A 9-year-old boy shot his older sister to death over a video game controller, sheriff

[Cancel 2018.2]

Like I said you have no clue what a non-sequitur is.

A non-sequitur is NOT something that doesn't follow the discussion or point. A non-sequitur is drawing a false conclusion that doesn't fit the given premises.

The premise.

Gun's are inherently dangerous and not used during normal interactions.

Conclusion

Gun manufacturers are liable under strict liability tort. (or should be if not given immunity by a bribed Congress).


Your Conclusion

Knives are also inherently dangerous so should be the same.


Except they don't fit the premise. The premise is that guns are inherently dangerous and not used during normal interactions.

Knives are used by every person almost everyday. They are also not inherently dangerous as they are not designed for the sole purpose of killing and maiming.

Ergo you conclusion that knives should be treated similar as I have stated guns should be treated is a non-sequitur.

Consider yourself schooled.

non se·qui·tur
ˌnän ˈsekwədər/Submit
noun
a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.

 

[smb]

non se·qui·tur
ˌnän ˈsekwədər/Submit
noun
a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.

thanks for proving me right YoYo.

 

[Cancel 2018.2]

It's not pseudoscience and it doesn't apply strictly to handling guns. In fact scientists have scanned the pre-frontal cortex and they show the brain hasn't finished developing until age 25. The article quoted here doesn't even mention guns.

AAMODT: So the changes that happen between 18 and 25 are a continuation of the process that starts around puberty, and 18 year olds are about halfway through that process. That's the part of the brain that helps you to inhibit impulses and to plan and organize your behavior to reach a goal.

And the other part of the brain that is different in adolescence is that the brain's reward system becomes highly active right around the time of puberty and then gradually goes back to an adult level, which it reaches around age 25 and that makes adolescents and young adults more interested in entering uncertain situations to seek out and try to find whether there might be a possibility of gaining something from those situations.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=141164708

At what age do you think people should be held accountable?

 

[Cancel 2018.2]

thanks for proving me right YoYo.

How did I prove you right?

 

[smb]

non se·qui·tur
ˌnän ˈsekwədər/Submit
noun
a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.

As i have previously and detailed your schooling earlier your apology is accepted Yoyo.

 

[smb]

How did I prove you right?

The definition fits exactly what I said. Your conclusion was a non-sequitur as I have previously detailed in your schooling Yoyo.

 

[Cancel 2018.2]

The definition fits exactly what I said. Your conclusion was a non-sequitur as I have previously detailed in your schooling Yoyo.

That explains nothing, it is merely you repeating your conclusion.

IRAC

 

[RB 60]

Hello RB 60,



I don't put people on Ignore for having different beliefs. I debate them!



That's incorrect because I am liberal and I don't do that.

Here's the thing. You don't have to stereotype the other side. It really is not a good idea. It can prevent you from better understanding. It can actually limit your ability to grasp the big picture. You may want to listen to what I am about to say, because I think you will realize it is correct.

There are probably no two liberals alike. Or conservatives, for that matter. People are people. There's good ones and bad ones on both sides.

You probably know both liberals and conservatives among the people in your life. Everybody's got problems. Everybody has some success and failure in their life. Nobody's perfect. Each individual is unique. Every person has their own perception of the world. Depending on the influences in their life, and the issues which are important to them, that will determine their position on the political spectrum. It's not just A or B. It's not even all along one spectrum. It's three dimensional, four dimensional. There's people all over the place with their own unique collection of views. And they change. There's very little you can say that people who share political views have in common besides the views they share.

Don't you know any nice people who are liberals in real life? Maybe you know somebody nice and you don't know they are really a liberal.

You and I could become familiar sparing partners here if you don't intend on making it personal or telling me off. I'm looking for people who can engage in civil discourse. What your beliefs are not a criteria for that. Actually I end up in more conversations with conservatives than liberals because I don't find cause to dispel incorrect statements by liberals as frequently as I do for conservatives.

So what do you say?

Wanna go at it?

