EPT19 injured in shooting at mothers day parade in New Orleans.
If you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
stuneedsfood
45 Posts
19 injured in shooting at mothers day parade in New Orleans. | ||
|
Donger
United States147 Posts
On May 13 2013 10:26 stuneedsfood wrote: From the article: "Per the agreement, the city was required to relax the strict proof of ownership requirements previously used" Makes it sound like the city. But why does it matter if it is the city? | ||
|
kmillz
United States1548 Posts
I'm confused by this statement: This example proves the opposite of what you meant He said that this is what people are afraid of, so are you saying that he this proves that this isn't what people are afraid of? Or people aren't afraid of this? Or that it because it was fixed that people aren't afraid of it happening again? What do you mean it proves the opposite of what he meant exactly? I think it's clear what he meant and the video proves it, not the opposite, unless I missed something. | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
On May 13 2013 12:24 Sermokala wrote: I'm glad you are making posts with actual opinions and words that are your own instead of just mass quoteing and mass posting of pictures falldown. No worries, just didn't want to waste people's time with my own far less informed opinion when + Show Spoiler + David A. Brent, M.D., Matthew J. Miller, M.D., M.P.H., Sc.D., Rolf Loeber, Ph.D., Edward P. Mulvey, Ph.D.,Boris Birmaher, M.D. On May 13 2013 12:24 Sermokala wrote: Its not like you didn't even take the time to edit out the citation numbers at the end of the sentences. Its completely intelectualy honest to post statistics with no context or other expressed understanding of said statistics. I'll ignore the complaint about citation numbers. So what, it was ugly on the page -- this matters to gun control how, lol. By the way those citations are something you don't really have much of at all in all of your counter opinions... On May 13 2013 12:24 Sermokala wrote: Its not like Australia is a country of 23 million people and the Us is country of 330 million people right? Luckily rates don't depend on the total number. Surely if this paper was flawed because of this simple and irrelevant fact you mention it would not have been approved by the reviewers. What makes you think you can discredit based on what you think is a statistical error? Without some evidence I'm left with you saying you don't think the paper can compare US & Australia due to population number differences. Right... K. On May 13 2013 12:24 Sermokala wrote: We won't advance on this problem if gun control advocates simply tolerate and advance ignorance. Gun violence has been dropping for a long long time now and nothings changed in the world of gun control. But you ask people on the street this and they think that its gone up, it must be if people keep on insisting that we need more gun control. It's like you didn't even look at any of the stuff I quoted from the paper just now, let alone the paper. The vague facts you mention pale in comparison to the facts raised by the authors that suggest the need for better gun control measures of varying degrees. On May 13 2013 12:24 Sermokala wrote: I mean really would it have been THAT hard for you to copy past the footnotes down as well on your quotes? You probably should also put the web link on top. Irrelevant complaint. | ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
On May 13 2013 12:32 stuneedsfood wrote: http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/12/us/louisiana-shooting/index.html 19 injured in shooting at mothers day parade in New Orleans. If you have ever lived in nola you would know there are massive problems that cause these incidents and they happen all the time especially around mardi gras parades. It's an endless cycle of retaliation and they don't care about collateral damage. Some of the actual causes of the shootings are an abysmal education system, wide scale racism, very high income inequality, gang culture, little to no chance of employment, and generation upon generation of a complete lack of parental guidance. Drugs have completely destroyed the african american community in certain parts nola. Guns are only a tool in these incidents, Not the cause. | ||
|
Emzeeshady
Canada4203 Posts
| ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On May 13 2013 10:48 DeepElemBlues wrote: You have a fascinating way of just making stuff up and then acting like because it's maybe plausible it's true, don't you? This and the IRS. http://news.yahoo.com/shocking-hot-mic-gun-comments-jersey-senate-confiscate-041215962.html I only do that when there's little to nothing to do BUT make stuff up. Mostly to point out how little is known about a given piece of information. When that's the sort of info you have, everyone naturally leaps to their own (political tinted) conclusions. The article actually suggests that none of the Senators-or anyone notable-said those words, since all three had their voices ID'd later on. And there is no context for the words-they could be preceded by anything like "I don't understand why everyone says that...We need a bill that is going to confiscate, confiscate, confiscate." Or "I don't understand why people say that...We need a bill that is going to confiscate, confiscate, confiscate." Or you could be right, it could be "I hate guns. We need a bill that is going to confiscate, confiscate, confiscate." The tax thing is far-fetched, I admit, but I liked the story I drafted. At least I admit it and include the "possibly" in my posts. Edit: I suppose I just like pointing out situations where Occam's Razor can give people two very different shaves. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10923 Posts
