12 dead in Thousand Oaks, Ca bar

[Harmonian Hegemony]

Yes because I should care what Rapey McLikesbeer thinks.....

Who?

Oh, you mean Justice Kavanaugh, who was pretty blatantly cleared of all baseless accusations by both the Senate and the FBI's six different independent background checks?

The Republican controlled Senate and the heavily neutered and sabotaged 'investigation? Yeah, I'm gonna have to take a hard pass on that.

How many victim cards do you have in that deck?

If he is playing standard, four max. Meaning that he has two left to play still.

Thankfully, we still have plenty of low cost counter spells to foil his hand.

More bullying.

[Len Hyet]

Who?

Oh, you mean Justice Kavanaugh, who was pretty blatantly cleared of all baseless accusations by both the Senate and the FBI's six different independent background checks?

The Republican controlled Senate and the heavily neutered and sabotaged 'investigation? Yeah, I'm gonna have to take a hard pass on that.

If he is playing standard, four max. Meaning that he has two left to play still.

Thankfully, we still have plenty of low cost counter spells to foil his hand.

More bullying.

You're welcome to start making an argument against the points being raised at any time.

Or if you think you're being bullied you can file a report in moderation.

[Kernen]

Doesn't matter what you care about. What matters is rather the court says AW bans are unconstitutional.

Because all SCOTUS are in fallible. Just like Dredd Scott.

Constitutional precedent is overridden when there is a change in either cultural understandings or the legal landscape that make a previous ruling unworkable. So far, there are no intervening factors in the area of firearm technology that have constituted a significant change since DC v. Heller that would constitute that change. Semi-automatic rifles were in common circulation long before the seemingly upward trend of mass shootings, which suggests their availability is not the catalyst. As such, there is no change to overturn or limit those rights.

Dredd Scott is a poor example to hold up unless you understand the tests for stare decisis implicit in constitutional interpretation.

[Harmonian Hegemony]

Because all SCOTUS are in fallible. Just like Dredd Scott.

Constitutional precedent is overridden when there is a change in either cultural understandings or the legal landscape that make a previous ruling unworkable. So far, there are no intervening factors in the area of firearm technology that have constituted a significant change since DC v. Heller that would constitute that change. Semi-automatic rifles were in common circulation long before the seemingly upward trend of mass shootings, which suggests their availability is not the catalyst. As such, there is no change to overturn or limit those rights.

Except, you know, all those mass shootings that keep happening.

[Len Hyet]

Constitutional precedent is overridden when there is a change in either cultural understandings or the legal landscape that make a previous ruling unworkable. So far, there are no intervening factors in the area of firearm technology that have constituted a significant change since DC v. Heller that would constitute that change. Semi-automatic rifles were in common circulation long before the seemingly upward trend of mass shootings, which suggests their availability is not the catalyst. As such, there is no change to overturn or limit those rights.

Except, you know, all those mass shootings that keep happening.

Haven't been increasing in the last 30 years. Try again.

[Paddy O Fernature]

Who?

Oh, you mean Justice Kavanaugh, who was pretty blatantly cleared of all baseless accusations by both the Senate and the FBI's six different independent background checks?

The Republican controlled Senate and the heavily neutered and sabotaged 'investigation? Yeah, I'm gonna have to take a hard pass on that.

Oh?

So, you know more then the Senate Committee and the FBI now do you? I'm sure they would be absolutely thrilled to hear whatever evidence you seem to have that they magically overlooked while the international microscope was being applied to their investigation. Please, by all means, share it with us so those of us who trust them more then some random internet user on a role play website can be enlightened.

What's that? You.. you don't have any actual evidence to back up your argument/opinion on the subject matter at hand. Huh, gee, I never would have guessed. I guess I will just have to go back to believing the 400+ page outcome of the committee findings and the six (yes SIX) background checks conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation over the Justices career up until present time as I'm sure most sensible people would do.

More bullying.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Also, that's three now. Remember, you only have one more in that deck, so consider it's use wisely.

Except, you know, all those mass shootings that keep happening.

Haven't been increasing in the last 30 years. Try again.

I mean, we could post the data from the FBI, but he has already stated that he doesn't believe them so why even fucking bother.

[Kernen]

Constitutional precedent is overridden when there is a change in either cultural understandings or the legal landscape that make a previous ruling unworkable. So far, there are no intervening factors in the area of firearm technology that have constituted a significant change since DC v. Heller that would constitute that change. Semi-automatic rifles were in common circulation long before the seemingly upward trend of mass shootings, which suggests their availability is not the catalyst. As such, there is no change to overturn or limit those rights.

