Durango P-51 Crash - Med Tests Show Pilot Was Stoned on Marijuana

weilke said:
So how exactly do firearms cause people to assault each other with knives and personal weapons ?
Click to expand...

They don't.

Maybe the underlying factor is 'higher rate of crime' and 'higher rates of violence', not how many pieces of legislation have been passed.
Click to expand...

Maybe.

And all that can be studied. But it is not a disease.
Click to expand...

CDC - National Center for Injury Prevention and Control

How about we start repurposing the people committing the crimes, maybe we need to worry less about the tools in their hands?
Click to expand...

Okay. How do you propose we go about doing that? No fly = no buy? Would that be a good thing?

Biggest massacre of school children in the US was committed without use of a firearm.
Click to expand...

And? Again. 70% of all murders in the United States are committed with firearms.

James331 said:
Well long and short, it's a right, not a privalge, there is no debate, no talking about it, no negotiations, it's a right, clear and simple.

I don't understand why this right is debated so much, you don't hear about people trying to limit the right to free speech, or undue search and seizure, double jeopardy, etc.

If you don't want to exercise your right, that's your right too, but where your rights stop is when you try to take others rights, that's also where the 2nd comes into play, it's what gives all the other rights teeth.
Click to expand...

There are limitations to every single amendment. Every. Single. One. Where does one person's individual right to LIFE trump someone else's right to have a gun?

GlennAB1 said:
Let me guess, you're ok with 300,000 abortions and 88,000 alcohol related deaths annually in the US...
Click to expand...

I was going to dignify this with a response... but I'm not playing into your logical fallacies.
 
ircphoenix said:
It absolutely does not say anything about how to reduce violent crime. Like I said, the information I provided was just correlation. No comprehensive studies on reducing gun violence. It's just correlation. Which, again, is part of the problem. It's tough finding good data that is just... data.
Click to expand...

While I agree that correlation does not imply causality in and of itself, correlations can suggest possible causative mechanisms and when properly considered, can suggest policies which may or may not work.

I can't agree there are no good studies on these subjects. Some are fairly well done and convincing, though none of these results in social sciences are going have the certainty of an aeronautical research study.

Some of the stronger results concern the effect of implementing shall issue concealed carry permit laws. The general finding is that passing such laws, which make it easier for people to concealed carry a firearm, appears to have the effect of reducing violent crime by a modest, but statistically significant, amount. These studies are stronger because this effect happens over and over again in states in different years when the states passed the laws and that was controlling for a large number of other possible confounding variables like racial composition, poverty levels, etc.

As I said, I'll have a look at the JAMA study and its critics a bit later.
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
While I agree that correlation does not imply causality in and of itself, correlations can suggest possible causative mechanisms and when properly considered, can suggest policies which may or may not work.

I can't agree there are no good studies on these subjects. Some are fairly well done and convincing, though none of these results in social sciences are going have the certainty of an aeronautical research study.

Some of the stronger results concern the effect of implementing shall issue concealed carry permit laws. The general finding is that passing such laws, which make it easier for people to concealed carry a firearm, appears to have the effect of reducing violent crime by a modest, but statistically significant, amount. These studies are stronger because this effect happens over and over again in states in different years when the states passed the laws and that was controlling for a large number of other possible confounding variables like racial composition, poverty levels, etc.

As I said, I'll have a look at the JAMA study and its critics a bit later.
Click to expand...

I would genuinely love to see that data whenever you get a chance to find it. Thank you!
 
How many people died fighting the Nazis, should we have just laid down to maybe save some lives?

This whole war or whatever it is with radical Islam, lots of folks get killed/blown up/etc, should we all just convert to Islam to save a few?

And by the way, the words of men have caused far more death than any firearm, ideas are the biggest weapons on earth, one good man can spread a word of peace, or a mad man can make a Facebook post and get tons of fellow nuts to put a bomb in their jacket, or shoot up some mall, perhaps we should limit what people could say, perhaps we should require a government background check before you can get Internet access, and treat blogs and websites like we treat "assult weapons", limit the amount of people who we can reach online like they try to limit how many round one can have in their mag.

An assult on one right is an assult on them all.
 
James331 said:
How many people died fighting the Nazis, should we have just laid down to maybe save some lives?

This whole war or whatever it is with radical Islam, lots of folks get killed/blown up/etc, should we all just convert to Islam to save a few?

And by the way, the words of men have caused far more death than any firearm, ideas are the biggest weapons on earth, one good man can spread a word of peace, or a mad man can make a Facebook post and get tons of fellow nuts to put a bomb in their jacket, or shoot up some mall, perhaps we should limit what people could say, perhaps we should require a government background check before you can get Internet access, and treat blogs and websites like we treat "assult weapons", limit the amount of people who we can reach online like they try to limit how many round one can have in their mag.

An assult on one right is an assult on them all.
Click to expand...

63106511.jpg
 
ircphoenix said:
63106511.jpg
Click to expand...

Cute meme, doesn't change what I said from being entirely factual, or is it that you can't connect the dots?? I could do a little more of a paint by numbers for you, when I have a little more time ;)
 

So why the misguided focus then?

Okay. How do you propose we go about doing that? No fly = no buy? Would that be a good thing?
Click to expand...

How about we apply the existing firearms laws and lock that small group of high risk offenders up for the time periods specified in those laws. In MD, any firearm use during another crime should buy you 5 years yet the local judges let the offenders walk with with 4 years, 11mo, 27 days suspended. When they re-offend, they may get 30 days for parole violation rather than the balance of the 5 years. The problem is in the courts and the liberal stacked benches. Now that pot is legal and the prisons should empty from all those nonviolent drug offenders who supposedly fill them, we should get plenty of room to lock up the violent criminals.
 
