Pittsburgh Shootout - April 4, 2009

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Go ahead, read the guy's story anywhere you'd like and try to defend this douche bag's right to own weapons. The douche bag is a freekin' poster boy for additional gun control. If we can't agree that people like THIS shouldn't be allowed to have guns, then there is no hope at all for any sort of reasonable discussion. Seriously.

What item(s) in his background would you like to see added as lawful reasons to deny gun ownership?

Asked and answered.

JR, where's the NRA statement on this guy? According to reports, he was a life long member. Normally they put out statements pretty quickly regarding nutcase shootouts denouncing the irresponsible use of guns. I've looked all over the NRA web site and can't find it.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Capt.Slog 0]

Quote

Quote

Are you willing to have those same restrictions placed on your right to speak, or vote, or any other right?

The minute you can show me how I personally can directly kill people with my words . . . sure. Go for it.

Give it a shot. Show me. Show me how I can lay in wait for a cop to come to my door and kill him by talking.

You're grasping at straws.

How about those directed mind-rays you've been working on?

[Capt.Slog 0]

Quote

Quote

Go ahead, read the guy's story anywhere you'd like and try to defend this douche bag's right to own weapons. The douche bag is a freekin' poster boy for additional gun control. If we can't agree that people like THIS shouldn't be allowed to have guns, then there is no hope at all for any sort of reasonable discussion. Seriously.

What item(s) in his background would you like to see added as lawful reasons to deny gun ownership?

How about his membership of the set of "nutters who shouldn't be allowed to have guns".

Fascinating that you defend his gun ownership.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Are you willing to have those same restrictions placed on your right to speak, or vote, or any other right?

The minute you can show me how I personally can directly kill people with my words . . . sure. Go for it.

Prolifers have been punished for precisely this. Sorry, you don't get to use a lame modifier like "directly." Guns don't directly kill anyone either - the bullet hitting the flesh does. And even that isn't direct - it's the bleeding to death.

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Are you willing to have those same restrictions placed on your right to speak, or vote, or any other right?

The minute you can show me how I personally can directly kill people with my words . . . sure. Go for it.

Prolifers have been punished for precisely this. Sorry, you don't get to use a lame modifier like "directly." Guns don't directly kill anyone either - the bullet hitting the flesh does. And even that isn't direct - it's the bleeding to death.

Again, more grasping at straws.

Please show me where a Prolifer has ever been punished for simply speaking. No. They get punished for killing people with guns and bombs, but not their words.

People may kill over words being said, but nobody to my knowledge has ever killed someone simply by talking no matter what part of their ass they happen to be doing it.

Which, is, I suppose, a good thing, because I've seen an awful lot of people talking out of their asses lately.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The first tip off that he was mentally unstable was his discharge from the Marines.

Quote

Poplawski had once tried to join the Marines, but was kicked out of boot camp after throwing a food tray at a drill sergeant, Perkovic said.

so just locking it down - if someone throws a food tray (this would be misdomeanor assault at worst), they're shown they're mentally unstable and should never be allowed to own a gun?

Already we've seen inclinations of some to label all Vets as mentally unreliable and not worthy of their 2nd Amendment rights. These same people of course curse the vets for doing what they were told to by the government, sometimes involuntarily (ie Vietnam).

So the question put to you remains - what new process would have actually eliminated this guy from eligibility. No doubt you look at his history and think 'what an asshole, I don't want him have guns.' But the same is said about those right wingers protesting about gays at military funerals. Assholes have rights. You need a more precise standard to start stripping them of their rights for the better good.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

What's wrong with a solution that would prevent, say 75% of mass shootings? Why is that not better than the present BROKEN system?

If you only measure gains, and not costs, yeah, your conclusion would have validity. But since it doesn't, it's worthless.

[billvon 3,070]

>so just locking it down - if someone throws a food tray (this would be
>misdomeanor assault at worst), they're shown they're mentally unstable
>and should never be allowed to own a gun?

Depends on the circumstances, of course.

If a guy gets mad and throws his tray at a wall, then no problems. Maybe fine him for repainting the wall.

If he takes a tray, takes careful aim, swings it as hard as he can, and takes out the eye of an 8 year old girl - then yes, perhaps they should be evaluated for mental stability (and arrested and prosecuted for a violent assault.)

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Please show me where a Prolifer has ever been punished for simply speaking. No. They get punished for killing people with guns and bombs, but not their words.

...
Which, is, I suppose, a good thing, because I've seen an awful lot of people talking out of their asses lately.

American Coalition of Life Activists v. Planned Parenthood. This was the case where a web site encouraged the killing of abortion doctors, listing their pics, addresses, and driving routes, and marked when they were killed.

They were fined nearly $5M for this, though this is a reduction from the initial 100M value.

Stop walking around in that room full of mirrors.

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Please show me where a Prolifer has ever been punished for simply speaking. No. They get punished for killing people with guns and bombs, but not their words.

