School shooting in Texas (shooter arrested)

[TenEightyOne]

Not my wording so not sure what you're getting at since I'd have to actually look back at my post. So I'm guessing you edited the post you are quoting and are paraphrasing? Or had planned to comment on a post I did do, didn't actually follow through or just forgot, and then quoted a new post and while editing happened to not check and see who it was.

Whatda!? Sorry, no idea how that happened - I'll correct it now

 

[AbeFroman75]

Quite frankly you're the one who is expecting the Swiss and US legal and political system to work identically, which is absurd.

I'm not, if you wish to see that as some kind of pedantic victory then feel free. The basic fact (as already referenced a number of times) is that the Swiss have a legally protected right to arms, one that the government can't remove without the explicit will of the people (as a direct democracy).

The USLoC states the Swiss have a right to bear arms, if you wish to test that to absurd levels of pedantry then be my guest, I have no intention of entertaining such stupidity.

Well golly gee-wiz would you look at that. They do have constitutionally protected rights explicitly stated in their constitution..just like the US does.
https://www.admin.ch/opc/en/classified-compilation/19995395/index.html

No, the USLoC states the Swiss have a statutory right to bear arms. That is a big difference, one that you really can't grasp. The fact that you think a confusing a protected right vs one granted to you by law is "absurd levels of pedantry" speaks volumes. The fact that you can't admit to fault or maybe even just misspoke, speaks volumes.
You also EXPLICITLY stated "Swiss constitution has a right to bear arms...." All I asked was for you to point that out in the Swiss Constitution (in this post I even provided it for you). . Had you provided that information I would have gladly stated that I was incorrect because I understand I can be wrong.

Do you not understand the word implicit?

Its odd that the only person who feels the need to explore this frankly bonkers line is yourself, everyone involved in the conversation (on both sides) seem to quite clearly understand that legal ownership and operation was implicit in the entire conversation.

However just for the cheap seats, pedants and other assorted folk challenged by the clearly implicit:

I am talking about legal ownership and operation

Do I need to go back and edit it into every post on the topic before it sinks in?

I do very well understand..but your usage of it was disingenuous to the argument

But sorry, I have to say that you are wrong...again.

In the US a minor is not allowed to own property. As such they do not have legal ownership...and it's operation on public roads.

C'mon dude, I showed you the answer, all you had to do was look over at my paper and you would have aced it.

You don't need to start with insults.



Edit:

They're the same thing in common language and in legal effect. It depends where and when you use the words.
.

#1 he said Swiss constitution has the right to bear arms. It does not. Do you agree or disagree with that? If you disagree I provided a link please let me know.
#2 The protected/statutory thing is not something that can be confused or common in legal effect in any way.
The Swiss can't pass a law that bars people from getting married and starting a family because of Title 2 Article 14 in their constitution. They would need to amend it to outlaw it. But they can pass a law banning ownership of firearms..slim/nonexistent possibility as that may be.

Now comparing US vs Swiss ideas of "how protected" a protected right is, that would be a different discussion altogether and one that I simply don't know enough about the Swiss legal framework to effectively comment on.

If I am wrong great, no big deal. But please show it beyond essentially Well it means the same thing to me.

 

[Scaff]

Well golly gee-wiz would you look at that. They do have constitutionally protected rights explicitly stated in their constitution..just like the US does.
https://www.admin.ch/opc/en/classified-compilation/19995395/index.html

No, the USLoC states the Swiss have a statutory right to bear arms. That is a big difference, one that you really can't grasp. The fact that you think a confusing a protected right vs one granted to you by law is "absurd levels of pedantry" speaks volumes. The fact that you can't admit to fault or maybe even just misspoke, speaks volumes.
You also EXPLICITLY stated "Swiss constitution has a right to bear arms...." All I asked was for you to point that out in the Swiss Constitution (in this post I even provided it for you). . Had you provided that information I would have gladly stated that I was incorrect because I understand I can be wrong.

Pedant is pedantic.

Oh and no the Swiss government can't just change the law either, due to the (previously mentioned) direct democracy model they operate.

I do very well understand..but your usage of it was disingenuous to the argument

But sorry, I have to say that you are wrong...again.

In the US a minor is not allowed to own property. As such they do not have legal ownership...and it's operation on public roads.

C'mon dude, I showed you the answer, all you had to do was look over at my paper and you would have aced it.

I never actually realised that the concept of implicit could so easily confuse someone.

You don't need to start with insults.

Ironic given your past comments on 'mall-cops'!

 

[AbeFroman75]

Pedant is pedantic.

Wrong is wrong. It's strange that some people are so afraid to admit it.

I never actually realised that the concept of implicit could so easily confuse someone.

I never realized that there are people so afraid to admit they can be wrong.

Ironic given your past comments on 'mall-cops'!

Term of endearment.

