A 9-year-old boy shot his older sister to death over a video game controller, sheriff

christiefan915 said:
That's not what neuroscientists say.
Click to expand...

That’s crazy. Assess risk? Risk? You know when you shoot someone it ain’t good ... and you don’t have to be 25 years and one day to know it either. That type of thought or pseudoscience just offers someone below 25 an excuse for stupid decision making and it gives potential ammunition to the gun restrictors/banners of America.
 
volsrock said:
A car is a inherently dangerous product
Click to expand...

But designed for transportation. It is not designed to kill. Cars are heavily regulated and drivers have to qualify. Yet cars are not designed to kill. Guns, which are designed for that purpose are not regulated. Or barely.
 
Nordberg said:
But designed for transportation. It is not designed to kill. Cars are heavily regulated and drivers have to qualify. Yet cars are not designed to kill. Guns, which are designed for that purpose are not regulated. Or barely.
Click to expand...
That's where that "shall not be infringed" comes in.
 
smb said:
Tide isn't designed to be eaten. That is just stupid and yet another non-sequitur. The gun is designed to kill or maim. That is why the NRA had paid Congress to pass a law preventing them from being sued if someone uses their guns as designed, i.e. to kill or maim.
Click to expand...

Well then, since you don't want to hold those responsible for their actions, but rather the manufacturers of the tools they use, why not go back to their origins? The Chinese invented gun powder and the first firearm, so sue the Chinese. It's all their fault.
 
countryboy said:
I see, so when a reckless driver causes a 20 car pile up, do you say, "Just another sad chapter in the annals of American car culture"? Of course you don't.
Click to expand...

Gun fucks never met a non-sequitur they didn't like have they? Again if you are willing to put the same restrictions on guns that we have on cars I am all for it. Make it so that everyone who owns a weapon has to have a license that is reissued every so often. That they have to have at least 6mo of gun training before taking a test to prove they can handle a weapon. Etc. etc. Are you saying you would agree to that? Of course you wouldn't.

Dumb asses.
 
Yaya said:
Neither does you fake claim. See how that works...
Click to expand...

Except my "claim" is backed by law.

Strict Liability https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/Abnormally_dangerous_activity

In tort law, an activity that (1) is not of common usage, and (2) creates a foreseeable and highly significant risk of physical harm even when reasonable care is exercised by all actors. See Restatement (Third) of Torts § 20(b) (2009). A person who is found by a court to have carried on an abnormally dangerous activity will be subject to strict liability for physical harm resulting from that activity. See id. § 20(a) (2009).

As you can see all elements of strict liability are met to hold gun manufacturers accountable. Or would be had not the NRA paid Congress to make so they are not.
 
RB 60 said:
Well then, since you don't want to hold those responsible for their actions, but rather the manufacturers of the tools they use, why not go back to their origins? The Chinese invented gun powder and the first firearm, so sue the Chinese. It's all their fault.
Click to expand...

Another idiot chimes in.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello BodyDouble,It can be said that the President is pregnant with a Martian baby. It wouldn't make it true. There are 3 years of childhood in the group available in the given data 15-24. There are 7 years of adulthood. If we estimated on the basis of the assumption of proportional spread of data then 30% of the figure would go to the 15-17 group and 70% of the figure would go to the adult group. (Why does it matter the age of the victims of gun deaths anyway? Do we not care about adults who are victims of gun shootings?)

You think the 18-24 yo group would be more likely to be a victim of another gun death. So what if we slanted that spread in your favor? How about we say only 20% of the deaths for the larger group are age 15-17, and 80% are age 18-24?

That would be

.20 x 7357 = 1,471

Add that to the 461 gun deaths in the 1-14 age group

1,471 + 461 = 1,932 estimated gun deaths for children using the 20/80 proportioning of given age group 15-24 data.

But we also need to apply the same calculations to the drownings.

There were 828 drownings in the 1-14 groups. There were 592 drownings in the 15-24 group. Since there is no reason to think there would be more drownings above age 18, we use a 30/70 split here.

.30 x 592 = 178

178 + 828 = 1,006.

That's an estimated 1,932 gun deaths vs 1,006 drownings for ages 1-17 in 2016.

What if the 15-17 yo figure was only a tenth of the whole group?

.10 x 7357 = 732

732 + 461 = 1193.

1193 gun deaths vs 1006 drownings in all bodies of water.

Still more gun deaths than pool deaths. And the benefit of the doubt was even given to the drownings figure, keep that at a proportional ratio.

And we have not yet begun to estimate how many of the drownings are pool deaths vs other bodies of water.

Or talked about why any differentiation should be made about which data to look at when determining if pools are indeed more dangerous than guns.

For all ages combined it is hands down.

Guns are FAR more dangerous than pools.
Click to expand...

Hello BodyDouble,

BodyDouble said:
... your post is just numbers that you assume to be true based on zero study or fact. If you want to refute a claim, like you did with gun vs. pool deaths, at least have solid facts to back it up to make your claim. Or, continue to be disingenuous and keep posting.
Click to expand...

You just don't like the numbers because they do not support your position. It's based on solid data from the CDC. CDC - Causes of Death by Age for 2016 You can't refute my math; so now you're dictating how my posts should be comprised. That is the diversionary tactic of an unsupportable position.

Sounds like I'm talking to a Russian bot.

Wutz tew en tew

Ansaar thu humon veri-phikashun qweschun ore whee argh dunn
 
smb said:
Gun fucks never met a non-sequitur they didn't like have they? Again if you are willing to put the same restrictions on guns that we have on cars I am all for it. Make it so that everyone who owns a weapon has to have a license that is reissued every so often. That they have to have at least 6mo of gun training before taking a test to prove they can handle a weapon. Etc. etc. Are you saying you would agree to that? Of course you wouldn't.

