Crime Las Vegas Mass Shooting

[My Spot]

I'm not angry,

Sure. We believe you. Honestly.

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

Well our gun homicide rate is half of what it was 20 years ago despite an over 50% increase in ownership.

It's the opposite actually gun ownership has dropped significantly since the 70's

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.was...erican-gun-ownership-is-now-at-a-30-year-low/

There are more guns but held by fewer people

 

[Falsedawn]

100 pages is a lot of pages, dude

Half of it is citations, which he wouldn't be crying about if he had actually looked at it.

I'm just awaiting that besmirchment, he talks a big game, i'd love to test it.

 

[My Spot]

It's the opposite actually gun ownership has dropped significantly since the 70's

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.was...erican-gun-ownership-is-now-at-a-30-year-low/

There are more guns but held by fewer people

Nope. Household ownership is up 8%, Mr. Gun Controll.

 

[HomerThompson]

Nope. Household ownership is up 8%, Mr. Gun Controll.

Calculated how? Please source. Thanks.

 

[faustian]

A secondary source that cites primary sources that provide historical context to the decision made by the highest authorities of law in the United States.

That was the whole point of my argument, that Scalia neglected to consider the historical context of the second when ruling on DC vs Heller.

You can quote the case all you want, that doesn't change the fact that "oriiginalist" Scalia made a big fat oopsie when he decided to legislate from the bench. Hypocrisy, thy name is Antonin.

Scalia's decision was in 2008. So I still don't know why you're dwelling on this particular decision. But in any case, he considered the highest legal authorities in his rationale. Nope, opinion pieces aren't gonna cut it here.

You claim that this opinion piece cites primary sources. Are you sure about this? Doesn't matter either way, I just want to get a better idea of what kind of standards you're using here.

Maybe this will make it easier to digest: interpretations of history are irrelevant to judge. Now brace yourself: FACTS are irrelevant to a high court judge. Questions of fact are for juries to decide. Judges deal in questions of law. The analysis of established legal principles with devotion to the US Constitution.

I hope this helps

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Sorry taking shelter from a hurricane took precedence over arguing semantics of judicial activism with you.

You're clearly still buttblasted over it though, so i'll say...i'm sorry.

Not sure what buttblasted means, but apology accepted.

 

[second sight]

What's trump gonna do? Is Bannon worried that Congress will produce anti-gun legislation for him to pass? How much damage is he going to do with executive orders?

Bush gave us TSA, DHS, loss of privacy.......

I don’t trust any of them, at the very least we’ll get some hotel version of TSA

 

[My Spot]

Calculated how? Please source. Thanks.

Let me guess, you think Pew isn't a reliable source?

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

You sure you want to argue that he lost his shit because of a 4 month old Valium prescription?

Valium?

The link between diazepam and violence / anti social behavior is well documented
"A paradoxical increase in hostility and aggression may be reported by patients taking benzodiazepines. The effects range from talkativeness and excitement to aggressive and antisocial acts." British National Formulary, 2001.

"Cases of "baby-battering", wife-beating and "grandma-bashing" have been attributed to benzodiazepines."Professor C Heather Ashton, DM, FRCP, Benzodiazepines: How They Work & How to Withdraw, February 2001.

"Like alcohol, benzodiazepines can occasionally cause apparently paradoxical stimulation with increased aggression, anger, violence and antisocial behaviour. Benzodiazepines have been linked with 'baby-battering', 'wife beating' and 'grandma bashing'. Less dramatically, increases in irritability and argumentativeness are often remarked on by patients on long-term benzodiazepines and by their families. These effects are thought to result from disinhibition of usually controlled behaviour."Professor C Heather Ashton, DM, FRCP, Benzodiazepines: The Still Unfinished Story, November 2000.



http://www.benzo.org.uk/violence.htm

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

Nope. Household ownership is up 8%, Mr. Gun Controll.

Lol ok Tex

 

[faustian]

I was gonna warn you about his 100 page link. Looks like I was too late.





I read it after asking if he'd really stick around for the subsequent debate. He scoffed that i would even suggest it. Hours later (after reading it an much of a main citation in it) I made some comment and homie didn't respond. So be forewarned, if your going to take the time just know you're doing it for your own edification.

And of course nothing in the link backed up his claim that there was no historic 2nd Amendment protection for the citizenry. Somehow, even after a civil war, it took the feds 150 years of being a nation before they realized they could in fact ban guns. Crazy!

lmao

 

[My Spot]

Lol ok Tex

Take it up with Pew.

 

[Falsedawn]

Scalia's decision was in 2008. So I still don't know why you're dwelling on this particular decision. But in any case, he considered the highest legal authorities in his rationale. Nope, opinion pieces aren't gonna cut it here.

You claim that this opinion piece cites primary sources. Are you sure about this? Doesn't matter either way, I just want to get a better idea of what kind of standards you're using here.

Maybe this will make it easier to digest: interpretations of history are irrelevant to judge. Now brace yourself: FACTS are irrelevant to a high court judge. Questions of fact are for juries to decide. Judges deal in questions of law. The analysis of established legal principles with devotion to the US Constitution.

