The Vetting - Holder 1995: We Must 'Brainwash' People on Guns

Originally posted by freethinker123

OK this question will allow me to ask you a question in turn so I can test your honesty and to see how clued up you are. Do you agree with me that the argument used by some of those that agree with you is nonsense - ie that those who carry out these shootings would use knives instead

Nonsense? It's an example. They will find some way to kill. Knives are one way, but there are many, many others. Do you know the difference between a serial killer and a mass murderer? Timing. it's all a matter of timing. Possession of a fire arm affects the timing, not the killing.

So you are arguing over a matter of time.

Before you agree with them, think about the profiles of some of these that have carried out school shootings.

They seem to be troubled individuals with an intent to kill.

I'm willing to bet that some of those people would not have carried out those crimes at all.

You are welcome to make that bet, but you'll never be able to collect on "maybes" and "what ifs". I would bet just the other way, that a person with intent to kill will do so. I won't be able to collect, either, on "maybes" and "what ifs". Things occurred as they did, and we'll never know how it may have gone otherwise.

Its certainly not the same stabbing somebody to death as it is to execute them. Nor is it half as easy, as there is every chance somebody will succeed in disarming the perpetrator. Finally, once you have a plan and a gun, thats it, theres no going back. A knife, or other smaller weapon can mean an opportunity to retreat at the last moment with nobody knowing what was going to happen. But hell yeah, you can just tell me there is no evidence to suggest that. And I'll just tell you there is no evidence to the contrary...

Spoken like an individual who has never used either gun or knife, or disarmed a knife wielding perpetrator. It's not as easy as you make it sound. Intent and ability to retreat are not implement dependent. Those factors are determined in one place, and one place only - in the mind. Retreat is possible up to the time that the weapon is drawn, and once it is drawn, there is no going back - regardless of the form-factor of the weapon.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by freethinker123
'This type of crime' means the type of crime we have been discussing ie school shootings or instances of some crazy going on the rampage. You can take issue with it, but the fact (go check if you don't believe me) is that the majority of these crimes are comitted with legal weapons and not weapons obtained 'under the counter' or through criminal connections etc.

No school shooting has ever been accomplished with a legally obtained or held weapon. None. Ever. I checked on it. Your turn now. Find one for me. maybe I overlooked one. School me if you think I have.

Yes, agree that you are willing to entertain yourself with the evidence, but you are unwilling to admit that no evidence would change your opinion anyway. It matters not a jot what evidence has been presented in this thread, we are not judges in a court of law, what matters is the existing evidence in the public realm.

Yes, that is what matters, and none of it points to regulation ever helping a thing in regard to guns. You're right, it won't change my opinion, since my opinion is based on 50 years of examining the evidence available in the public realm which led me to that opinion to begin with.

And hold back with the amateur dalliances into Darwinism will you? Its commonly agreed by psychologists that around 80% of behaviour is environmental and 20% is hereditry. I doubt very much that the crazies will breed crazy children. And you call those that don't wish to carry suicidal?

"Commonly agreed"? Got a source for that? Most of the psychologists I know are nearly willing to come to blows over the "nature vs. nurture" debate. They don't seem to commonly agree on much of anything. Yes, I know several - I was married to one for several years.

Yup, suicidal. If you go to places and get yourself into situations where you can expect to be assaulted, and take no precautions, you are suicidal.

Didn't understand what you bit about training your kids had to do with my question though.

You asked how on Earth my kids could be armed, and I told you. Objects are not the only arms available, and often they are not even the most effective arms. They are tools - they only become arms when employed by an armed mind.

edit on 2012/3/19 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)

The last mass school killing in Ohio like the majority of school killings was with a legal weapon. The uncle of that kid had a licence for the weapon. The kid did not use criminal connections to get the weapon under the counter, the vast majority of school shooters use legal weapons. If you are going to say that they stole those weapons, you won't be declared a member of MENSA. You seem to know your stuff so I'm sure you know what I've written already.

Quite how many years you have subscribed to an opinion (however you dress it up as experience of evidence) makes no impact on whether you are right or not. I might believe something all my life, but if I'm proven wrong about it, then I will change my mind. On this issue you will never change your mind, no matter if you are right or wrong.

Well I studied psychology and I'm not going to start throwing names of eminent psychologists about. I'm really not going to fill you in on your failings on that topic. If you are really interested there is a wealth of information out there on that subject. Yes you are right that psychologists are split on the topic but split between 60%-100% behaviour. Those that consider 'nature' to be more than 50% are considered the lunatic fringe inside the profession.

