006 in Japan, a nation of 128 million people, only two were killed by guns. I'll source it for you as well. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/the-japan-lesson-can-americans-learn-from-the-country-that-has-almost-zero-gun-deaths/ That's awesome, but it gives no context. If you're going to throw out numbers, at least use rates. Aggregates are statistically misleading. Furthermore, using THE lowest gun murder rate as an example to prove someone wrong is just dishonest. You don't prove him wrong by saying "Well look at Japan." Japan has a significantly different culture than us. And not every part of it that leads to less gun violence is necessarily a good thing. It's worth noting that despite a 149x greater rate of gun homocide, they only have a 14x greater rate of total homocide. Japan was just the example used in that article because they have the lowest gun death rates of any populous high income country in the world. If it makes you feel better, of all of the populous high income countries in the world, the us has 15 times the firearm homicide rate than other populous high income countries. Once again, a false statistic. The US rate is only about 3x that of Israel. Unless you consider a country with the 26th Per Capita GDP to be third world. I wouldn't know based on those clear and objective criteria you provided for defining your comparisons. Or lack thereof. http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2012/jan/27/jim-moran/rep-jim-moran-says-us-gun-homicide-rate-20-times-h/there you go. I didn't realize this argument was restricted to rich EU nations. Must be nice when you can just arbitrarily limit the debate to groups that give you the result you desire.
Though I would agree with the arbitrary limitation issue I also would proffer that the U.S. is more comparable in many ways to rich EU nations than to most any other category. If you're going for pure math obviously you want all the data but many people have been arguing that other nations have different cultures and histories and that affects their statistics... in this way I'd trust rich EU stats most.
|
On December 16 2012 15:45 bluemanrocks wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 15:41 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 15:24 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 15:18 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 15:11 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 15:04 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:54 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 14:45 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 14:41 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:37 bluemanrocks wrote:
[quote]
I know the story, but you'd be hard-pressed to find much more consistent even anecdotal evidence to confirm this, and I certainly doubt any (I know of at least one evidencing the opposite conclusion; that the trained are more practically sensible than the untrained). I will edit this post with it once I find it. Furthermore I find that you are moving in the direction of saying generally law enforcement as a force is arbitrary? Perhaps I am expanding too much but it doesn't seem too far-fetched from "citizens are as sensible as police in matters that one might think are police-only" when combined with "equip citizens with police tools". There's nothing cops can do that any normal law-abiding citizen can't do. Any normal person can learn to aim and shoot a gun. I'm against the idea of having government do everything for you and for people to reply completely or even too much on the government for everything. If a robber breaks into your house, who says you can't take care of it yourself if you have to instead of waiting 5-10 mins for the cops to show up hoping they don't acciently shoot instead of the robber. In a free society everyone should have the right to defend their own lives, they shouldn't have to depend on a group of people we put there in the first place to serve us to save our own lives everytime something happens. And this reasoning is why the US averages over 10,000 deaths per year due to gun violence, while countries like japan average about 10. You seriously fail at statistics. You misrepresent data and use correlation = causation arguments. Nobody is going to take you seriously if you stretch the truth to meet your predispositions. I've just read the past 5 pages, and could have made probably 10 different posts telling you where you made an illogical argument (not disagreement, but an actual failure of logic). I posted a little while back he was beyond reasoning with. He's made it even more clear the more he posts. I feel like I'm spinning in circles and starting the gun argument all over again. If people scroll back and read what's been posted already it really answers/counters the arguements they're making now. I am not beyond reasoning with, you'r major objection was the fact that I don't count a fetus's life the same as an actual living person. And you even agreed I had a perfectly justified position because the only justification you could even think of to say it's a human life, is by adding spirituality into the mix, which is the exact as saying, well I think it's a human being because MAGIC! If you can't do better than magic, then don't say I'm unreasonable. With all due respect, you are picking an arbitrary, subjective point in time where you think something becomes a human being as well, same as him. I think his moral point is that you think you shouldn't be able to kill someone who's attempting to kill you, yet you're completely OK with killing what will -- scientifically