On May 13 2013 13:46 Emzeeshady wrote: Is 23 million not a big enough sample size? Don't even try. In the end the argument will just change to: "Australia is not the US". | ||
|
stuneedsfood
45 Posts
On May 13 2013 13:11 kmillz wrote: I'm confused by this statement: He said that this is what people are afraid of, so are you saying that he this proves that this isn't what people are afraid of? Or people aren't afraid of this? Or that it because it was fixed that people aren't afraid of it happening again? What do you mean it proves the opposite of what he meant exactly? I think it's clear what he meant and the video proves it, not the opposite, unless I missed something. The NRA/pro-gun side has often touted that the US govt. wants to take your guns, and this guy used this video as 'proof' that the being paranoid about gun confiscation is legitimate. In the Katrina incident, the city stole the guns (you know, the small local government that the NRA supposedly supports), and the federal government, and its laws, is what found the city of New Orleans violating the constitution, and ordered it to return its confiscated weapons. The federal government was the savior of gun owners and the protector of gun rights. Shocking. | ||
|
Donger
United States147 Posts
On May 13 2013 20:52 stuneedsfood wrote: The NRA/pro-gun side has often touted that the US govt. wants to take your guns, and this guy used this video as 'proof' that the being paranoid about gun confiscation is legitimate. In the Katrina incident, the city stole the guns (you know, the small local government that the NRA supposedly supports), and the federal government, and its laws, is what found the city of New Orleans violating the constitution, and ordered it to return its confiscated weapons. The federal government was the savior of gun owners and the protector of gun rights. Shocking. We view the situation differently. To me it doesn't matter if this happened at a city level or federal. There is a precedence of gun confiscation which was aided by the gun registry laws. As you stated a couple posts back, the federal government asked the city to change their gun registry laws to be more lax. Now they are changing their stance and are asking for an increase in gun registry laws. | ||
|
stuneedsfood
45 Posts
On May 14 2013 00:47 Donger wrote: We view the situation differently. To me it doesn't matter if this happened at a city level or federal. There is a precedence of gun confiscation which was aided by the gun registry laws. As you stated a couple posts back, the federal government asked the city to change their gun registry laws to be more lax. Now they are changing their stance and are asking for an increase in gun registry laws. The difference between the city and federal governments should concern you. If you don't even recognize the difference, I would say you're not qualified to be involved in a debate about federal regulation and laws. You are afraid of the govt. taking your guns away, when they are the people who have already proven they will RETURN them to you when somebody else takes them away. | ||
micronesia
United States24782 Posts
On May 14 2013 01:09 stuneedsfood wrote: The difference between the city and federal governments should concern you. If you don't even recognize the difference, I would say you're not qualified to be involved in a debate about federal regulation and laws. You are afraid of the govt. taking your guns away, when they are the people who have already proven they will RETURN them to you when somebody else takes them away. I don't think you should be so quick to judge others and whether or not they are qualified to be involved in a debate. Is it really that unreasonable to look to cases of a government entity using a gun registry to confiscate guns illegally and then conclude that it can happen again? Maybe next time another level of government won't step in and fix what was already done. I'm not saying we shouldn't have any gun registries... just that people aren't being ridiculous for looking to cases of guns being illegally confiscated by a government entity (regardless of level) after using a registry, and concluding that we can't rule out it will happen to them. | ||
|
Jormundr
United States1678 Posts
On May 14 2013 00:47 Donger wrote: We view the situation differently. To me it doesn't matter if this happened at a city level or federal. There is a precedence of gun confiscation which was aided by the gun registry laws. As you stated a couple posts back, the federal government asked the city to change their gun registry laws to be more lax. Now they are changing their stance and are asking for an increase in gun registry laws. That said nothing about a gun registry. It said that after lawsuits the government was forced to require less proof of identity to return confiscated guns. | ||