Except, you know, all those mass shootings that keep happening.

Statistics suggest that gun crime in general is decreasing, not increasing. Which kind of scuttles that theory.

[Harmonian Hegemony]

Except, you know, all those mass shootings that keep happening.

Statistics suggest that gun crime in general is decreasing, not increasing. Which kind of scuttles that theory.

No they are increasing. The NRA are just narrowing the definitions of a mass shooting to make it LOOK as though it's decreasing.

[Grinning Dragon]

Statistics suggest that gun crime in general is decreasing, not increasing. Which kind of scuttles that theory.

No they are increasing. The NRA are just narrowing the definitions of a mass shooting to make it LOOK as though it's decreasing.

Ah yes the NRA boogeyman, it's all the NRA's fault /pffft. No the number of shootings are not increasing. The FBI uses the stat 4 or more killed to define a mass shooting.

The rate has pretty much remained flat since the 1970's

[Len Hyet]

Statistics suggest that gun crime in general is decreasing, not increasing. Which kind of scuttles that theory.

No they are increasing. The NRA are just narrowing the definitions of a mass shooting to make it LOOK as though it's decreasing.

Source required

[Kernen]

No they are increasing. The NRA are just narrowing the definitions of a mass shooting to make it LOOK as though it's decreasing.

Ah yes the NRA boogeyman, it's all the NRA's fault /pffft. No the number of shootings are not increasing. The FBI uses the stat 4 or more killed to define a mass shooting.

The rate has pretty much remained flat since the 1970's

You should probably post statistics for him.

[Fartsniffage]

No they are increasing. The NRA are just narrowing the definitions of a mass shooting to make it LOOK as though it's decreasing.

Ah yes the NRA boogeyman, it's all the NRA's fault /pffft. No the number of shootings are not increasing. The FBI uses the stat 4 or more killed to define a mass shooting.

The rate has pretty much remained flat since the 1970's

I still don't get why 4 people have to die for it to be considered a mass shooting. Statistically, about 67% of gunshot victims actually survive now. So on average a shooter would have to hit about 12 people to get 4 fatalities.

Why is it not just 4 people shot along with the rest of the criteria? That would take out the inherent bias in the stats of medical care improving dramatically between the 70's and now.

[Grinning Dragon]

Ah yes the NRA boogeyman, it's all the NRA's fault /pffft. No the number of shootings are not increasing. The FBI uses the stat 4 or more killed to define a mass shooting.

The rate has pretty much remained flat since the 1970's

I still don't get why 4 people have to die for it to be considered a mass shooting. Statistically, about 67% of gunshot victims actually survive now. So on average a shooter would have to hit about 12 people to get 4 fatalities.

Why is it not just 4 people shot along with the rest of the criteria? That would take out the inherent bias in the stats of medical care improving dramatically between the 70's and now.

The FBI officially does not "officially" define a mass shooting and the term isn't used in the UCR, but back in the 1980's the FBI established it as 4 or more victims slain, in one event, in one location, and the offender is not included in the victim count if the shooter committed suicide or was killed in a justifiable homicide. In 2012 Congress set a definition as 3 or more.
The way I see it, one has to start with a set number slain/killed to define a mass shooting for uniformity and tallying, since the number killed is going to weigh a bit more heavier than those who survived. I can see what you are saying though getting shot is getting shot.

[Grinning Dragon]

Ah yes the NRA boogeyman, it's all the NRA's fault /pffft. No the number of shootings are not increasing. The FBI uses the stat 4 or more killed to define a mass shooting.

The rate has pretty much remained flat since the 1970's

You should probably post statistics for him.

I suppose I could let James Allen Fox of Northeastern University do that for me. One caveat though, the graph is from 2014. Pulled from this article

[Gun Manufacturers]

More bullying..

How many victim cards do you have in that deck?

According to the standard rules, he can have up to 4 victim cards in his deck. Of course, he can also have the same cards with different names, too. That is, unless it's a Commander deck, then he can only have 1 victim card in his deck.

Dammit Paddy, you beat me to that joke.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Yes because I should care what Rapey McLikesbeer thinks.....

Who?

Oh, you mean Justice Kavanaugh, who was pretty blatantly cleared of all baseless accusations by both the Senate and the FBI's six different independent background checks? Don't take my word for it...

“Committee investigators found no verifiable evidence that supported Dr. Ford’s allegations against Justice Kavanaugh. The witnesses that Dr. Ford identified as individuals who could corroborate her allegations failed to do so, and in fact, contradicted her.”