proven -- become a human at a later time. While I'm not a pro-lifer, I also have a hard time understand how you rationalize that concept. It seems like a contradiction without justification. His is at least a contradiction with a justification (not ok with ever taking life, unless they try to take a life first). I believe it to be a last resort, not a first one, which is the main disagreement between me and him. Something that potentially could become a human, is not the same in any sense to someone that already is a human with life experience and everything that goes along with that. It's not a human yet, and no one has ever proven that it is, despite the topic being debated for so long. That's my justification. You can't call something a "last resort". You cannot know the temperament of and individual who is wielding a knife at you. You CANNOT know his subjective intent. That is the reason "intent" in American law does not refer to subjective intent, but rather objective intent. You cannot know subjective intent as a third party--ever. There is no first or last resort, there is merely a choice you must make. You are also making a definition of "human" that is yours and yours alone. It's not objective. Your line is that when something has thoughts it cannot be killed. By that reasoning, killing an animal would be just as offensive as killing another human, which makes zero sense to me. You also have no way of proving that unborn children do not have thoughts/experiences either. If a mugger was tried in court who had not actually attempted to kill the muggee it would likely be argued the intent was to steal and not to kill.
What? So he approached the guy with a knife to mug him and ended up killing him and the defense is "jk i was just mugging him"?
|
On December 16 2012 15:50 Keldrath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 15:46 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 15:25 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 15:22 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 15:15 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 15:11 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 15:01 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 14:54 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 14:45 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 14:41 Esk23 wrote:
[quote]
There's nothing cops can do that any normal law-abiding citizen can't do. Any normal person can learn to aim and shoot a gun. I'm against the idea of having government do everything for you and for people to reply completely or even too much on the government for everything. If a robber breaks into your house, who says you can't take care of it yourself if you have to instead of waiting 5-10 mins for the cops to show up hoping they don't acciently shoot instead of the robber.
In a free society everyone should have the right to defend their own lives, they shouldn't have to depend on a group of people we put there in the first place to serve us to save our own lives everytime something happens. And this reasoning is why the US averages over 10,000 deaths per year due to gun violence, while countries like japan average about 10. You seriously fail at statistics. You misrepresent data and use correlation = causation arguments. Nobody is going to take you seriously if you stretch the truth to meet your predispositions. I've just read the past 5 pages, and could have made probably 10 different posts telling you where you made an illogical argument (not disagreement, but an actual failure of logic). In 2008, when the United States experienced over 12,000 gun-related homicides, Japan had only 11, or fewer than half as many killed Friday in Newtown, Conn. That same year in the United States, 587 were killed just by accidental gun discharges. In 2006 in Japan, a nation of 128 million people, only two were killed by guns. I'll source it for you as well. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/the-japan-lesson-can-americans-learn-from-the-country-that-has-almost-zero-gun-deaths/ That's awesome, but it gives no context. If you're going to throw out numbers, at least use rates. Aggregates are statistically misleading. Furthermore, using THE lowest gun murder rate as an example to prove someone wrong is just dishonest. You don't prove him wrong by saying "Well look at Japan." Japan has a significantly different culture than us. And not every part of it that leads to less gun violence is necessarily a good thing. It's worth noting that despite a 149x greater rate of gun homocide, they only have a 14x greater rate of total homocide. Japan was just the example used in that article because they have the lowest gun death rates of any populous high income country in the world. If it makes you feel better, of all of the populous high income countries in the world, the us has 15 times the firearm homicide rate than other populous high income countries. Once again, a false statistic. The US rate is only about 3x that of Israel. Unless you consider a country with the 26th Per Capita GDP to be third world. I wouldn't know based on those clear and objective criteria you provided for defining your comparisons. Or lack thereof. http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2012/jan/27/jim-moran/rep-jim-moran-says-us-gun-homicide-rate-20-times-h/there you go. I didn't realize this argument was restricted to rich EU nations. Must be nice when you can just arbitrarily limit the debate to groups that give you the result you desire. Right, so while I compare us to other first world countries, you want to compare us to third world nations like mexico.