|
Donger
United States147 Posts
On May 14 2013 01:18 Jormundr wrote: That said nothing about a gun registry. It said that after lawsuits the government was forced to require less proof of identity to return confiscated guns. You're correct. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On May 13 2013 12:24 Sermokala wrote: I'm glad you are making posts with actual opinions and words that are your own instead of just mass quoteing and mass posting of pictures falldown. Its not like you didn't even take the time to edit out the citation numbers at the end of the sentences. Its completely intelectualy honest to post statistics with no context or other expressed understanding of said statistics. Its not like Australia is a country of 23 million people and the Us is country of 330 million people right? We won't advance on this problem if gun control advocates simply tolerate and advance ignorance. Gun violence has been dropping for a long long time now and nothings changed in the world of gun control. But you ask people on the street this and they think that its gone up, it must be if people keep on insisting that we need more gun control. I mean really would it have been THAT hard for you to copy past the footnotes down as well on your quotes? You probably should also put the web link on top. Wait--your only supportive of stats and research so long as its on your side? Interesting. He posts a lengthy lists and various research citings and you counter that you read another list that said gun violence has been going down the past 10ish years or so without citing Reagan's gun control bill passed right before the gun violence went down? Hmmm..... | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On May 13 2013 19:40 Velr wrote: Don't even try. In the end the argument will just change to: "Australia is not the US". Don't forget the "scientists and doctors are biased" after citing an NRA approved study  that one is my favorite | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On May 14 2013 00:47 Donger wrote: We view the situation differently. To me it doesn't matter if this happened at a city level or federal. There is a precedence of gun confiscation which was aided by the gun registry laws. As you stated a couple posts back, the federal government asked the city to change their gun registry laws to be more lax. Now they are changing their stance and are asking for an increase in gun registry laws. Wait--the federal government enforcing the 2nd amendment is proof that they want to steal your guns?  | ||
|
stuneedsfood
45 Posts
On May 14 2013 01:13 micronesia wrote: I don't think you should be so quick to judge others and whether or not they are qualified to be involved in a debate. Is it really that unreasonable to look to cases of a government entity using a gun registry to confiscate guns illegally and then conclude that it can happen again? Maybe next time another level of government won't step in and fix what was already done. I'm not saying we shouldn't have any gun registries... just that people aren't being ridiculous for looking to cases of guns being illegally confiscated by a government entity (regardless of level) after using a registry, and concluding that we can't rule out it will happen to them. In a debate about gun control, I think recognizing the difference between local and federal government is a perfectly reasonable prerequisite to chiming in. Here is all I'm pointing out: That guy posted a video saying that the government has taken guns before, and can do it again. I'm merely pointing out that the federal government has a proven track record of returning confiscated guns, NOT being the people who takes them. It's simple, and it's a fact. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24782 Posts
On May 14 2013 02:00 stuneedsfood wrote: I haven't seen someone fail to recognize the difference. The issue is what it all means, which is open to interpretation.In a debate about gun control, I think recognizing the difference between local and federal government is a perfectly reasonable prerequisite to chiming in. Here is all I'm pointing out: That guy posted a video saying that the government has taken guns before, and can do it again. I'm merely pointing out that the federal government has a proven track record of returning confiscated guns, NOT being the people who takes them. Not denying this (although I don't know what counterexamples there may or may not be). Keep in mind that most gun owners are not only worried about federal law... local laws matter to them too (as well as state). | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On May 14 2013 02:05 micronesia wrote: I haven't seen someone fail to recognize the difference. The issue is what it all means, which is open to interpretation. Not denying this (although I don't know what counterexamples there may or may not be). Keep in mind that most gun owners are not only worried about federal law... local laws matter to them too (as well as state). Then they should be happy to know that when people take their guns it is the white house that steps in and gives it back | ||
| ||