Your intellect against mine?

Pick a Topic.

Or just sit back and contemplate a higher level of understanding and mutual respect among Americans. I presume you are an American. Are you? I am.

To answer three of your questions, my GF is a Democrat, although she doesn't believe any more restrictions on firearms will help reduce the gun crime in our country, and yes, I also know a few liberals. In fact, I worked with one most would call a "flaming liberal," he developed cancer 3 yrs. ago and had to retire. He was a master at his craft and we had a number of heated arguments over politics. He is doing better and his cancer is in remission, we often keep in contact with each other.
That said, my question to you are what new laws or restrictions on law abiding citizens will reduce gun crimes in our country? Personally, I own 3 military issued firearms (not counting the "03 A3") that I bought from the Army, do you think I shouldn't be allowed to own them? And, do you think the constant attention sporting rifles are receiving in the media are a contributing factor to the use of them in these school shootings? I will return to see your opinion sometime this afternoon, I must take my mother to see her cancer Dr. later this morning.

 

[RB 60]

I'm a liberal you rat shit bag


I have NEVER banned anyone from anything fuckfart


I have argued with people here for over a decade


and it was I who was proven correct in the end huh

My post wasn't directed to you. I won't ban you, simply for entertainment purposes. You're insanely amusing

 

[PostmodernProphet]

That explains nothing, it is merely you repeating your conclusion.

IRAC

which was ridiculous both times........

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello RB 60,

My post wasn't directed to you. I won't ban you, simply for entertainment purposes. You're insanely amusing

Admirable restraint. Nicely handled.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello RB 60,

To answer three of your questions, my GF is a Democrat, although she doesn't believe any more restrictions on firearms will help reduce the gun crime in our country, and yes, I also know a few liberals. In fact, I worked with one most would call a "flaming liberal," he developed cancer 3 yrs. ago and had to retire. He was a master at his craft and we had a number of heated arguments over politics. He is doing better and his cancer is in remission, we often keep in contact with each other.

Thanks for the candid response and for sharing that. You sound like a good person. My brother died of cancer a long time ago. Best wishes to your friend.

That said, my question to you are what new laws or restrictions on law abiding citizens will reduce gun crimes in our country?

Any new laws would naturally have to apply to everyone, not just law abiding citizens. That 'law abiding citizens' sound-byte is a loaded term. Dylan Roof was a 'law abiding citizen' until he shot up a church full of innocent people. Stephen Paddock was a 'law abiding citizen' until he opened fire on hundreds of innocent people at an outdoor concert in Las Vegas. I don't write laws, so I don't know how it should be worded, but I recognize that Roof had a hand gun and was only able to kill 9. Paddock had military-style rifles and was able to kill 58, nearly seven times as many. I can understand owning guns for sport, admiration and hunting, and I think you should be free to do that.

Personally, I own 3 military issued firearms (not counting the "03 A3") that I bought from the Army, do you think I shouldn't be allowed to own them?

It is sad that some spoil freedoms for others but that's reality. If you are completely responsible with your guns, but they fall into a category which must be banned for the greater good, then unfortunately I would advocate for a buy-back program to collect all of those types of weapons and get them out of general circulation. Perhaps there could be some program to allow people to have those if they pass very stringent psychological tests, but again, I am no expert in that either, so I don't know if that would be possible.

And, do you think the constant attention sporting rifles are receiving in the media are a contributing factor to the use of them in these school shootings?

Probably so. But I can't think of anything which could be done about that. We must have an uncensored media.

 

[RB 60]

Hello RB 60,



Thanks for the candid response and for sharing that. You sound like a good person. My brother died of cancer a long time ago. Best wishes to your friend.