 

[TenEightyOne]

#1 he said Swiss constitution has the right to bear arms. It does not. Do you agree or disagree with that? If you disagree I provided a link please let me know.

The current wording is in the link that you yourself provided. The Swiss constitution (presuming that you understand a constitution is a set of fundamental principles and precedents laid down for governance) has always allowed the bearing of arms.

#2 The protected/statutory thing is not something that can be confused or common in legal effect in any way.

That is as protected from further interpretation as the US Constitution is. That is to say it isn't. That's why the SC have handed down clarifying judgements on the 2nd Amendment since time immemorial. No part of law at any level is eternally protected, once again the history of the development of the US Constitution demonstrates that. 'Protected' is a far more subjective concept than 'statutory'. In the US a state or federal statute cannot contravene the Constitutional statute. All are statutes but only one is 'protected'. The definitions of statutes inside and outside constitutional documents have been the subject of much legal definition over time and I can assure you that they can and have been confused.

o, the USLoC states the Swiss have a statutory right to bear arms. That is a big difference, one that you really can't grasp.

The Constitution is a statutory document. It seems that it's you who's having difficulty in considering that there might be more than one kind of statute. You'll note that the Swiss Constitution makes provision for a number of topics (including weapon ownership) to be devolved into Federal or Cantonal law - which is exactly what happens. The people have an absolute say in that through further constitutional provision including the right for any corpus of more than 100,000 people to call a referendum on any federal law. That happened with Swiss gun laws as recently as 2011. You can see that all those constitutional rights are therefore statutory, protected and remain in the hands of the people - something that arguably the Founding Fathers didn't successfully transfer to the Union.

The Swiss can't pass a law that bars people from getting married and starting a family because of Title 2 Article 14 in their constitution. They would need to amend it to outlaw it. But they can pass a law banning ownership of firearms..slim/nonexistent possibility as that may be.

They can pass what they like - it's their choice. Swiss people democratically define their own laws.

Now comparing US vs Swiss ideas of "how protected" a protected right is, that would be a different discussion altogether and one that I simply don't know enough about the Swiss legal framework to effectively comment on.

If I am wrong great, no big deal. But please show it beyond essentially Well it means the same thing to me.

Done. The difficulty for you so far seems to have been your understanding of 'protected' and 'statutory' as mutually exclusive.

 

[Scaff]

Wrong is wrong. It's strange that some people are so afraid to admit it.

I never realized that there are people so afraid to admit they can be wrong.

When you ignore the implicit, additional information and clarifications it has nothing to with 'wrong is wrong' and turns into simply being a pedant with a massive chip on the shoulder.

But what the hell, yay go Team America, all is wonderful and no one can hold a candle to you. /very, very sarcastic.

Term of endearment.

Nope, you used it to complain about me reminding you of what falls outside the AUP. As such your complaint about what you see as falling outside the AUP is rather ironic.

 

[AbeFroman75]

The current wording is in the link that you yourself provided. The Swiss constitution (presuming that you understand a constitution is a set of fundamental principles and precedents laid down for governance) has always allowed the bearing of arms.

Great, can you please show me where it is. I'm genuinely curious.

When you ignore the implicit, additional information and clarifications it has nothing to with 'wrong is wrong' and turns into simply being a pedant with a massive chip on the shoulder.

But what the hell, yay go Team America, all is wonderful and no one can hold a candle to you. /very, very sarcastic.

Look I understand, admitting that you aren't perfect seems to be troubling for you, so I will not press it any further. I wish you all the best.

Technically speaking, militarily and economically speaking you're not too far off. Edit: That is not meant to insult or inflame anyone here. Just having a little fun.

Nope, you used it to complain about me reminding you of what falls outside the AUP. As such your complaint about what you see as falling outside the AUP is rather ironic.

I didn't complain about, as you say, something falling outside the aup. I just jokingly said there was no need for insults. I never once mentioned or even implied the AUP. Take that as you may my friend.

 

[ryzno]

Sorry for the bump and semi derailing this thread, it was the first school shooting thread I found and don't know if every school shooting deserves a thread.

I just heard there was a shooting at a high school in southern California. 5-7 injured. Alleged shooter is barricaded in a house about a mile away from the school.

 

[stonesfan129]

I find it kind of ironic that California has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country; yet they experience more gun crimes than many other states with very less restrictive gun control laws. I don't think a lack of laws is really what is causing this. I think you just have people under pressure from school or their job or whatever, with an axe to grind that suddenly go off. Lots of other developed nations do not experience this but I feel like those places are under far less pressure to perform in their jobs or schools and don't have as much of a political divide driven by the news media as we do here in the US. I don't think stronger laws are going to stop people from doing this stuff. Just my two cents. Open to discussion.