...
Which, is, I suppose, a good thing, because I've seen an awful lot of people talking out of their asses lately.

American Coalition of Life Activists v. Planned Parenthood. This was the case where a web site encouraged the killing of abortion doctors, listing their pics, addresses, and driving routes, and marked when they were killed.

They were fined nearly $5M for this, though this is a reduction from the initial 100M value.

Stop walking around in that room full of mirrors.

So you don't actually understand the difference between talking to someone and incitement to violence, threats and intimidation.
http://www.loundy.com/CASES/Planned_Parenthood_v_ACOLA.html

Really is good to know who is on the side of violent douche bags on this forum.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

So you don't actually understand the difference between talking to someone and incitement to violence, threats and intimidation.
http://www.loundy.com/CASES/Planned_Parenthood_v_ACOLA.html

Really is good to know who is on the side of violent douche bags on this forum.

I can't tell what side you're on, here. Are you on the side of the prolife killers, or what?

Quote

Please show me where a Prolifer has ever been punished for simply speaking.

How does the result of this case not qualify? These fuckers didn't do anything but speak. Now you want to qualify your statement yet again?

The end point - the Bill of Rights works because we read them broadly (well, many people do this for 9 of the 10). If you can't come up with a change to the 2nd that isn't simple to understand, it probably violates that principle.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

So you don't actually understand the difference between talking to someone and incitement to violence, threats and intimidation.

Quade, I think you're being intentionally obtuse here.

It's obvious on casual reflection that many people have exercised significant (and fatal) influence upon others simply by using language. Do you think, for example, that Charles Manson held a gun to his follower's heads and made them kill people?

Quote

Really is good to know who is on the side of violent douche bags on this forum.

That's a bit of over the top hyperbole, don't you think?

In any question of fundamental rights, I think it's important to err on the side of allowing the rights, even if some errors will be made. If allowing some error is the cost of essential freedoms, then I'll pay that cost. I think that you'd actually agree with my statement there--the issue is that I feel that a right to firearm ownership is a fundamental right, and you disagree about that.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[quade 4]

Quote

How does the result of this case not qualify? These fuckers didn't do anything but speak.

If you believe that, then you don't understand what they did, because they did far more than just speak.

Did you even read the link I posted?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 4]

Quote

I think that you'd actually agree with my statement there--the issue is that I feel that a right to firearm ownership is a fundamental right, and you disagree about that.

I think both I and the NRA agree that legal access to guns needs to be made as difficult as possible for the mentally disturbed. I've stated as much several times over the years and so have they. The difference being that to date they've been silent about this particular case.

The guy in question in this case was clearly mentally disturbed for a number of years although never technically diagnosed as such and therefore had easy access to legally acquired guns.

I've given several examples pointing toward his mental instabilities.

Have you read them?

If so, can you still honestly defend his personal right to own a gun?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

...can you still honestly defend his personal right to own a gun?

I can honestly defend the system that could make such an error.

Using individual cases to show mistakes made by a system is easy. Designing a better system, that still protects the fundamental freedoms? That's a bit harder.

Put another way, if we locked everyone in padded rooms from birth to death, we wouldn't have to worry about anyone ever getting hurt, would we?

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Quote

What's wrong with a solution that would prevent, say 75% of mass shootings? Why is that not better than the present BROKEN system?

If you only measure gains, and not costs, yeah, your conclusion would have validity. But since it doesn't, it's worthless.

Well, I can see that a little inconvenience for you in buying your toys outweighs saving a bunch of lives every year.

As Quade said, it's interesting to know who on this forum is on the side of the violent nutters' right to buy guns without hindrance.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[quade 4]

Quote

Using individual cases to show mistakes made by a system is easy. Designing a better system, that still protects the fundamental freedoms? That's a bit harder.

I don't think so. I think getting it passed as law is much harder, but designing it would be rather simple.

The only thing that stops a better system are the objectionists to any change whatsoever; the NRA et. al.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

What's wrong with a solution that would prevent, say 75% of mass shootings? Why is that not better than the present BROKEN system?

If you only measure gains, and not costs, yeah, your conclusion would have validity. But since it doesn't, it's worthless.

Well, I can see that a little inconvenience for you in buying your toys outweighs saving a bunch of lives every year.

As Quade said, it's interesting to know who on this forum is on the side of the violent nutters' right to buy guns without hindrance.

It's even more interesting to watch the kind of people who decried the Patriot Act, but have no problems with this sort of rights erosion. The mental gymnastics you must perform to explain the nonexistent difference is staggering.

You don't believe in the principle of innocent until proven guilty either, do you?

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Quote

...can you still honestly defend his personal right to own a gun?

Put another way, if we locked everyone in padded rooms from birth to death, we wouldn't have to worry about anyone ever getting hurt, would we?