I hope this helps

Awww, so no besmirching?

Interpretations of history are NOT irrelevant when establishing precedent, especially one as contentious as this one, and from someone who held themselves up as an "originalist" who defended the meaning of the Constitution as written.

But I get it, it's been a long day, you're low on energy. Next time you're going to "lay it on me", maybe drink some coffee or get some bran in you. I'd hate for you to embarrass yourself again against someone that's begging to be checked. I'll be around playboy, i'm sure this won't be the last time you overpromise and underdeliver.

 

[faustian]

Half of it is citations, which he wouldn't be crying about if he had actually looked at it.

I'm just awaiting that besmirchment, he talks a big game, i'd love to test it.

Citations to what?

 

[Seaside]

I'm not American, but it's true that America does have a gun culture and a lot take their 2nd Amendment seriously.

I guess it depends on what you mean by 'the problem' though. If it's homicides then really the problem would be primarily gang violence and hand guns.

If it's high profile mass shootings, then it's probably not a good idea to get carried away with stripping people of their rights based on a statistically insignificant subset of overall homicides, based on a 'solution' that wouldn't even prevent them, and would hardly even deter them.

the people gots no purpose, to much materialism, no God or ethnic, tribal or pride for religion. I think you hollywood produce stuff mtv is all bad and no purpose also gay propagandas is found all place and radical feminism take from men power which men need.

 

[CargoKing]

The link between diazepam and violence / anti social behavior is well documented
"A paradoxical increase in hostility and aggression may be reported by patients taking benzodiazepines. The effects range from talkativeness and excitement to aggressive and antisocial acts." British National Formulary, 2001.

"Cases of "baby-battering", wife-beating and "grandma-bashing" have been attributed to benzodiazepines."Professor C Heather Ashton, DM, FRCP, Benzodiazepines: How They Work & How to Withdraw, February 2001.

"Like alcohol, benzodiazepines can occasionally cause apparently paradoxical stimulation with increased aggression, anger, violence and antisocial behaviour. Benzodiazepines have been linked with 'baby-battering', 'wife beating' and 'grandma bashing'. Less dramatically, increases in irritability and argumentativeness are often remarked on by patients on long-term benzodiazepines and by their families. These effects are thought to result from disinhibition of usually controlled behaviour."Professor C Heather Ashton, DM, FRCP, Benzodiazepines: The Still Unfinished Story, November 2000.



http://www.benzo.org.uk/violence.htm

You missed some key words in there relating to the likelihood that it was caused by benzodiazepines.

"Can", "may", "occasionally", "paradoxically". They're there for a good reason.

 

[icecoldvovchanchyn]

The link between diazepam and violence / anti social behavior is well documented
"A paradoxical increase in hostility and aggression may be reported by patients taking benzodiazepines. The effects range from talkativeness and excitement to aggressive and antisocial acts." British National Formulary, 2001.

"Cases of "baby-battering", wife-beating and "grandma-bashing" have been attributed to benzodiazepines."Professor C Heather Ashton, DM, FRCP, Benzodiazepines: How They Work & How to Withdraw, February 2001.

"Like alcohol, benzodiazepines can occasionally cause apparently paradoxical stimulation with increased aggression, anger, violence and antisocial behaviour. Benzodiazepines have been linked with 'baby-battering', 'wife beating' and 'grandma bashing'. Less dramatically, increases in irritability and argumentativeness are often remarked on by patients on long-term benzodiazepines and by their families. These effects are thought to result from disinhibition of usually controlled behaviour."Professor C Heather Ashton, DM, FRCP, Benzodiazepines: The Still Unfinished Story, November 2000.



http://www.benzo.org.uk/violence.htm

People underestimate benzos big time

 

[My Spot]

I'm not American, but it's true that America does have a gun culture and a lot take their 2nd Amendment seriously.

I guess it depends on what you mean by 'the problem' though. If it's homicides then really the problem would be primarily gang violence and hand guns.

If it's high profile mass shootings, then it's probably not a good idea to get carried away with stripping people of their rights based on a statistically insignificant subset of overall homicides, based on a 'solution' that wouldn't even prevent them, and would hardly even deter them.

And yet even here in America you're twice as likely to be killed by lightning as you are to be involved in a mass shooting. The fascination is odd while ignoring roughly 98% of all the other gun homicides.

 

[faustian]

Awww, so no besmirching?

Interpretations of history are NOT irrelevant when establishing precedent, especially one as contentious as this one, and from someone who held themselves up as an "originalist" who defended the meaning of the Constitution as written.

But I get it, it's been a long day, you're low on energy. Next time you're going to "lay it on me", maybe drink some coffee or get some bran in you. I'd hate for you to embarrass yourself again against someone that's begging to be checked. I'll be around playboy, i'm sure this won't be the last time you overpromise and underdeliver.

I'm sitting here explaining to you how the legal system actually works and you're responding with how you think it might or should work. You really are out of your element here regardless of whether you even realize it