0
jclalor

Arizona Congresswoman, shot in the head

Recommended Posts

Quote

Quote


Well, it seems that Loughner is a really good fit to the profile of an assassin, according to the 1999 Secret Service Exception Case Study Project, by Fein and Vossekuil.

So maybe it really IS possible to make early identification of dangerous nutcases, IF the deniers decide to open their minds and concede that there ARE experts in this area.



Yes they are experts with 20/20 hindsight. I agree we should keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill people. We should never stop trying. Do you agree that no matter what is done, even an outright ban (I know you are not suggesting an outright ban) on guns would not keep someone else from using a gun in a violent crime in America?



A solution doesn't have to be perfect, just better than what we have right now.

If we insisted on perfect cures or no action, pretty much all medical practice would come to an end.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote




unfortunately, you'd be hard pressed to find a profiler that would feel they are accurate enough to remove someone's rights.



I consider the assassin's victims right to live to outweigh your right to convenience. A very smart Supreme Court justice once observed that "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."



and do you believe that any justice would remove anyone's second amendment right based on the predictions of an FBI profiler?

That seems to be what you're proposing. Yet when I state your apparent position you selectively quote me to dodge that. We will have to take that as assent since it's the closest you'l likely come to stating your actual stance on the issue.
--
Rob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote




unfortunately, you'd be hard pressed to find a profiler that would feel they are accurate enough to remove someone's rights.



I consider the assassin's victims right to live to outweigh your right to convenience. A very smart Supreme Court justice once observed that "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."



and do you believe that any justice would remove anyone's second amendment right based on the predictions of an FBI profiler?

That seems to be what you're proposing. Yet when I state your apparent position you selectively quote me to dodge that. We will have to take that as assent since it's the closest you'l likely come to stating your actual stance on the issue.



Have you ever heard of "due process"?
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote




unfortunately, you'd be hard pressed to find a profiler that would feel they are accurate enough to remove someone's rights.



I consider the assassin's victims right to live to outweigh your right to convenience. A very smart Supreme Court justice once observed that "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."



and do you believe that any justice would remove anyone's second amendment right based on the predictions of an FBI profiler?

That seems to be what you're proposing. Yet when I state your apparent position you selectively quote me to dodge that. We will have to take that as assent since it's the closest you'l likely come to stating your actual stance on the issue.



Have you ever heard of "due process"?


so you're proposing that we profile every citizen based on private actions and when we think they're doing something wrong, convene court, or a panel of some sort to remove their second amendment right.
--
Rob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You have no right to presume what I consider.

I have never thought I had 'easy' access to weapons.
Except for those in my immediate possession anyway.
It's a simple matter of my rights and protecting them from our government.
I'm not a lemming nor a sheeple.
I have the sane ability and the right to think for myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote




unfortunately, you'd be hard pressed to find a profiler that would feel they are accurate enough to remove someone's rights.



I consider the assassin's victims right to live to outweigh your right to convenience. A very smart Supreme Court justice once observed that "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."



and do you believe that any justice would remove anyone's second amendment right based on the predictions of an FBI profiler?

That seems to be what you're proposing. Yet when I state your apparent position you selectively quote me to dodge that. We will have to take that as assent since it's the closest you'l likely come to stating your actual stance on the issue.



Have you ever heard of "due process"?



How'd things work out for the folks in the no-fly list threads you participated in? They get cleared yet?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote




unfortunately, you'd be hard pressed to find a profiler that would feel they are accurate enough to remove someone's rights.



I consider the assassin's victims right to live to outweigh your right to convenience. A very smart Supreme Court justice once observed that "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."



and do you believe that any justice would remove anyone's second amendment right based on the predictions of an FBI profiler?

That seems to be what you're proposing. Yet when I state your apparent position you selectively quote me to dodge that. We will have to take that as assent since it's the closest you'l likely come to stating your actual stance on the issue.



Have you ever heard of "due process"?



I have heard of due process.

Something about innocent until PROVEN guilty. You obviously do not feel the same way since you inferred some peoples rights should be taken away BEFORE they are proven guilty.







________________________________
"1981 to 1988 is 7 years"-Kallend (oops, it's actually 8 years,Kallend)

The decade of the 80's was from 1980 to 1989. 10 years. If you remove 1980 and 1989 you have 1981 to 1988. 8 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I'm wondering if the Walgreen's employee will be fired for this.
Most likely inadmissible in court as well.