How on earth could they be armed in school was my question. But is this a new definition of being armed? If your children are armed that means they go round with guns on them. Oh I see, your children are not children any more they are grown ups... Anyway your answer really didn't make much sense as to what I was asking.

One final question for you before I go though. You stated your belief that everybody should be armed. Is it your opinon that every country should have the nuclear bomb as well? If not why not?

Originally posted by freethinker123

And yet crime is higher in the US than it is in societies where firearms are banned.

You seem to think that firearms are the only POSSIBLE factor that could affect that. It's another case of selection bias - you select only firearms, and exclude all other potential factors.

Selection bias is also present in what is considered a "violent crime" from one society to the next.

Selection bias is also present in what gets reported to begin with. I've been to places that were incredibly violent, but statistically heavenly - because people handled their own messes rather than reporting them for someone else to handle. Other crimes go unreported in some places out of embarrassment.

There are lots of other factors that can skew your results as well. We'd have to get into comparisons of specific societies rather than the generic "societies where firearms are banned" in order to have meaningful discourse on the subject.

Originally posted by freethinker123

The last mass school killing in Ohio like the majority of school killings was with a legal weapon. The uncle of that kid had a licence for the weapon. The kid did not use criminal connections to get the weapon under the counter, the vast majority of school shooters use legal weapons. If you are going to say that they stole those weapons, you won't be declared a member of MENSA. You seem to know your stuff so I'm sure you know what I've written already.

that weapon was illegally obtained, not legally. Theft is illegal in Ohio, The kid didn't "use" criminal connections, he WAS the criminal connection.

NO school shooters use legally obtained weapons. NONE. Merely carrying the weapon through the door of the schoolhouse is itself illegal, yet it seems not to deter them. make some more regulations. Maybe some one will eventually pay attention and say "Oh crap! I can't kill that guy because it would be illegal to arm up! I mean, sure, killing him is sorta illegal, but arming up for it is REALLY ILLEGAL, so I just can't do it now..."

Quite how many years you have subscribed to an opinion (however you dress it up as experience of evidence) makes no impact on whether you are right or not. I might believe something all my life, but if I'm proven wrong about it, then I will change my mind. On this issue you will never change your mind, no matter if you are right or wrong.

We'll see. Prove me wrong. It's useless to make a determination on what I might do until you meet the conditions to provoke that response. So far you have not. Merely saying "most weapons in school shootings are legally obtained" is neither proof nor evidence - it's unsupported opinion.

So prove your case, and see whether I'll revise my opinion or not.

Well I studied psychology and I'm not going to start throwing names of eminent psychologists about. I'm really not going to fill you in on your failings on that topic. If you are really interested there is a wealth of information out there on that subject. Yes you are right that psychologists are split on the topic but split between 60%-100% behaviour. Those that consider 'nature' to be more than 50% are considered the lunatic fringe inside the profession.

You're right, you're NOT going to fill me in on my failings on the subject. How did I already know that? I can throw names around too.

How on earth could they be armed in school was my question. But is this a new definition of being armed? If your children are armed that means they go round with guns on them. Oh I see, your children are not children any more they are grown ups... Anyway your answer really didn't make much sense as to what I was asking.

As I said much earlier in the thread, your most potent weapon is between your ears. There are literally millions of way to be armed that don't involve guns. My youngest child is 16 now. Still in high school. Your definition of being "armed" requiring the presence of a gun is far too narrow.

One final question for you before I go though. You stated your belief that everybody should be armed. Is it your opinon that every country should have the nuclear bomb as well? If not why not?

I've stated several time already in the Iran threads that I don't care if every household has their very own nuke in the basement. The bomb itself is not the problem. launching it outside their own borders is. I could care less if they turn themselves into glowing slag, as long as they keep the explosions inside their own jurisdiction.

Here again, it's not a matter of the implement, it's a matter of the person wielding that implement, and what they do with it. Address the source, not the tool.

Originally posted by freethinker123

I'm glad you find this subject so funny. I hope you wouldn't laugh in the face of a victim of gun crime.
My position is to reduce the number of whackos and kids from getting access to guns. You don't agree with that?

Sleight of Mind Fallacies

[...]

THE SALESMAN'S CLOSE:
This technique asks an obvious question and, by playing on a sense of guilt, demands a predetermined response driven by common sense or decency. The yes or no response is then implied to mean a complete agreement with the asker's point of view.

Family get-together: "Doesn't your family mean anything to you?" ["Well, yes!"] "Then I will see you at 10 am."

Support a political movement: "Do you want communism in America? Is that what you want?"

Join a Health Spa: "Don't you care about your own body?"