I compared us to Israel. Are you saying they are not first-world?
|
On December 16 2012 15:56 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 15:45 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 16 2012 15:41 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 15:24 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 15:18 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 15:11 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 15:04 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:54 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 14:45 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 14:41 Esk23 wrote:
[quote]
There's nothing cops can do that any normal law-abiding citizen can't do. Any normal person can learn to aim and shoot a gun. I'm against the idea of having government do everything for you and for people to reply completely or even too much on the government for everything. If a robber breaks into your house, who says you can't take care of it yourself if you have to instead of waiting 5-10 mins for the cops to show up hoping they don't acciently shoot instead of the robber.
In a free society everyone should have the right to defend their own lives, they shouldn't have to depend on a group of people we put there in the first place to serve us to save our own lives everytime something happens. And this reasoning is why the US averages over 10,000 deaths per year due to gun violence, while countries like japan average about 10. You seriously fail at statistics. You misrepresent data and use correlation = causation arguments. Nobody is going to take you seriously if you stretch the truth to meet your predispositions. I've just read the past 5 pages, and could have made probably 10 different posts telling you where you made an illogical argument (not disagreement, but an actual failure of logic). I posted a little while back he was beyond reasoning with. He's made it even more clear the more he posts. I feel like I'm spinning in circles and starting the gun argument all over again. If people scroll back and read what's been posted already it really answers/counters the arguements they're making now. I am not beyond reasoning with, you'r major objection was the fact that I don't count a fetus's life the same as an actual living person. And you even agreed I had a perfectly justified position because the only justification you could even think of to say it's a human life, is by adding spirituality into the mix, which is the exact as saying, well I think it's a human being because MAGIC! If you can't do better than magic, then don't say I'm unreasonable. With all due respect, you are picking an arbitrary, subjective point in time where you think something becomes a human being as well, same as him. I think his moral point is that you think you shouldn't be able to kill someone who's attempting to kill you, yet you're completely OK with killing what will -- scientifically proven -- become a human at a later time. While I'm not a pro-lifer, I also have a hard time understand how you rationalize that concept. It seems like a contradiction without justification. His is at least a contradiction with a justification (not ok with ever taking life, unless they try to take a life first). I believe it to be a last resort, not a first one, which is the main disagreement between me and him. Something that potentially could become a human, is not the same in any sense to someone that already is a human with life experience and everything that goes along with that. It's not a human yet, and no one has ever proven that it is, despite the topic being debated for so long. That's my justification. You can't call something a "last resort". You cannot know the temperament of and individual who is wielding a knife at you. You CANNOT know his subjective intent. That is the reason "intent" in American law does not refer to subjective intent, but rather objective intent. You cannot know subjective intent as a third party--ever. There is no first or last resort, there is merely a choice you must make. You are also making a definition of "human" that is yours and yours alone. It's not objective. Your line is that when something has thoughts it cannot be killed. By that reasoning, killing an animal would be just as offensive as killing another human, which makes zero sense to me. You also have no way of proving that unborn children do not have thoughts/experiences either. If a mugger was tried in court who had not actually attempted to kill the muggee it would likely be argued the intent was to steal and not to kill. What? So he approached the guy with a knife to mug him and ended up killing him and the defense is "jk i was just mugging him"?
No; if he had not actually attempted to kill the muggee... as in he only mugged and did not kill the person.
As in a mugger would be argued not to have had intent to kill unless the person being mugged ended up actually killed.
|
On December 16 2012 15:57 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 15:50 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 15:46 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 15:25 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 15:22 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 15:15 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 15:11 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 15:01 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 14:54 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 14:45 Keldrath wrote:
[quote]
And this reasoning is why the US averages over 10,000 deaths per year due to gun violence, while countries like japan average about 10.