Dumb asses.
Click to expand...

Gee, another leftist loon with a limited understanding of the English language. I suggest you avail yourself of a paper dictionary, since the online versions are evidently beyond your comprehension.

Are you truly willing to follow your actual non sequitur of an example? Most states allow driver training to begin at fifteen years of age. Are you suggesting schools offer gun ed to fifteen year olds? And what state requires 6 months of driver training? I believe I had 20 hours. Am I to believe you wish to allow 15 year olds to receive 20 hours of gun training, take a one page utterly rudimentary test on gun safety, pop off a few rounds to demonstrate they can hit a target, and then license them to carry a gun at sixteen? I don't really think you have thought this through. Maybe you should email whoever is issuing your talking points, and point out the obvious flaws in their retort to the mention of car deaths, in relation to gun deaths.

Oh and, where are conveyances even mentioned in the Constitution?

Dumb asses indeed.
 
smb said:
Except my "claim" is backed by law.

Strict Liability https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/Abnormally_dangerous_activity

In tort law, an activity that (1) is not of common usage, and (2) creates a foreseeable and highly significant risk of physical harm even when reasonable care is exercised by all actors. See Restatement (Third) of Torts § 20(b) (2009). A person who is found by a court to have carried on an abnormally dangerous activity will be subject to strict liability for physical harm resulting from that activity. See id. § 20(a) (2009).

As you can see all elements of strict liability are met to hold gun manufacturers accountable. Or would be had not the NRA paid Congress to make so they are not.
Click to expand...

when you can hold this against all government activity, like police abuse, then we'll entertain the idea for citizens. until then, no.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello BodyDouble,It can be said that the President is pregnant with a Martian baby. It wouldn't make it true. There are 3 years of childhood in the group available in the given data 15-24. There are 7 years of adulthood. If we estimated on the basis of the assumption of proportional spread of data then 30% of the figure would go to the 15-17 group and 70% of the figure would go to the adult group. (Why does it matter the age of the victims of gun deaths anyway? Do we not care about adults who are victims of gun shootings?)

You think the 18-24 yo group would be more likely to be a victim of another gun death. So what if we slanted that spread in your favor? How about we say only 20% of the deaths for the larger group are age 15-17, and 80% are age 18-24?

That would be

.20 x 7357 = 1,471

Add that to the 461 gun deaths in the 1-14 age group

1,471 + 461 = 1,932 estimated gun deaths for children using the 20/80 proportioning of given age group 15-24 data.

But we also need to apply the same calculations to the drownings.

There were 828 drownings in the 1-14 groups. There were 592 drownings in the 15-24 group. Since there is no reason to think there would be more drownings above age 18, we use a 30/70 split here.

.30 x 592 = 178

178 + 828 = 1,006.

That's an estimated 1,932 gun deaths vs 1,006 drownings for ages 1-17 in 2016.

What if the 15-17 yo figure was only a tenth of the whole group?

.10 x 7357 = 732

732 + 461 = 1193.

1193 gun deaths vs 1006 drownings in all bodies of water.

Still more gun deaths than pool deaths. And the benefit of the doubt was even given to the drownings figure, keep that at a proportional ratio.

And we have not yet begun to estimate how many of the drownings are pool deaths vs other bodies of water.

Or talked about why any differentiation should be made about which data to look at when determining if pools are indeed more dangerous than guns.

For all ages combined it is hands down.

Guns are FAR more dangerous than pools.
Click to expand...

Hello iewitness,

iewitness said:
do the maths.
Click to expand...

???

That is exactly what I just did.

Where's your math?

And stay on point. This was in response to volsrock's crack that:

volsrock said:
A pool in the backyard kills more kids by accident that a gun
Click to expand...
 
countryboy said:
Gee, another leftist loon with a limited understanding of the English language. I suggest you avail yourself of a paper dictionary, since the online versions are evidently beyond your comprehension.

Are you truly willing to follow your actual non sequitur of an example? Most states allow driver training to begin at fifteen years of age. Are you suggesting schools offer gun ed to fifteen year olds? And what state requires 6 months of driver training? I believe I had 20 hours. Am I to believe you wish to allow 15 year olds to receive 20 hours of gun training, take a one page utterly rudimentary test on gun safety, pop off a few rounds to demonstrate they can hit a target, and then license them to carry a gun at sixteen? I don't really think you have thought this through. Maybe you should email whoever is issuing your talking points, and point out the obvious flaws in their retort to the mention of car deaths, in relation to gun deaths.

Oh and, where are conveyances even mentioned in the Constitution?

Dumb asses indeed.
Click to expand...

Hey dumb ass. No paper dictionary needed.

Non-sequitur - a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.

To suggest applying the same laws and/or liability for people in an vehicle accident and people involved in firearms death is a conclusion that does not even come close to following any kind of logical thread ergo non-sequitur.

That being said you haven't thought your proposed non-sequitur through. A state can regulate the age at which a person is eligible to drive at any time. So if they apply the same regulations to licensing drivers as they do guns then they have the authority to set ANY age limit they see fit. So once again I ask are you willing to accept those same regulations. Thought not dumb ass.

Also CA requires six months of training to get a license to drive. Again ignorance is bliss heh?

https://www.dmv.org/ca-california/drivers-training.php

fucking dumb asses.
 
smb said:
No it is just stupid that is all. Police and government officials can be held liable for their actions. What the fuck is your point?
Click to expand...

you're not very familiar with qualified immunity, absolute immunity, and tort limits on claims against governments, are you? my point is you're a statist moron who doesn't have a clue about reality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top