Page 3 of 3 [ 46 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

16 Oct 2018, 12:58 am

Me and millions and millions of other gun owners never shoot anything living.
You shouldn’t punish 100+ million people for the actions of less then 100.



kokopelli
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,634
Location: amid the sunlight and the dust and the wind

16 Oct 2018, 1:05 am

sly279 wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
in even a marginally less imperfect world there would be no guns or use for guns. but we live in a cosmically coalesced dystopia-lite where only million$ gives one any respite from the craziness. if I ran things, ANY weapons found would be melted down into gardening equipment. any repeat offenders would be exiled. people who invent new weapons would similarly be exiled. even fists would earn one an exile. let them all duke it out on some deserted island somewhere. mebbe the survivors would get some sense and form a nation. then we'd all better watch out.


Are you going to volunteer to catch rabid animals so that they can be euthanized?

I'ts a whole lot safer to shoot rabid animals.

Also things like rattlesnakes. My younger brother once shot a rattlesnake that was coiled up a foot from leg before it could bite me.


You’re death and the death of hundreds millions is just acceptable losses to the s it gun folks


That's probably true.

Hey, I missed my chance last weekend. I found out Saturday that one of the two firearms stores in my area was selling firearms and ammo for 50% off in a Customer Appreciation Sale. I meant to go over Sunday and maybe buy a 9 mm handgun and ammo, but I completely forgot. :(



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,609
Location: the island of defective toy santas

16 Oct 2018, 1:05 am

down under, they passed a law and there have been no further mass-shootings. if they can do it, then why can't we?



sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

16 Oct 2018, 1:22 am

auntblabby wrote:
down under, they passed a law and there have been no further mass-shootings. if they can do it, then why can't we?

One there has been mass shootings and mass killings since.
2 they had a whopping same amount before.
Same for yo they stats are the same after the ban as before the ban.
The law has zero effect
Likewise we had mass shootings before during and after the assault weapons j ban and all studies showed the ban had no effect whatever, in fact some of the worst ones happen during ban then before. If you banned guns tomorrow we’d still have just as many mass shootings. Then what will you blame?

Australia had a mass shooting this year and other nations with gun bans have mass shootings.

The USA is just more violent then other nations for various reasons taking guns away from hundred million non violent people won’t make us any less violent. You don’t chang society by removing one item. Just as yiu can’t make people not fat by banning certain foods. People over eat that’s why they fat nit cause fast food or soda or candy. Banning those things doesn’t do anything to address the actual problem. People still get fat in area that banned those. But hey it’s easier to stick your head in the ground then actually try to solve the problem
Just like it’s easier to punish people then actually try to help suicidal people.
Actually helping them would take time and effort.
https://www.facebook.com/RZerfing/video ... 385201739/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/12/worl ... ngton.html
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_ ... y_shooting
Oakhampton Heights Shooting
Then of course there’s all the mass killings with knives in uk and mass killings with fire in Australia.

Same amount of people die after the ban as before somis it abiut savage mg lives or punishing innocent people

Also this doesn’t include any shootings where less then 4 people are killed. So who’s to say how many shootings either country has.



BTDT
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,088

16 Oct 2018, 8:45 am

sly279 wrote:
Me and millions and millions of other gun owners never shoot anything living.
You shouldn’t punish 100+ million people for the actions of less then 100.


Profiling can be an effective way of narrowing down the 100+ Million into a much smaller number of people. A jury can add fairness to an arbitrary set of rules. Fact is, companies already do profiling as part of their business model.

Target got an angry letter for implying that someone was pregnant. Of course Target was right, and the father of the expecting mother just didn't know.



kokopelli
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,634
Location: amid the sunlight and the dust and the wind

16 Oct 2018, 10:15 am

Apparently, 118 million households in the US have firearms. In some households, only one person has a firearm. In other households, more than one person has a firearm.

Let's assume that the total number of firearm owners is 125 million to make it simple and that the total number of adult citizens in the US is 250 million.

That would mean there would have to be 125 million trials to determine whether they could have firearms. If they need a jury for each gun owner, then that would involve 12*125,000,000 = 1.5 billion jurors to determine the issue. With 250 million adult citizens, then each adult citizen in the US would have to average being on 6 juries.

In reality, every trial to determine gun ownership would first involve choosing a jury. They wouldn't just take the first 12 jurors -- there would have to be significant voir dire by both parties to determine who to put on the jury. That would likely take up at least half a day for each of the 125 million trials and it could go into more than one day in many cases.

The trial itself would have to go into the character and stability of each gun owner. They would have to look at police records, medical records, ..., to make the decision. Figure at least a day of testimony for each trial, maybe more. Then there would be the deliberations. For a good evaluation, figure another day for that.