James331 said:
I don't understand why this right is debated so much, you don't hear about people trying to limit the right to free speech
Click to expand...

Sure you do. Hate speech, campus speech codes...banning certain guest speakers or shouting them down, disrupting political rallys...

And the IRS trying to stifle the speech of groups with which their bosses disagreed.
 
ircphoenix said:
Oh. Absolutely. But that's not a sin limited to one side. Which is unfortunate. There's a dearth of legitimate unbiased information out there in regards to highly charged subjects... and even when there *is* widespread scientific consensus on anything, it's dismissed as unreliable if it doesn't conform with someone's preconceived notions.
Click to expand...
This. And you aren't going to change either side's mind here...
 
So it appears that the lesson to be learned is that "Lesson's Learned" is where it is ok to discuss limiting peoples constitutional rights when on POA.
 
ircphoenix said:
There are limitations to every single amendment. Every. Single. One. Where does one person's individual right to LIFE trump someone else's right to have a gun?
Click to expand...

There are plenty of restrictions on the second admendment. Some places have such tight restrictions they effectively remove any legal means to posses a firearm. Not sure what you were trying to say in your post? Were you implying there are not restrictions?
 
Tarheelpilot said:
There are plenty of restrictions on the second admendment. Some places have such tight restrictions they effectively remove any legal means to posses a firearm. Not sure what you were trying to say in your post? Were you implying there are not restrictions?
Click to expand...

Negative. That was my reply to an allusion that all rights enumerated in the Constitution are sacrosanct and unlimited.
 
GlennAB1 said:
If alcohol were deemed illegal, it is more than likely, many law abiding citizens that would have become afflicted with alcoholism, would not. That would affect/effect alcohol's overall detriment on society.
Click to expand...
Hmmm, All that would be accomplished is making crimminals of otherwise law abiding citizens. And also history has shown that making booze illegal doesn't work at all.
 
ircphoenix said:
Sorry. Anarcho-libertarians that say "laws don't work because criminals don't obey them" have a flawed basis for their logic to begin with.




I can certainly see that argument. But I can also certainly see that extremely onerous gun regulation does have a chilling effect on gun crime. People like to point to gun regulation in Chicago as being an example of failed gun legislation... reality is that the guns are coming from immediately next door where the rest of the gun regulations in Illinois aren't nearly the same as Chicago's laws. But saying that gun laws don't work is ludicrous. How many fully automatic weapons are used in gun crime? And how much of a pain are they to acquire? 'Nuff said.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, The gun laws in Kennesaw GA., have contributed to a significant drop in violent crime in that city, and the number of home invasions, armed robberies, etc. remain much lower than in other cities.
 
bluerooster said:
Hmmm, All that would be accomplished is making crimminals of otherwise law abiding citizens. And also history has shown that making booze illegal doesn't work at all.
Click to expand...
Why is it so difficult to comprehend that if it were illegal, a percentage of the population that would become alcoholics, would not, just by being law abiding.
 
ircphoenix said:
I would genuinely love to see that data whenever you get a chance to find it. Thank you!
Click to expand...

Some of the best work on this subject has been done by Dr. John Lott. I think the best general introduction is his book "More Guns, Less Crime" which is available here:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0...X0DER&pf_rd_r=1EVK7W2Y6MDD1DBWR57G&pldnSite=1

The first review there from May 12, 2013 mirrors my reaction and experience pretty closely. Of course one can also go and read the actual papers, which are references in the book as well as his critics to get a more in-depth understanding.

Lott has updated that presentation several times over the last decade. The datasets underlying that work are available here:
http://crimeresearch.org/data/
 
These things happen! You're wasted, there's a P-51, one thing leads to another...

ChurchillPolarBearsHijackPlane.jpg



Edit: I'm sorry, somebody died, I apologize. I shouldn't make light in this thread.
 
StevieTimes said:
These things happen! You're wasted, there's a P-51, one thing leads to another...

ChurchillPolarBearsHijackPlane.jpg



Edit: I'm sorry, somebody died, I apologize. I shouldn't make light in this thread.
Click to expand...

I figured by the recent discussion he must have shot himself down, too.
 
Neither gun control, nor religion or abortion have anything to do with flying under the influence.
 
weilke said:
​

So why the misguided focus then?



How about we apply the existing firearms laws and lock that small group of high risk offenders up for the time periods specified in those laws. In MD, any firearm use during another crime should buy you 5 years yet the local judges let the offenders walk with with 4 years, 11mo, 27 days suspended. When they re-offend, they may get 30 days for parole violation rather than the balance of the 5 years. The problem is in the courts and the liberal stacked benches. Now that pot is legal and the prisons should empty from all those nonviolent drug offenders who supposedly fill them, we should get plenty of room to lock up the violent criminals.
Click to expand...


I am not familiar with Maryland's system of justice, however, I suspect it is plagued by the same problems as we have here in Missouri. Judges have very little power to determine how much of a sentence is actually served. When I sentence a defendant to any number of years, the department of corrections then determines what amount of that sentence he will actually serve. In addition, judges are pressured constantly to use "alternative" sentencing rather than incarceration. The system is rigged so that judges appear to be soft on sentencing when it more accurately is the lack of will of the legislative branch and the executive branch to pay for the cost of long term incarceration.

Please feel free to pm if you have questions or would like to discuss the issue further.

ML
 
weilke said:
Neither gun control, nor religion or abortion have anything to do with flying under the influence.
Click to expand...

Not directly, though in the case of gun control and abortion, all involve attempts to use the law to prohibit an action or object which a large number of people find moral and desirable. I think the question of prohibition and its effectiveness, or lack thereof, is how the thread drifted off in these directions.
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top