 

[Rallywagon]

I find it kind of ironic that California has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country; yet they experience more gun crimes than many other states with very less restrictive gun control laws. I don't think a lack of laws is really what is causing this. I think you just have people under pressure from school or their job or whatever, with an axe to grind that suddenly go off. Lots of other developed nations do not experience this but I feel like those places are under far less pressure to perform in their jobs or schools and don't have as much of a political divide driven by the news media as we do here in the US. I don't think stronger laws are going to stop people from doing this stuff. Just my two cents. Open to discussion.

I mean, if you want to look purely at the gun crime number, and not look at it per capita then sure. But, I think that would be a kind of willfully ignorant number to use. However, when you look at the numbers per 100k people that changes quite drastically. Remember, Cali has the largest population by over 10 million people. When you break down the nu.ber per capita, California is on the lower end of average. Can you guess what states are on the high end?
Check out the numbers on the 3 right most rows of the spreadsheet here. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

 

[PocketZeven]

I find it kind of ironic that California has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country; yet they experience more gun crimes than many other states with very less restrictive gun control laws. I don't think a lack of laws is really what is causing this. I think you just have people under pressure from school or their job or whatever, with an axe to grind that suddenly go off. Lots of other developed nations do not experience this but I feel like those places are under far less pressure to perform in their jobs or schools and don't have as much of a political divide driven by the news media as we do here in the US. I don't think stronger laws are going to stop people from doing this stuff. Just my two cents. Open to discussion.

I think its a combination of mental healthcare, gunculture, lack of federal gun law reform. The main differences between europe and the USA are healthcare policy, gun laws and gunculture (except switzerland). While culture is something that evolves over time, healthcare and gun laws can be changed and eventually the culture around guns will also evolve.

In previous discussions I have argued the interpretation of the 2nd amendment and how it only recently (the last 50-70 years) came to mean the current interpretation that the NRA likes to promote. It has become part of US culture. The best way to move forward is to educate gunusers and to be more skilled and responsible with gunuse. Mandatory training, licensing, gunregistration and strict background checks. While it wont prevent illegal guntrade, hopefully it will reduce gun misuse.

The other component is mental healthcare that should be accesible to everyone and not bemainly based on drug prescriptions, but actual therapeutic treatment.

 

[Liquid]

Sorry for the bump and semi derailing this thread, it was the first school shooting thread I found and don't know if every school shooting deserves a thread.

Might as well just have one single American Mass Shootings thread.

 

[stonesfan129]

I think its a combination of mental healthcare, gunculture, lack of federal gun law reform. The main differences between europe and the USA are healthcare policy, gun laws and gunculture (except switzerland). While culture is something that evolves over time, healthcare and gun laws can be changed and eventually the culture around guns will also evolve.

In previous discussions I have argued the interpretation of the 2nd amendment and how it only recently (the last 50-70 years) came to mean the current interpretation that the NRA likes to promote. It has become part of US culture. The best way to move forward is to educate gunusers and to be more skilled and responsible with gunuse. Mandatory training, licensing, gunregistration and strict background checks. While it wont prevent illegal guntrade, hopefully it will reduce gun misuse.

The other component is mental healthcare that should be accesible to everyone and not bemainly based on drug prescriptions, but actual therapeutic treatment.

Ok so if we required mandatory training, licensing and registration; how is that going to stop the people who are already breaking the law? Would this not violate peoples' second amendment rights? Could the same requirements be applied to, say, voting? Where you needed to take educational courses, register and prove you are a US citizen? And we can talk about mental healthcare being accessible to anyone (which it actually is), but the problem I think comes when people think it should be free.

 

[Dotini]

I mean, if you want to look purely at the gun crime number, and not look at it per capita then sure. But, I think that would be a kind of willfully ignorant number to use. However, when you look at the numbers per 100k people that changes quite drastically. Remember, Cali has the largest population by over 10 million people. When you break down the nu.ber per capita, California is on the lower end of average. Can you guess what states are on the high end?
Check out the numbers on the 3 right most rows of the spreadsheet here. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

That's a very interesting spreadsheet.

There are amazing differences among the 50 US states. Addressing the gun crime issue at a national level seems hopelessly doomed.

 

[stonesfan129]

I mean, if you want to look purely at the gun crime number, and not look at it per capita then sure. But, I think that would be a kind of willfully ignorant number to use. However, when you look at the numbers per 100k people that changes quite drastically. Remember, Cali has the largest population by over 10 million people. When you break down the nu.ber per capita, California is on the lower end of average. Can you guess what states are on the high end?
Check out the numbers on the 3 right most rows of the spreadsheet here. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

I would suspect that these numbers also include justifiable police shootings, legal uses of self defense and suicides. That has been a problem in the past when "numbers" and "statistics" are used by the gun control proponents. The simple fact of the matter is that I should be allowed to defend myself with a weapon. The government should not have a say in how I do that. To restrict that violates my rights.