It probably is admissible. The general rule is that evidence becomes potentially inadmissble if it's improperly seized by the government or a government agent. But when evidence is "wrongly" obtained by a private party (without any participation by the govt) who/which then turns it over to authorities, it's usually admissible. There are some case-by-case exceptions, but that's the general rule. This isn't a new issue; there's been a fair amount of caselaw throughout the country on this over the years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

I'm wondering if the Walgreen's employee will be fired for this.
Most likely inadmissible in court as well.



It probably is admissible. The general rule is that evidence becomes potentially inadmissble if it's improperly seized by the government or a government agent. But when evidence is "wrongly" obtained by a private party (without any participation by the govt) who/which then turns it over to authorities, it's usually admissible...



True dat.

Case in Florida where a citizen sneaked up to an apartment window and video-taped a sexual encounter. The couple was arrested...I forget what the charges were, indecent exposure I think, and I cannot find a link after a cursory search....so sue me.
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

I'm wondering if the Walgreen's employee will be fired for this.
Most likely inadmissible in court as well.



It probably is admissible. The general rule is that evidence becomes potentially inadmissble if it's improperly seized by the government or a government agent. But when evidence is "wrongly" obtained by a private party (without any participation by the govt) who/which then turns it over to authorities, it's usually admissible. There are some case-by-case exceptions, but that's the general rule. This isn't a new issue; there's been a fair amount of caselaw throughout the country on this over the years.



Who would most benefit by these photographs, the prosecutor or the defense? If you wanted to claim insanity, pictures of yourself posing with a gun wearing nothing but a g-string wouldn’t hurt. Add in the fact that he wanted these to be found (IMO).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

If you wanted to claim insanity, pictures of yourself posing with a gun wearing nothing but a g-string wouldn’t hurt.



I'm not seeing anything too insane about that. Popular media has people in lingerie with guns all the time. (OK, mostly women, but I don't see much difference.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


It's a shame that you consider your convenience in easy access to guns to be more important than other peoples' lives.



It's a shame that you would give up rights that helped found this country and kept us safe since.

OH - that's right. You never were still aren't in favor of any of that, correct?
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>If we insisted on perfect cures or no action, pretty much all medical practice would
>come to an end.

We sorta do. "First, do no harm." Any medical treatment has to have a vastly better outcome than you would have without it before it is approved for use. Evidence-based medicine is a general term describing the process by which such treatments are evaluated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>If we insisted on perfect cures or no action, pretty much all medical practice would
>come to an end.

We sorta do. "First, do no harm." Any medical treatment has to have a vastly better outcome than you would have without it before it is approved for use. Evidence-based medicine is a general term describing the process by which such treatments are evaluated.



"First, do no harm" is NOT the same as a perfect cure.

Three weeks before she died my wife was given medication that the MD said had only a slim chance of treating the cancer, and would make her sick.

Bill, no medical treatment has a 100% cure rate, nor do we require 100% effectiveness for the treatment to be acceptable. OTOH, we see right here many who not only oppose any changes to the gun laws unless assured that this, that or the other homicide or massacre would have been prevented, but who are also so convinced that no changes can possibly be made that they oppose even looking into the possibility.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you would consider the possibility of a more open communication I think you might find that to not be all that accurate.
Your continued resistance to discussion beyond raising the issue that you feel there is a problem that can only be resolved by removing our rights and offering no counter discussion seems to elicit the same response in kind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


It's a shame that you consider your convenience in easy access to guns to be more important than other peoples' lives.



It's a shame that you would give up rights that helped found this country and kept us safe since.



Wasn't too safe for Rep. Giffords, the other Loughner victims, Cho's victims, JFK, RFK, MLK, John Lennon, Ronald Reagan, Abe Lincoln, and hundreds of thousands of other gun victims over the years. Their rights were totally denied.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Bill, no medical treatment has a 100% cure rate, nor do we require 100%
>effectiveness for the treatment to be acceptable.

Right; there is no such thing. But a 50% better/50% worse outcome would not be acceptable. Even a 50/25/25% (i.e. better/worse/no change) would involve a _lot_ of debate before allowing it.

>OTOH, we see right here many who not only oppose any changes to the gun laws
>unless assured that this, that or the other homicide or massacre would have been
>prevented, but who are also so convinced that no changes can possibly be made
>that they oppose even looking into the possibility.

That's different than "insisting on perfect cures or no action."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote


It's a shame that you consider your convenience in easy access to guns to be more important than other peoples' lives.