You seriously fail at statistics. You misrepresent data and use correlation = causation arguments. Nobody is going to take you seriously if you stretch the truth to meet your predispositions. I've just read the past 5 pages, and could have made probably 10 different posts telling you where you made an illogical argument (not disagreement, but an actual failure of logic). In 2008, when the United States experienced over 12,000 gun-related homicides, Japan had only 11, or fewer than half as many killed Friday in Newtown, Conn. That same year in the United States, 587 were killed just by accidental gun discharges. In 2006 in Japan, a nation of 128 million people, only two were killed by guns. I'll source it for you as well. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/the-japan-lesson-can-americans-learn-from-the-country-that-has-almost-zero-gun-deaths/ That's awesome, but it gives no context. If you're going to throw out numbers, at least use rates. Aggregates are statistically misleading. Furthermore, using THE lowest gun murder rate as an example to prove someone wrong is just dishonest. You don't prove him wrong by saying "Well look at Japan." Japan has a significantly different culture than us. And not every part of it that leads to less gun violence is necessarily a good thing. It's worth noting that despite a 149x greater rate of gun homocide, they only have a 14x greater rate of total homocide. Japan was just the example used in that article because they have the lowest gun death rates of any populous high income country in the world. If it makes you feel better, of all of the populous high income countries in the world, the us has 15 times the firearm homicide rate than other populous high income countries. Once again, a false statistic. The US rate is only about 3x that of Israel. Unless you consider a country with the 26th Per Capita GDP to be third world. I wouldn't know based on those clear and objective criteria you provided for defining your comparisons. Or lack thereof. http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2012/jan/27/jim-moran/rep-jim-moran-says-us-gun-homicide-rate-20-times-h/there you go. I didn't realize this argument was restricted to rich EU nations. Must be nice when you can just arbitrarily limit the debate to groups that give you the result you desire. Right, so while I compare us to other first world countries, you want to compare us to third world nations like mexico. I compared us to Israel. Are you saying they are not first-world?
The comparison to isreal just shows we are higher, by quite a large margin, and that's in a war torn part of the middle east.
|
On December 16 2012 15:58 bluemanrocks wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 15:56 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 15:45 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 16 2012 15:41 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 15:24 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 15:18 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 15:11 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 15:04 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:54 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 14:45 Keldrath wrote:
[quote]
And this reasoning is why the US averages over 10,000 deaths per year due to gun violence, while countries like japan average about 10.
You seriously fail at statistics. You misrepresent data and use correlation = causation arguments. Nobody is going to take you seriously if you stretch the truth to meet your predispositions. I've just read the past 5 pages, and could have made probably 10 different posts telling you where you made an illogical argument (not disagreement, but an actual failure of logic). I posted a little while back he was beyond reasoning with. He's made it even more clear the more he posts. I feel like I'm spinning in circles and starting the gun argument all over again. If people scroll back and read what's been posted already it really answers/counters the arguements they're making now. I am not beyond reasoning with, you'r major objection was the fact that I don't count a fetus's life the same as an actual living person. And you even agreed I had a perfectly justified position because the only justification you could even think of to say it's a human life, is by adding spirituality into the mix, which is the exact as saying, well I think it's a human being because MAGIC! If you can't do better than magic, then don't say I'm unreasonable. With all due respect, you are picking an arbitrary, subjective point in time where you think something becomes a human being as well, same as him. I think his moral point is that you think you shouldn't be able to kill someone who's attempting to kill you, yet you're completely OK with killing what will -- scientifically proven -- become a human at a later time. While I'm not a pro-lifer, I also have a hard time understand how you rationalize that concept. It seems like a contradiction without justification. His is at least a contradiction with a justification (not ok with ever taking life, unless they try to take a life first). I believe it to be a last resort, not a first one, which is the main disagreement between me and him. Something that potentially could become a human, is not the same in any sense to someone that already is a human with life experience and everything that goes along with that. It's not a human yet, and no one has ever proven that it is, despite the topic being debated for so long. That's my justification. You can't call something a "last resort". You cannot know the temperament of and individual who is wielding a knife at you. You CANNOT know his subjective intent. That is the reason "intent" in American law does not refer to subjective intent, but rather objective intent. You cannot know subjective intent as a third party--ever. There is no first or last resort, there is merely a choice you must make. You are also making a definition of "human" that is yours and yours alone. It's not objective. Your line is that when something has thoughts it cannot be killed. By that reasoning, killing an animal would be just as offensive as killing another human, which makes zero sense to me. You also have no way of proving that unborn children do not have thoughts/experiences either. If a mugger was tried in court who had not actually attempted to kill the muggee it would likely be argued the intent was to steal and not to kill. What? So he approached the guy with a knife to mug him and ended up killing him and the defense is "jk i was just mugging him"? No; if he had not actually attempted to kill the muggee... as in he only mugged and did not kill the person. As in a mugger would be argued not to have had intent to kill unless the person being mugged ended up actually killed.