“Indeed, the evidence appears to support the position that Julie Swetnick and [her attorney, Michael] Avenatti criminally conspired to make materially false statements to the Committee and obstruct the Committee’s investigation.”

How many victim cards do you have in that deck?

If he is playing standard, four max. Meaning that he has two left to play still.

Thankfully, we still have plenty of low cost counter spells to foil his hand.

You nerd Says the guy who GOT that joke.

[Paddy O Fernature]

How many victim cards do you have in that deck?

According to the standard rules, he can have up to 4 victim cards in his deck. Of course, he can also have the same cards with different names, too. That is, unless it's a Commander deck, then he can only have 1 victim card in his deck.

Dammit Paddy, you beat me to that joke.

Who?

Oh, you mean Justice Kavanaugh, who was pretty blatantly cleared of all baseless accusations by both the Senate and the FBI's six different independent background checks? Don't take my word for it...


If he is playing standard, four max. Meaning that he has two left to play still.

Thankfully, we still have plenty of low cost counter spells to foil his hand.

You nerd Says the guy who GOT that joke.

This made my night, thank you.

Statistics suggest that gun crime in general is decreasing, not increasing. Which kind of scuttles that theory.

No they are increasing. The NRA are just narrowing the definitions of a mass shooting to make it LOOK as though it's decreasing.

In the words of the Immortal Col. Sherman Potter....

"Mule fritters!"

Going to need a source for that laughable claim from a credible source. Won't hold my breath though....

[Harmonian Hegemony]

According to the standard rules, he can have up to 4 victim cards in his deck. Of course, he can also have the same cards with different names, too. That is, unless it's a Commander deck, then he can only have 1 victim card in his deck.

Dammit Paddy, you beat me to that joke.

You nerd Says the guy who GOT that joke.

This made my night, thank you.

No they are increasing. The NRA are just narrowing the definitions of a mass shooting to make it LOOK as though it's decreasing.

In the words of the Immortal Col. Sherman Potter....

"Mule fritters!"

Going to need a source for that laughable claim from a credible source. Won't hold my breath though....

Oh please do.

[Big Jim P]

Who?

Oh, you mean Justice Kavanaugh, who was pretty blatantly cleared of all baseless accusations by both the Senate and the FBI's six different independent background checks? Don't take my word for it...







If he is playing standard, four max. Meaning that he has two left to play still.

Thankfully, we still have plenty of low cost counter spells to foil his hand.

You nerd Says the guy who GOT that joke.

The proper P.C. term is geek-American.

[Len Hyet]

This made my night, thank you.



In the words of the Immortal Col. Sherman Potter....

"Mule fritters!"

Going to need a source for that laughable claim from a credible source. Won't hold my breath though....

Oh please do.

So that's a no on the source then?

Alright we'll just go ahead and file your argument under B for Bullshit.

[Paddy O Fernature]

Oh please do.

So that's a no on the source then?

Alright we'll just go ahead and file your argument under B for Bullshit.

As already stated, I would file it under "M" for Mule Fritters myself, though at this point there really isn't even an actual/credible "argument" being put forth by HH anymore to file away..

You nerd Says the guy who GOT that joke.

The proper P.C. term is geek-American.

Noted.

[Big Jim P]

So that's a no on the source then?

Alright we'll just go ahead and file your argument under B for Bullshit.

As already stated, I would file it under "M" for Mule Fritters myself, though at this point there really isn't even an actual/credible "argument" being put forth by HH anymore to file away..

The proper P.C. term is geek-American.

Noted.

Thank you. We can only spread the PC disease finer standards of civilized speech by example.

[Paddy O Fernature]

As already stated, I would file it under "M" for Mule Fritters myself, though at this point there really isn't even an actual/credible "argument" being put forth by HH anymore to file away..



Noted.

Thank you. We can only spread the PC disease finer standards of civilized speech by example.

If by "finer standards" you mean like the kind used in the 80's and 90's then I'm all for it.

[Costa Fierro]

Are the rights of lawful owners being curtailed?

Alright, you're asking good faith questions, I'll give you a good faith effortpost.

Short answer, yes.

Long answer, yes, but here's why. Most of the proposed legislation (and I mean the stuff currently in Congress) is a restriction on the rights of law abiding gun owners. The most common piece of legislation that the DNC likes to introduce with regards to gun control is something called an Assault Weapons Ban, or an AWB for short. Leaving aside for a moment the (largely but not entirely) semantic argument about the term assault weapon, this bill in its most recent forms would outright ban almost every single semi-automatic rifle currently on the market, with a few exceptions. Those exceptions prove why the bill is stupid, but that wasn't your question.