So for 12 jurors, that would be at least 288 man-hours. If there were 50 jurors in the jury panel, then 38 of those jurors spent a day in voir dire and weren't selected for the jury. That would be another 304 man hours wasted. So just for the jurors, the total man-hours expended per trial would be 592 man-hours.

Also, for each jury, there would be a judge, a court stenographer, one or more bailiffs, a court clerk, a prosecutor, an attorney, and the person being evaluated by the court. Another 168 man-hours during the trial. We're now up to 760 man-hours per trial.

Next, there are the various witnesses. Figure character witnesses, medical, psychiatric, police, school personnel, ... . For the sake of simplicity, let's assume that there are 10 witnesses per trial. While each witness may only testify for an hour or so, it is basically taking a day or more out of their lives, at least, just to be available and wait their turn as well as travel back and forth. So that's another 80 man-hours. So far, 840 man-hours per trial.

Then there is trial preparation by the prosecutor and the defense attorney. Figure at least a couple of days to prepare for the trial. That's another 48 hours.

And then there would be the investigators to check out everyone who wants a firearm. They would have to investigate the person, locate and interview witnesses, and write reports for the prosecutor or attorney, depending on which side they are working. Figure at least one investigator on each side for at least a week. That's another 80 hours. And then there is the time consumed by everyone the investigators talk to -- not only the time they spend talking to them, but the time it takes them to prepare to talk to the investigators (things like reviewing their files) as well as the time wasted waiting. Figure another 80 hours.

That puts up to 1,048 hours for each trial. There would be other people involved, too, but let's just round it to 1,000 hours to make it easy.

Thus, for 125,000,000 trials, that would be 125,000,000,000 man-hours. At 2,000 man-hours per man-year, that would be 62,500,000 man-years. Assume that the average wages involved are $50 per hour, that would be $6,250,000,000,000 in wages to be paid for the court personnel and wages forgone by the jurors and the person wanting to possess a firearm.

If instead of one trial per person, there is one trial per firearm, it goes up more. Instead of 125 million trials, there would be 300 million trials. We're up to $15,000,000,000,000 dollars.

So we're now talking about something between 6.25 to 15 trillion dollars for what we have now. We're not even to the new firearm purchases yet.

I don't know how many courtrooms we have in the United States, but we would have to build many, many more. Courthouses aren't cheap and they would have to get the land to build them on by taking it away (at their nominal eminent domain prices) from citizens and businesses.

Think about it like this -- at 3 days per trial, average, including deliberation, in 50 weeks (leave some weeks out to cover holidays), that would be 83 trials per courtroom. To cover 125 million such trials in a year, that would require 1,506,024 courtrooms. For 300 million such trials, it would be 3,614,457 new courtrooms.

Keep in mind, though, that we have a right to a speedy trial. Even a year would likely violate that right.

It's a crazy idea.



BTDT
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,088

16 Oct 2018, 10:29 am

You have it backwards. A big company has the data to show that there are a few dozen people who are likely to be dangerous and decides to share it with the government. A jury could be used to decide what to do with this information.



AspieUtah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Brigham City, Utah

16 Oct 2018, 10:58 am

Because determining individuals with (or desiring) firearms to be a danger to themselves and/or others (or not) is an administrative function requiring the cooperation of a state- or federal-government court to oversee, and guarantee due process and other rights, juries have no standing in the decision, because juries are traditionally used to consider and determine guilt, not the condition of the individual in question. However, juries may be used to consider lawsuits that result from an appeal of a determination if an error is made by the trial court.


_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)


sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

16 Oct 2018, 5:36 pm

BTDT wrote:
sly279 wrote:
Me and millions and millions of other gun owners never shoot anything living.
You shouldn’t punish 100+ million people for the actions of less then 100.


Profiling can be an effective way of narrowing down the 100+ Million into a much smaller number of people. A jury can add fairness to an arbitrary set of rules. Fact is, companies already do profiling as part of their business model.

Target got an angry letter for implying that someone was pregnant. Of course Target was right, and the father of the expecting mother just didn't know.


My comment is about banning all guns and punishing all gun owners for the few who do mass shootings, many who were not gun owners until the day they bought a gun for the sole purpose of doing a mass shooting.
While they meet the technical term I wouldn’t consider then gun owners.
Thought your side was against profiling?

A biased jury won’t add anymore fairness.
Likewise if you own guns don’t live in Portland or any other liberal city as you won’t get a fair trial.