Nice combination of fallacies there: strawman, false dichotomy, appeal to emotion and perfect solution fallacies all in one sentence.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

What's wrong with a solution that would prevent, say 75% of mass shootings? Why is that not better than the present BROKEN system?

If you only measure gains, and not costs, yeah, your conclusion would have validity. But since it doesn't, it's worthless.

Well, I can see that a little inconvenience for you in buying your toys outweighs saving a bunch of lives every year.

As Quade said, it's interesting to know who on this forum is on the side of the violent nutters' right to buy guns without hindrance.

It's even more interesting to watch the kind of people who decried the Patriot Act, but have no problems with this sort of rights erosion. The mental gymnastics you must perform to explain the nonexistent difference is staggering.

You don't believe in the principle of innocent until proven guilty either, do you?

So now you're saying the guy is innocent?

Awesome. Wanna put some money on that one?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

I can see that a little inconvenience for you in buying your toys outweighs saving a bunch of lives every year.

I do not view this as an issue of convenience, or one about toys.

I feel that we're talking about a fundamental Constitutional right here.

I think the variance in opinion is mostly about whether such a right is necessary or proper. Once you view this as a fundamental right, you can start to understand other positions than your own.

I do understand how people who feel that the private ownership of arms can be so outraged here. It's just that I feel the protection of fundamental rights is worth some error. It's the same reason I feel that the death penalty should only be applied in cases where we are absolutely certain--even if that means some guilty parties are subject to lesser punishment. But that's a price I'm willing to pay for the protection of fundamental freedoms.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

How does the result of this case not qualify? These fuckers didn't do anything but speak.

If you believe that, then you don't understand what they did, because they did far more than just speak.

Did you even read the link I posted?

Did you have an actual point to make with it? It would only take a couple sentences to make it clear. At one point you were insisting that no prolifer has been punished for their speech. Now you're making some fuzzy claim in the form of a cyberlink (ala dreamdancer). I'd say make your fucking point already, but I think it comes down to you getting caught with nowhere to go.

Let me help you: Words can kill. And the 1st Amendment doesn't protect that speech fully.

[Shotgun 1]

After reading a little bit more about this story, and about the PA gun laws, it sounds like he was right on the edge of not being able to legally own firearms (assuming that he did have them legally).

It sounds like the dishonorable discharge would have prevented him from getting a concealed carry license but not from simply possessing a gun. And apparently the "protection from abuse" order would have kept him from owning firearms only if the order specifically "provided for the confiscation of firearms during the period of time the order is in effect." So I am assuming that it wasn't deemed necessary when the order was issued to confiscate his guns, though it would make sense to me that once he violated that order that maybe they should have changed it to provide for confiscation.

Anyhow, I'm not sure I see much (if anything) that could be changed about the law to make it better.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

So now you're saying the guy is innocent?

Awesome. Wanna put some money on that one?

Nice strawman. It's really hard to reply in kind without a PA on a moderator. (I can at least say those remarks to the monitor)

You admit that the guy did nothing that ever met the clinical definitions that would preclude gun ownership. But you're certain that he should have been prevented somehow. In plain English, you're declaring him unfit without proof, at the time of purchase. (a date I doubt you even know)

Jerry argues that any method that reduces the number of crazy shootings is a positive step, even if it means disarming millions of Americans without justification. That illicited the charge about ignoring innocent until proven guilty.

One really effective means at cutting the rates would be to ban all gun sales to men. We see far fewer cases of women going on shooting rampages. So per Jerry, this would be progress. Fuck the Constitution, right?

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

I think getting it passed as law is much harder, but designing it would be rather simple.

How about we start another thread to discuss your proposed system?

If you want I'll even throw in some ideas for how you could get gun control legislation passed with the support of the NRA--here's a few:

1) Require firearm instruction in public schools, and get the NRA to design and administer the curriculum. Makes a society which has guns safer, but also gives the pro-gun folks a chance to shape the young, while also requiring them to put their money where their mouth is on safety.

2) Open up the NFA registry for machine gun registration again. It's been closed since the 80's, making the scarcity cost of the things absurd. Allowing people to register new ones would not increase crime (only one use of a machine gun in a violent crime has occurred since 1934, and that was a police officer who would have been able to gain access anyway), and it would show good faith in negotiations.

3) Remove suppressors and short barrel rifles/shotguns from the NFA list. Suppressors actually make firearms safer (and less annoying to the neighbors) to fire--most European countries figures this out a long time ago. The short barrel business is a silly anachronism that's outlived it's usefulness, as is demonstrated by the number of "pistols" out there that are just de-stocked versions of rifles. Removing these items from the "serious" registry would reduce paperwork, streamline processes, and give the hobby shooters some toys to play with (which would make them happy) without creating any increase in violent crime.

What do you want in return? I don't know, but negotiations are composed of give and take. Now you see what you could give--I recommend thinking some of that over before asking to take things.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com