Conversational Cheap Shots

Thank you, have a nice day.

Originally posted by Tsurugi

Originally posted by freethinker123

I'm glad you find this subject so funny. I hope you wouldn't laugh in the face of a victim of gun crime.
My position is to reduce the number of whackos and kids from getting access to guns. You don't agree with that?

Sleight of Mind Fallacies

[...]

THE SALESMAN'S CLOSE:
This technique asks an obvious question and, by playing on a sense of guilt, demands a predetermined response driven by common sense or decency. The yes or no response is then implied to mean a complete agreement with the asker's point of view.

Family get-together: "Doesn't your family mean anything to you?" ["Well, yes!"] "Then I will see you at 10 am."

Support a political movement: "Do you want communism in America? Is that what you want?"

Join a Health Spa: "Don't you care about your own body?"

Conversational Cheap Shots

Thank you, have a nice day.

You were the one who expressed laughter on this topic. Don't try to move the goalposts.
You might as well have reeled out the old 'straw man' argument for all the sense your point made.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by freethinker123

And yet crime is higher in the US than it is in societies where firearms are banned.

You seem to think that firearms are the only POSSIBLE factor that could affect that. It's another case of selection bias - you select only firearms, and exclude all other potential factors.

Selection bias is also present in what is considered a "violent crime" from one society to the next.

Selection bias is also present in what gets reported to begin with. I've been to places that were incredibly violent, but statistically heavenly - because people handled their own messes rather than reporting them for someone else to handle. Other crimes go unreported in some places out of embarrassment.

There are lots of other factors that can skew your results as well. We'd have to get into comparisons of specific societies rather than the generic "societies where firearms are banned" in order to have meaningful discourse on the subject.

No I don't think it is the only possible factor, there are others. However, you appear to hold the opposite extreme viewpoint - that its a factor that doesn't have any bearing whatever.

Whether a crime is reported or not in each country / society and to what degree is a factor to be considered - also to be considered is that it may be the case that some gun crimes in the US are not reported.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by freethinker123

The last mass school killing in Ohio like the majority of school killings was with a legal weapon. The uncle of that kid had a licence for the weapon. The kid did not use criminal connections to get the weapon under the counter, the vast majority of school shooters use legal weapons. If you are going to say that they stole those weapons, you won't be declared a member of MENSA. You seem to know your stuff so I'm sure you know what I've written already.

that weapon was illegally obtained, not legally. Theft is illegal in Ohio, The kid didn't "use" criminal connections, he WAS the criminal connection.

NO school shooters use legally obtained weapons. NONE. Merely carrying the weapon through the door of the schoolhouse is itself illegal, yet it seems not to deter them. make some more regulations. Maybe some one will eventually pay attention and say "Oh crap! I can't kill that guy because it would be illegal to arm up! I mean, sure, killing him is sorta illegal, but arming up for it is REALLY ILLEGAL, so I just can't do it now..."

Quite how many years you have subscribed to an opinion (however you dress it up as experience of evidence) makes no impact on whether you are right or not. I might believe something all my life, but if I'm proven wrong about it, then I will change my mind. On this issue you will never change your mind, no matter if you are right or wrong.

We'll see. Prove me wrong. It's useless to make a determination on what I might do until you meet the conditions to provoke that response. So far you have not. Merely saying "most weapons in school shootings are legally obtained" is neither proof nor evidence - it's unsupported opinion.

Well I studied psychology and I'm not going to start throwing names of eminent psychologists about. I'm really not going to fill you in on your failings on that topic. If you are really interested there is a wealth of information out there on that subject. Yes you are right that psychologists are split on the topic but split between 60%-100% behaviour. Those that consider 'nature' to be more than 50% are considered the lunatic fringe inside the profession.

You're right, you're NOT going to fill me in on my failings on the subject. How did I already know that? I can throw names around too.

How on earth could they be armed in school was my question. But is this a new definition of being armed? If your children are armed that means they go round with guns on them. Oh I see, your children are not children any more they are grown ups... Anyway your answer really didn't make much sense as to what I was asking.

As I said much earlier in the thread, your most potent weapon is between your ears. There are literally millions of way to be armed that don't involve guns. My youngest child is 16 now. Still in high school. Your definition of being "armed" requiring the presence of a gun is far too narrow.

One final question for you before I go though. You stated your belief that everybody should be armed. Is it your opinon that every country should have the nuclear bomb as well? If not why not?

I've stated several time already in the Iran threads that I don't care if every household has their very own nuke in the basement. The bomb itself is not the problem. launching it outside their own borders is. I could care less if they turn themselves into glowing slag, as long as they keep the explosions inside their own jurisdiction.