Any new laws would naturally have to apply to everyone, not just law abiding citizens. That 'law abiding citizens' sound-byte is a loaded term. Dylan Roof was a 'law abiding citizen' until he shot up a church full of innocent people. Stephen Paddock was a 'law abiding citizen' until he opened fire on hundreds of innocent people at an outdoor concert in Las Vegas. I don't write laws, so I don't know how it should be worded, but I recognize that Roof had a hand gun and was only able to kill 9. Paddock had military-style rifles and was able to kill 58, nearly seven times as many. I can understand owning guns for sport, admiration and hunting, and I think you should be free to do that.



It is sad that some spoil freedoms for others but that's reality. If you are completely responsible with your guns, but they fall into a category which must be banned for the greater good, then unfortunately I would advocate for a buy-back program to collect all of those types of weapons and get them out of general circulation. Perhaps there could be some program to allow people to have those if they pass very stringent psychological tests, but again, I am no expert in that either, so I don't know if that would be possible.



Probably so. But I can't think of anything which could be done about that. We must have an uncensored media.

Yes, it's sad that "some spoil freedoms for others." But the sad fact is, they've been doing that since our Constitution and laws were written. Criminals don't obey laws and taking one tool from them won't stop them. Bottom line - I will not be forced to sell my weapons to ours, or any government without resistance.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello RB 60,

Yes, it's sad that "some spoil freedoms for others." But the sad fact is, they've been doing that since our Constitution and laws were written. Criminals don't obey laws and taking one tool from them won't stop them. Bottom line - I will not be forced to sell my weapons to ours, or any government without resistance.

Doesn't look like you will have to make that choice any time soon. The NRA is too powerful and there is far too much big money influence on Congress. And our President is a puppet of Putin, who seeks to destabilize our country by advocating for no gun restrictions what so ever. It is obviously in Putin's favor to have Americans killing one another.

Personally, I would support repealing the 2nd Amendment as written and replacing it with a more modern Amendment which still establishes a right to own firearms, but places restrictions on it. The 2nd doesn't say a word about guns. Never mentioned. It says arms. Well, that's a much bigger pickle. A MOAB is an arm, but I don't think citizens should have them. A nuclear missile equipped submarine is an arm, and I don't think individuals should have them. Nothing in the 2nd prevents the military from selling an outdated nuclear submarine as surplus. And now, we have people so rich they could afford one. Bad combination. We've seen movies about madmen seeking to take over the world and bring national governments into submission. Let's keep that as a fantasy. We need laws and the force to prevent that.

 

[smb]

That explains nothing, it is merely you repeating your conclusion.

IRAC

If that is what you need to tell yourself.

 

[smb]

which was ridiculous both times........

The fact that a person like you thinks it is ridiculous is a compliment.

 

[Cancel 2018.2]

If that is what you need to tell yourself.

I don't need to, but it is the truth. You cannot explain your position, all you have is feelz.

 

[smb]

I don't need to, but it is the truth. You cannot explain your position, all you have is feelz.

I did explain myself and how you were left wanting Yoyo.

 

[Cancel 2018.2]

I did explain myself and how you were left wanting Yoyo.

No you didn't. Inherently dangerous does not have different standards for different products. It is one general standard for any product.

And you didn't even cite the correct law, you cited activity instead of product. You don't have a clue what you're talking about.

 

[smb]

No you didn't. Inherently dangerous does not have different standards for different products. It is one general standard for any product.

And you didn't even cite the correct law, you cited activity instead of product. You don't have a clue what you're talking about.

That is because it wouldn't fall under product liability law. You are an idiot. I never stated that inherently dangerous has different standards. If you use a knife as designed it is NOT inherently dangerous. It is designed to cut vegetables and meat not to kill or maim. A gun is designed to kill or maim. So if you use a gun as designed you are using it to kill or maim. That is why it is inherently dangerous and a knife is not. Not a different standard the same standard just two different conclusions. Like I stated.

You cannot use product liability because that only covers products that malfunction. Using a gun to kill or maim is using it for its designed function. Ergo no product liability. It still falls under strict liability because using a weapon is not normal activity and it is inherently dangerous. Therefore if a person uses a gun as the manufacturer intended then people are killed or maimed ergo strict liability.

You are really slow aren't you.