 

[Rallywagon]

I would suspect that these numbers also include justifiable police shootings, legal uses of self defense and suicides. That has been a problem in the past when "numbers" and "statistics" are used by the gun control proponents. The simple fact of the matter is that I should be allowed to defend myself with a weapon. The government should not have a say in how I do that. To restrict that violates my rights.

I wasnt making a stance on gun laws, just correcting erroneous information. I do wonder though, why you would toss out a statistic "Cali has more gun crimes" (ok fine, that was a statement, but it does require a statistic to quantify) and then straight up dismiss it when its shown that Cali doesnt actually have more gun crimes then a good deal of other states with less restrictive gun laws.

 

[PocketZeven]

Ok so if we required mandatory training, licensing and registration; how is that going to stop the people who are already breaking the law? Would this not violate peoples' second amendment rights? Could the same requirements be applied to, say, voting? Where you needed to take educational courses, register and prove you are a US citizen? And we can talk about mental healthcare being accessible to anyone (which it actually is), but the problem I think comes when people think it should be free.

It is going to at least respect the 2nd amendment and hopefully reduce misuse. How would it violate the 2nd amendment? The idea is to look at gunpolicies and healthcare policies in countries that have low gun misuse and apply it to the USA. gunregistration will help in the cases where legal guns are used in crime, mandatory training and licensing will prepare people and hopefully prevent accidental discharges. It is also a way to hopefully detect early instances of mental instability. It is always better then actually doing nothing.

If you have never experienced healthcare in western europe, you wont understand the large differences in accessability. You dont need to worry about costs and there is little danger of falling into debt. While not perfect, it is better then what the US has right now. I am not saying it should be free, but at least more affordable.

 

[Danoff]

If you have never experienced healthcare in western europe, you wont understand the large differences in accessability. You dont need to worry about costs and there is little danger of falling into debt. While not perfect, it is better then what the US has right now. I am not saying it should be free, but at least more affordable.

People literally flee countries with universal healthcare to come here. So you're missing something. One such person is in my extended family, and was in tears as she was explaining the hopelessness that she encountered in the Canadian healthcare system, and why she was so desperate to return to the United States to regain control over her health. In short, try, as best you can, to avoid conflating universal healthcare with gun control. I can see how they're related, but you're not doing your cause much good.

 

[PocketZeven]

People literally flee countries with universal healthcare to come here. So you're missing something. One such person is in my extended family, and was in tears as she was explaining the hopelessness that she encountered in the Canadian healthcare system, and why she was so desperate to return to the United States to regain control over her health. In short, try, as best you can, to avoid conflating universal healthcare with gun control. I can see how they're related, but you're not doing your cause much good.

Since I have been speaking about european healthcare, I am curious how people are fleeing these countries?
That instance is very much anecdotal. I already admitted the sytems have its flaws. There are specific illnisses that have waiting lists or are just not handled efficiently within such a system. Going directly to a clinique for a specific treatment is more efficient. Also other factors that needs to consider is the lack of specialists.

I am curious about the details around the extended family, since I have always read that the canadian system is very well regarded.

 

[Danoff]

Since I have been speaking about european healthcare, I am curious how people are fleeing these countries?
That instance is very much anecdotal. I already admitted the sytems have its flaws. There are specific illnisses that have waiting lists or are just not handled efficiently within such a system. Going directly to a clinique for a specific treatment is more efficient. Also other factors that needs to consider is the lack of specialists.

I am curious about the details around the extended family, since I have always read that the canadian system is very well regarded.

We can talk about it in the appropriate thread if you like.

 

[Daz555]

People literally flee countries with universal healthcare to come here.

They really don't.

 

[Danoff]

They really don't.

It's funny you should say that, because I spoke to someone who immigrated to the US from Canada for specifically that reason. So they really do.

 

[CodeRedR51]

3 people killed in a Walmart parking lot today in Oklahoma.

Just another day in this wonderful country.

 

[Danoff]

3 people killed in a Walmart parking lot today in Oklahoma.

Just another day in this wonderful country.

People kill each other in this country and others. And it's not a matter of "country" as much as it is a matter of "humans".

 

[PocketZeven]

It's funny you should say that, because I spoke to someone who immigrated to the US from Canada for specifically that reason. So they really do.

That is 1 person. To back the statement and somewhat relevant to the thread, you really should compare it with how many US citizens move to canada for healthcare.

We can talk about it in the appropriate thread if you like.

Which thread would be more appropiate?

 

[Danoff]

That is 1 person. To back the statement and somewhat relevant to the thread, you really should compare it with how many US citizens move to canada for healthcare.

First, it was two people (a couple). Which makes my statement literally correct. Second, I think it's fair to assume that they're not alone.

Which thread would be more appropiate?

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/health-care-for-everyone.23843/