Here again, it's not a matter of the implement, it's a matter of the person wielding that implement, and what they do with it. Address the source, not the tool.

edit on 2012/3/19 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)

We'll just have to agree to disagree. The gun was legal, the kid stole it from his uncle, its as simple as that. Lets not cry about regulations, its not regulations causing the kid to shoot. As I'm sure you know the uncle won't even face any sanction for not stowing / locking it properly. Irresponsible owners of guns (even if they are a small minority) are part of the reason why school shootings occur.

There is such thing as common sense. I have had some experience with knives yes. Disarming a kid with a knife is usually not difficult, certainly in a situation where there are many people. Its much harder for said kid to commit mass killings with a knife than it is with a gun.

Sorry but you already admitted that your mind is made up, I'm hardly likely to waste my time coming up with evidence when you will dismiss it. I deal in solutions, and until now the only thing I've heard from the gun lobby is 'change nothing'.

So you support the right for all countries to have the nuke, but you don't support them using it against other countries.. Ok that must have been a joke! Nice to see realism in your argument!

reply to post by freethinker123

You were the one who expressed laughter on this topic. Don't try to move the goalposts.
You might as well have reeled out the old 'straw man' argument for all the sense your point made

What? That was my only post in this thread. This is my second. You must have me confused with someone else.

I expressed no laughter, nor moved any goalposts, nor did I do any reeling out of any bad argument technique.

I just pointed out one--out of a great many--bad argument techniques that you have been dragging all through this thread.

As a matter of fact, just ignore me and keep going. It's making for a fascinating clinical case study.

Originally posted by freethinker123

We'll just have to agree to disagree. The gun was legal, the kid stole it from his uncle, its as simple as that.

Am I the only one who sees the inherent disconnet in the highlighted portion above? By what stretch of the imagination are stolen items "legal"?

Lets not cry about regulations, its not regulations causing the kid to shoot.

They didn't seem to do much to prevent the shooting, either. Why bother with them if they are that useless where the rubber meets the road? The answer is that anti-gunners care nothing about crime. They target the already law abiding, and ignore criminals altogether.

Yes, I can see why you would want to sweep regulations under the rug.

As I'm sure you know the uncle won't even face any sanction for not stowing / locking it properly. Irresponsible owners of guns (even if they are a small minority) are part of the reason why school shootings occur.

I haven't lived in Ohio in years, and have no idea what their laws are like now. I know that here, in North Carolina, they would jack the jail up and throw him under it. Recently a grandmother did jail time here for having an unsecured firearm where children could reach it. I personally go beyond the law, but that's just me. I pull the bolt from my Kalashnikov and keep it in my pocket, and keep a bolt-block on my riot gun.

There is such thing as common sense. I have had some experience with knives yes.

And guns? have you had the experience of having both pointed at you? Which would you rather disarm? You have no basis of comparison without both experiences. I'll tell you right now that it's not pleasant to charge into either one, and both will hurt you. The catch is, you have to get as close to disarm one as you do the other.

Disarming a kid with a knife is usually not difficult, certainly in a situation where there are many people.

"Usually"? How many kids with knives have you disarmed? I've disarmed several, and "usually" it's pretty harrowing. Difficult? No. Dangerous? You betcha. Personally, i'd rather disarm a gun than a knife, but that's just me again. A knife will cut you from several different directions, but a gun is dangerous from only one angle.

Its much harder for said kid to commit mass killings with a knife than it is with a gun.

That's a matter of opinion, timing, and victim selection.

Sorry but you already admitted that your mind is made up, I'm hardly likely to waste my time coming up with evidence when you will dismiss it. I deal in solutions, and until now the only thing I've heard from the gun lobby is 'change nothing'.

Oh come on, at least try to come up with a shred of evidence. You've not heard "change nothing" from me. I've said consistently to deal with the criminals rather than the inanimate objects. Addressing a means does nothing to address the crime - other means will just be emplyed, and crime will roll right along.

So you support the right for all countries to have the nuke, but you don't support them using it against other countries..

Ok that must have been a joke! Nice to see realism in your argument!

I support rights, period. They have the right to have any damned thing they want, but they do NOT have the right to infringe the rights of others by harming them with their toys. That right only comes into play when under active physical attack. Themselves? Meh. They can melt their own eyeballs for all I care.

Originally posted by freethinker123

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by freethinker123
'This type of crime' means the type of crime we have been discussing ie school shootings or instances of some crazy going on the rampage. You can take issue with it, but the fact (go check if you don't believe me) is that the majority of these crimes are comitted with legal weapons and not weapons obtained 'under the counter' or through criminal connections etc.