RetroGamer87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,932
Location: Adelaide, Australia

20 Oct 2018, 9:02 pm

auntblabby wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
in even a marginally less imperfect world there would be no guns or use for guns. but we live in a cosmically coalesced dystopia-lite where only million$ gives one any respite from the craziness. if I ran things, ANY weapons found would be melted down into gardening equipment. any repeat offenders would be exiled. people who invent new weapons would similarly be exiled. even fists would earn one an exile. let them all duke it out on some deserted island somewhere. mebbe the survivors would get some sense and form a nation. then we'd all better watch out.

Yeah! Let's exile them all to America and let them duke it out!

haha ;) there's always the moon, we need to develop the moon into a penal colony :idea:

Bad idea. The moon has a weaker gravity well than us. They could throw rocks at us more easily than we could throw rocks at them. Bombardment from space would be devastating. Not to mention that it would be far easier for them to colonise the solar system. Eventually the Earth would become a technological backwater, bullied by the more advanced colonies, just like in The Caves of Steel.

It would be better to setup two colonies on the moon. Hopefully they'll fight each other instead of us.


_________________
The days are long, but the years are short


auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,609
Location: the island of defective toy santas

20 Oct 2018, 10:58 pm

RetroGamer87 wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
in even a marginally less imperfect world there would be no guns or use for guns. but we live in a cosmically coalesced dystopia-lite where only million$ gives one any respite from the craziness. if I ran things, ANY weapons found would be melted down into gardening equipment. any repeat offenders would be exiled. people who invent new weapons would similarly be exiled. even fists would earn one an exile. let them all duke it out on some deserted island somewhere. mebbe the survivors would get some sense and form a nation. then we'd all better watch out.

Yeah! Let's exile them all to America and let them duke it out!

haha ;) there's always the moon, we need to develop the moon into a penal colony :idea:

Bad idea. The moon has a weaker gravity well than us. They could throw rocks at us more easily than we could throw rocks at them. Bombardment from space would be devastating. Not to mention that it would be far easier for them to colonise the solar system. Eventually the Earth would become a technological backwater, bullied by the more advanced colonies, just like in The Caves of Steel. It would be better to setup two colonies on the moon. Hopefully they'll fight each other instead of us.

yeh, good idea :idea: sorta like Jay Gould said, hire one-half the criminal class to kill off the other half. repeat as necessary.



kokopelli
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,634
Location: amid the sunlight and the dust and the wind

21 Oct 2018, 5:10 pm

RetroGamer87 wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
in even a marginally less imperfect world there would be no guns or use for guns. but we live in a cosmically coalesced dystopia-lite where only million$ gives one any respite from the craziness. if I ran things, ANY weapons found would be melted down into gardening equipment. any repeat offenders would be exiled. people who invent new weapons would similarly be exiled. even fists would earn one an exile. let them all duke it out on some deserted island somewhere. mebbe the survivors would get some sense and form a nation. then we'd all better watch out.

Yeah! Let's exile them all to America and let them duke it out!

haha ;) there's always the moon, we need to develop the moon into a penal colony :idea:

Bad idea. The moon has a weaker gravity well than us. They could throw rocks at us more easily than we could throw rocks at them. Bombardment from space would be devastating. Not to mention that it would be far easier for them to colonise the solar system. Eventually the Earth would become a technological backwater, bullied by the more advanced colonies, just like in The Caves of Steel.

It would be better to setup two colonies on the moon. Hopefully they'll fight each other instead of us.

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress?



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,609
Location: the island of defective toy santas

21 Oct 2018, 9:14 pm

it wouldn't be as friendly as down under, that's for sure.



RetroGamer87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,932
Location: Adelaide, Australia

25 Oct 2018, 3:42 pm

kokopelli wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
in even a marginally less imperfect world there would be no guns or use for guns. but we live in a cosmically coalesced dystopia-lite where only million$ gives one any respite from the craziness. if I ran things, ANY weapons found would be melted down into gardening equipment. any repeat offenders would be exiled. people who invent new weapons would similarly be exiled. even fists would earn one an exile. let them all duke it out on some deserted island somewhere. mebbe the survivors would get some sense and form a nation. then we'd all better watch out.

Yeah! Let's exile them all to America and let them duke it out!

haha ;) there's always the moon, we need to develop the moon into a penal colony :idea:

Bad idea. The moon has a weaker gravity well than us. They could throw rocks at us more easily than we could throw rocks at them. Bombardment from space would be devastating. Not to mention that it would be far easier for them to colonise the solar system. Eventually the Earth would become a technological backwater, bullied by the more advanced colonies, just like in The Caves of Steel.

It would be better to setup two colonies on the moon. Hopefully they'll fight each other instead of us.

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress?

Really? Ok, now I want to read that!


_________________
The days are long, but the years are short