Your question was "are the rights of lawful owners being curtailed". Not being allowed to buy, sell, or own, a product is a curtailment of rights. Period end of. And yes, I realize that is an incredibly open-ended statement that could apply to anything from black-tar heroin to nuclear warheads. The key is balancing a pressing government interest with the rights of the people. Pressing governmental interest: preventing nuclear proliferation. That checks. Pressing governmental interest: preventing the societal decay that is the result of hard drug use. That checks.

So the question is balancing rights versus securities. In my opinion the right at stake (keeping and bearing arms) outweighs the probable benefits (of which there are few). Now, the people supporting an AWB say it will reduce mass shootings. What they do not say is back in 1994 the Clinton administration already tried passing an AWB for similar reasons. It didn't work.There was a study performed in 2004 on the AWB, and one of its conclusions was it:

“failed to produce evidence of a post-ban reduction in the average number of gunshot wounds per case or in the proportion of cases involving multiple wounds.”

and

"Although the ban has been successful in reducing crimes with AWs [Assault Weapons], any benefits from this reduction are likely to have been outweighed by steady or rising use of non-banned semiautomatics with LCMs [large-capacity magazines], which are used in crime much more frequently than AWs. Therefore, we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence, based on indicators like the percentage of gun crimes resulting in death or the share of gunfire incidents resulting in injury, as we might have expected had the ban reduced crimes with both AWs and LCMs."

The authors caution that it is possible that had the AWB not expired in 2004 it:

may have modestly reduced shootings had it been in effect for a longer period.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

So I guess my follow up question would be this: if restricting the rights to buy and sell a product, in this case firearms, is a violation of rights, would restricting who can own firearms, i.e in accordance with things like convicted felons who have not received a pardon, that would include people being treated for mental health issues, would be considered a violation of rights? If there is someone out there who can legally own a gun, and is likely to pose a danger to themselves or to the public, is that a just reason for imposing bans or restrictions?

[Len Hyet]

Alright, you're asking good faith questions, I'll give you a good faith effortpost.

Short answer, yes.

Long answer, yes, but here's why. Most of the proposed legislation (and I mean the stuff currently in Congress) is a restriction on the rights of law abiding gun owners. The most common piece of legislation that the DNC likes to introduce with regards to gun control is something called an Assault Weapons Ban, or an AWB for short. Leaving aside for a moment the (largely but not entirely) semantic argument about the term assault weapon, this bill in its most recent forms would outright ban almost every single semi-automatic rifle currently on the market, with a few exceptions. Those exceptions prove why the bill is stupid, but that wasn't your question.

Your question was "are the rights of lawful owners being curtailed". Not being allowed to buy, sell, or own, a product is a curtailment of rights. Period end of. And yes, I realize that is an incredibly open-ended statement that could apply to anything from black-tar heroin to nuclear warheads. The key is balancing a pressing government interest with the rights of the people. Pressing governmental interest: preventing nuclear proliferation. That checks. Pressing governmental interest: preventing the societal decay that is the result of hard drug use. That checks.

So the question is balancing rights versus securities. In my opinion the right at stake (keeping and bearing arms) outweighs the probable benefits (of which there are few). Now, the people supporting an AWB say it will reduce mass shootings. What they do not say is back in 1994 the Clinton administration already tried passing an AWB for similar reasons. It didn't work.There was a study performed in 2004 on the AWB, and one of its conclusions was it:
and


The authors caution that it is possible that had the AWB not expired in 2004 it:



Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

So I guess my follow up question would be this: if restricting the rights to buy and sell a product, in this case firearms, is a violation of rights, would restricting who can own firearms, i.e in accordance with things like convicted felons who have not received a pardon, that would include people being treated for mental health issues, would be considered a violation of rights? If there is someone out there who can legally own a gun, and is likely to pose a danger to themselves or to the public, is that a just reason for imposing bans or restrictions?

So again, yes, restricting who can and cannot own firearms is a restriction on people's rights. However, we as a society have agreed that in certain conditions it is acceptable to restrict the rights of others. The easiest example of course is the right to freedom of movement. We as a society have agreed that it is acceptable to restrict that right in circumstances when someone has committed a crime.

Similarly for firearms, if someone has committed a crime and thus demonstrated they are a danger to society, we restrict their right to own firearms.

Doing so before someone has actually committed a crime, in my opinion, constitutes an excessive violation of a person's rights. Namely because it also violates the right to due process of the law. You can't, or rather shouldn't, have your rights taken away if you haven't done anything wrong.