No school shooting has ever been accomplished with a legally obtained or held weapon. None. Ever. I checked on it. Your turn now. Find one for me. maybe I overlooked one. School me if you think I have.

Yes, agree that you are willing to entertain yourself with the evidence, but you are unwilling to admit that no evidence would change your opinion anyway. It matters not a jot what evidence has been presented in this thread, we are not judges in a court of law, what matters is the existing evidence in the public realm.

Yes, that is what matters, and none of it points to regulation ever helping a thing in regard to guns. You're right, it won't change my opinion, since my opinion is based on 50 years of examining the evidence available in the public realm which led me to that opinion to begin with.

And hold back with the amateur dalliances into Darwinism will you? Its commonly agreed by psychologists that around 80% of behaviour is environmental and 20% is hereditry. I doubt very much that the crazies will breed crazy children. And you call those that don't wish to carry suicidal?

"Commonly agreed"? Got a source for that? Most of the psychologists I know are nearly willing to come to blows over the "nature vs. nurture" debate. They don't seem to commonly agree on much of anything. Yes, I know several - I was married to one for several years.

Yup, suicidal. If you go to places and get yourself into situations where you can expect to be assaulted, and take no precautions, you are suicidal.

Didn't understand what you bit about training your kids had to do with my question though.

You asked how on Earth my kids could be armed, and I told you. Objects are not the only arms available, and often they are not even the most effective arms. They are tools - they only become arms when employed by an armed mind.

edit on 2012/3/19 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)

The last mass school killing in Ohio like the majority of school killings was with a legal weapon. The uncle of that kid had a licence for the weapon. The kid did not use criminal connections to get the weapon under the counter, the vast majority of school shooters use legal weapons. If you are going to say that they stole those weapons, you won't be declared a member of MENSA. You seem to know your stuff so I'm sure you know what I've written already.

Quite how many years you have subscribed to an opinion (however you dress it up as experience of evidence) makes no impact on whether you are right or not. I might believe something all my life, but if I'm proven wrong about it, then I will change my mind. On this issue you will never change your mind, no matter if you are right or wrong.

Well I studied psychology and I'm not going to start throwing names of eminent psychologists about. I'm really not going to fill you in on your failings on that topic. If you are really interested there is a wealth of information out there on that subject. Yes you are right that psychologists are split on the topic but split between 60%-100% behaviour. Those that consider 'nature' to be more than 50% are considered the lunatic fringe inside the profession.

How on earth could they be armed in school was my question. But is this a new definition of being armed? If your children are armed that means they go round with guns on them. Oh I see, your children are not children any more they are grown ups... Anyway your answer really didn't make much sense as to what I was asking.

One final question for you before I go though. You stated your belief that everybody should be armed. Is it your opinon that every country should have the nuclear bomb as well? If not why not?

The kid stole the weapon from his Uncle, therefore making him a criminal before the shooting ever took place. Last time I checked stealing something is still a crime in all 50 States and if over a certain dollar amount can be considered a felony. I live a few miles away from where this shooting happened so I know the story well and have heard all the local gossip and even gossip from local police.

It is not possible to create a law for every possible situation. At some point common sense and responsibility is enough. The fact that Holder thinks people need to be convinced(brainwashed) shows that they are fighting a losing battle already. Desperation has led to possibly(probably) illegal theatrics. I almost feel bad for him that one day he will look back and realize how he wasted his time and reputation.

I'm curious as to how many of the people that think firearms should be banned are actually afraid of being the victim of a gun crime. I don't know many people that are really afraid of being randomly shot. Ive lived in some bad places... for what that's worth. I'm personally more afraid of food poisoning then random unprovoked gun violence/accidents.

Might as well never leave the house something might get you.

sb

Originally posted by ISeeTheFnords
reply to post by babybunnies

 

No, it's a verifiable fact that when conceal/carry laws are in passed, violence by guns decreases considerably.
2nd. Not to be rude.

This is true indeed! In Dade County Florida some years back, they passed their carry and conceal law. Anti-gunners said it would be mayhem in the streets. What happened? Rapes decreased, strong arm robberies decreased, street assaults decreased. How about that? Makes the dirtbags think if that woman they are following has a .357 magnum in her purse, and is ready to use it on them.

a reply to: xuenchen

Found my way to this thread after the recent events in San Bernandino, CA.

Ugh, the people are so predictable.


Event - Public Response - Bill Propositions - Further Infringement on our Rights

Thanks for posting zuenchen (back in 2012)