What the hell? If a mugger pulls a weapon on someone and gets shot to death a court will know he acted in self defense.
|
i would refer u to http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-12-15/newtown-shooter-had-asperger-syndrome-and-some-us-gun-facts
some excerpts from this article:
During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower.
Not counting the above-listed anomalies, the homicide rate in England and Wales has averaged 52% higher since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% higher since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban.
Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the Chicago murder rate has averaged 17% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 25% lower.
Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the percentage of Chicago murders committed with handguns has averaged about 40% higher than it was before the law took effect.
i think the data speaks for itself. what is far more shocking is the drugs the gunmen are on while they are killing.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/SOJzZjK4XHk
|
On December 16 2012 15:56 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 15:45 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 16 2012 15:41 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 15:24 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 15:18 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 15:11 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 15:04 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:54 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 14:45 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 14:41 Esk23 wrote:
[quote]
There's nothing cops can do that any normal law-abiding citizen can't do. Any normal person can learn to aim and shoot a gun. I'm against the idea of having government do everything for you and for people to reply completely or even too much on the government for everything. If a robber breaks into your house, who says you can't take care of it yourself if you have to instead of waiting 5-10 mins for the cops to show up hoping they don't acciently shoot instead of the robber.
In a free society everyone should have the right to defend their own lives, they shouldn't have to depend on a group of people we put there in the first place to serve us to save our own lives everytime something happens. And this reasoning is why the US averages over 10,000 deaths per year due to gun violence, while countries like japan average about 10. You seriously fail at statistics. You misrepresent data and use correlation = causation arguments. Nobody is going to take you seriously if you stretch the truth to meet your predispositions. I've just read the past 5 pages, and could have made probably 10 different posts telling you where you made an illogical argument (not disagreement, but an actual failure of logic). I posted a little while back he was beyond reasoning with. He's made it even more clear the more he posts. I feel like I'm spinning in circles and starting the gun argument all over again. If people scroll back and read what's been posted already it really answers/counters the arguements they're making now. I am not beyond reasoning with, you'r major objection was the fact that I don't count a fetus's life the same as an actual living person. And you even agreed I had a perfectly justified position because the only justification you could even think of to say it's a human life, is by adding spirituality into the mix, which is the exact as saying, well I think it's a human being because MAGIC! If you can't do better than magic, then don't say I'm unreasonable. With all due respect, you are picking an arbitrary, subjective point in time where you think something becomes a human being as well, same as him. I think his moral point is that you think you shouldn't be able to kill someone who's attempting to kill you, yet you're completely OK with killing what will -- scientifically proven -- become a human at a later time. While I'm not a pro-lifer, I also have a hard time understand how you rationalize that concept. It seems like a contradiction without justification. His is at least a contradiction with a justification (not ok with ever taking life, unless they try to take a life first). I believe it to be a last resort, not a first one, which is the main disagreement between me and him. Something that potentially could become a human, is not the same in any sense to someone that already is a human with life experience and everything that goes along with that. It's not a human yet, and no one has ever proven that it is, despite the topic being debated for so long. That's my justification. You can't call something a "last resort". You cannot know the temperament of and individual who is wielding a knife at you. You CANNOT know his subjective intent. That is the reason "intent" in American law does not refer to subjective intent, but rather objective intent. You cannot know subjective intent as a third party--ever. There is no first or last resort, there is merely a choice you must make. You are also making a definition of "human" that is yours and yours alone. It's not objective. Your line is that when something has thoughts it cannot be killed. By that reasoning, killing an animal would be just as offensive as killing another human, which makes zero sense to me. You also have no way of proving that unborn children do not have thoughts/experiences either. If a mugger was tried in court who had not actually attempted to kill the muggee it would likely be argued the intent was to steal and not to kill. What? So he approached the guy with a knife to mug him and ended up killing him and the defense is "jk i was just mugging him"?