It's a shame that you would give up rights that helped found this country and kept us safe since.



Wasn't too safe for Rep. Giffords, the other Loughner victims, Cho's victims, JFK, RFK, MLK, John Lennon, Ronald Reagan, Abe Lincoln, and hundreds of thousands of other gun victims over the years. Their rights were totally denied.



So what government run or enforced law is perfect?
Please name one.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

>If we insisted on perfect cures or no action, pretty much all medical practice would
>come to an end.

We sorta do. "First, do no harm." Any medical treatment has to have a vastly better outcome than you would have without it before it is approved for use. Evidence-based medicine is a general term describing the process by which such treatments are evaluated.



"First, do no harm" is NOT the same as a perfect cure.

Three weeks before she died my wife was given medication that the MD said had only a slim chance of treating the cancer, and would make her sick.

Bill, no medical treatment has a 100% cure rate, nor do we require 100% effectiveness for the treatment to be acceptable. OTOH, we see right here many who not only oppose any changes to the gun laws unless assured that this, that or the other homicide or massacre would have been prevented, but who are also so convinced that no changes can possibly be made that they oppose even looking into the possibility.



I think this no perfect solution is where we are now. Can there be improvements? Ya, maybe.

I am open to improvements. But this does not seem to be what you want. And when you do give us some info into what you think will work we, well, it just gets worse (the solution you propose that is)
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote


It's a shame that you consider your convenience in easy access to guns to be more important than other peoples' lives.



It's a shame that you would give up rights that helped found this country and kept us safe since.



Wasn't too safe for Rep. Giffords, the other Loughner victims, Cho's victims, JFK, RFK, MLK, John Lennon, Ronald Reagan, Abe Lincoln, and hundreds of thousands of other gun victims over the years. Their rights were totally denied.



So were ~40-some thousand people who were killed in auto accidents each year - coming to some sort of discernable point eventually?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote


It's a shame that you consider your convenience in easy access to guns to be more important than other peoples' lives.



It's a shame that you would give up rights that helped found this country and kept us safe since.



Wasn't too safe for Rep. Giffords, the other Loughner victims, Cho's victims, JFK, RFK, MLK, John Lennon, Ronald Reagan, Abe Lincoln, and hundreds of thousands of other gun victims over the years. Their rights were totally denied.



As were the rights of over 100 people who died when a suspended walkway collapsed at a hotel in Missouri - more than your list put together in one incident thanks to engineers who risked peoples' lives for their egos.

Tell me why we shouldn't simply imprison engineers? Those who built the Pinto. Those who failed to not only put in a failsafe cargo doorlatch in the DC-10 but who'se wholly underengineered ventilation brought planes down and killed hundreds?

How about those peoples' rights to live? Did those innocent people killed and maimed by engineers have a lesser right to live than the victims of Loughner, Cho, etc? (And don't give me the social utility argument - that rebuilt hotel walkway aint gonna collapse again because it is designed with function and safety foremost instead of aesthetic beauty, meaning it's an ugly-ass structure now that actually works.)

Come to think of it, engineers design guns, too. And bombs. And you teach this subject, kallend?

Just because engineers have saved a lot of lives and made the world we live in a mostly better place (except for what engineers have done for the environment, being almost solely responsible for the creation of the machinery that pollutes our planet (strike 3, kallend) I could write a long tome on how engineers kill people.

Let's apply the same reasoning to engineers as you do to nutters. I'll keep it the same, even though engineers have killed large orders of magnitude more than lnuuters have.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote


It's a shame that you consider your convenience in easy access to guns to be more important than other peoples' lives.



It's a shame that you would give up rights that helped found this country and kept us safe since.



Wasn't too safe for Rep. Giffords, the other Loughner victims, Cho's victims, JFK, RFK, MLK, John Lennon, Ronald Reagan, Abe Lincoln, and hundreds of thousands of other gun victims over the years. Their rights were totally denied.



And that's why it's the government's job to protect our rights, and punish those who have violated them. It's not the government's job to make sure nothing bad ever happens to you. In places that try that, the government's efforts to protect your and their side effects are generally worse than the thing they are trying to protect you from in the first place. Blame the person who violates another's rights. Blame a society that failed to help those incapable of helping themselves (your "nutters" and "loonies"). For liberty's sake, and for your own good, don't ask the government to control everyone just to make you happy.
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0