Muggers use knives for intimidation. 9 times out of 10 they will not use it for anything other than that, and the times they do use it and kill the person, it's never "just cause lol"
|
On December 16 2012 16:01 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 15:58 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 16 2012 15:56 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 15:45 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 16 2012 15:41 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 15:24 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 15:18 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 15:11 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 15:04 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:54 BluePanther wrote:
[quote]
You seriously fail at statistics. You misrepresent data and use correlation = causation arguments. Nobody is going to take you seriously if you stretch the truth to meet your predispositions. I've just read the past 5 pages, and could have made probably 10 different posts telling you where you made an illogical argument (not disagreement, but an actual failure of logic).
I posted a little while back he was beyond reasoning with. He's made it even more clear the more he posts. I feel like I'm spinning in circles and starting the gun argument all over again. If people scroll back and read what's been posted already it really answers/counters the arguements they're making now. I am not beyond reasoning with, you'r major objection was the fact that I don't count a fetus's life the same as an actual living person. And you even agreed I had a perfectly justified position because the only justification you could even think of to say it's a human life, is by adding spirituality into the mix, which is the exact as saying, well I think it's a human being because MAGIC! If you can't do better than magic, then don't say I'm unreasonable. With all due respect, you are picking an arbitrary, subjective point in time where you think something becomes a human being as well, same as him. I think his moral point is that you think you shouldn't be able to kill someone who's attempting to kill you, yet you're completely OK with killing what will -- scientifically proven -- become a human at a later time. While I'm not a pro-lifer, I also have a hard time understand how you rationalize that concept. It seems like a contradiction without justification. His is at least a contradiction with a justification (not ok with ever taking life, unless they try to take a life first). I believe it to be a last resort, not a first one, which is the main disagreement between me and him. Something that potentially could become a human, is not the same in any sense to someone that already is a human with life experience and everything that goes along with that. It's not a human yet, and no one has ever proven that it is, despite the topic being debated for so long. That's my justification. You can't call something a "last resort". You cannot know the temperament of and individual who is wielding a knife at you. You CANNOT know his subjective intent. That is the reason "intent" in American law does not refer to subjective intent, but rather objective intent. You cannot know subjective intent as a third party--ever. There is no first or last resort, there is merely a choice you must make. You are also making a definition of "human" that is yours and yours alone. It's not objective. Your line is that when something has thoughts it cannot be killed. By that reasoning, killing an animal would be just as offensive as killing another human, which makes zero sense to me. You also have no way of proving that unborn children do not have thoughts/experiences either. If a mugger was tried in court who had not actually attempted to kill the muggee it would likely be argued the intent was to steal and not to kill. What? So he approached the guy with a knife to mug him and ended up killing him and the defense is "jk i was just mugging him"? No; if he had not actually attempted to kill the muggee... as in he only mugged and did not kill the person. As in a mugger would be argued not to have had intent to kill unless the person being mugged ended up actually killed. What the hell? If a mugger pulls a weapon on someone and gets shot to death a court will know he acted in self defense.
Self-defense does not necessitate life-and-death.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
