The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old January 26, 2016, 09:40 PM   #51
turkeestalker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 2, 2015
Location: Cottleville, Missouri
Posts: 1,115
Quote:
Are you arguing the merits of a proposed idea for better gun control laws by quoting the constitution? Really?
Your proposed idea in my opinion has ZERO merit. I'm sorry, but you have a perspective that is so far from mine, and I'd venture to say from that of most responsible gun owners, that it is hard to even wrap my head around where you could be coming from with it. Your views are certainly NOT coming from the perspective of a supporter of the second amendment from where I stand.

You frighten me because you pose as great of a threat to my freedoms as a public official who would dare to proclaim that Australia is a model for gun control that the US should follow. We all know which specific two have publicly made that claim.

I'm sorry, but you truly DO scare the crap out of me, far more than any John Doe in our society. The John Doe out there at least I have a chance to handle successfully should the need ever arise, though I doubt it ever will. That is because I DO exercise my constitutional right to keep and bear arms and I DO legally carry concealed all day, every day. As I've stated before on this forum, if I am dressed, I am armed. Not because I am some paranoid bat-x-crazy fool, but because that really is the only way to insure that no one else ever has access to the firearm that I've chosen to and committed myself to carry for the protection of myself and family. I unfortunately can not protect myself or my family as readily from flawed ideologies, that far greater danger just isn't as obvious.
__________________
Vegetarian... primitive word for lousy hunter!

Last edited by turkeestalker; January 26, 2016 at 10:09 PM.
turkeestalker is offline  
Old January 26, 2016, 10:00 PM   #52
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
Quote:
The problem with our constitution is that it was written at a time when folks had no clue as to the technological advances that would change our world. Even some things that were fundamental truths back then have been rendered irrelevant, ineffective, or even downright counterproductive.
I would be interested in hearing what (in your opinion) "fundamental truths" are today irrelevant, ineffective or "downright counterproductive"

Quote:
*Can we all agree that not everyone should be allowed to carry a weapon in public?
I can agree with that, sure.

Quote:
*Can we all agree that there needs to be some kind of process that determines who can and can not carry a weapon in public?
I can agree with this, BUT the process I envisage is NOT the one you do.

Quote:
*Can we all agree that what we have now isn't working so well?
"not working so well" is a value judgment, and without stating your parameters for judgment, I can not agree. What I can agree with is that the current system and its enforcement is a breeding ground for abuse.

Quote:
*Can we all agree that a person should either be allowed to carry a weapon, or not, but that we should not be forced to beg and gobble to some random authority figure who imposes arbitrary rules?
I can agree that you are either prohibited by law, or your are not. And that is all there should be. I have an issue with the language of "allowed to carry a weapon", primarily because the underlying assumption is guilt, and you must prove your worthiness. And, personally, I refuse to gobble any random authority figure. I won't grovel, either!

Quote:
John Doe does not have any felony convictions and has never been declared mentally unstable.
if these are the disqualifiers stated in law, then they are the only points that matter. John Doe may be a deadbeat, who doesn't pay his bills, and may be a total loser by many standards, BUT if he does not meet the legal requirements to be prohibited, then his rights are the same as yours and mine.

You aren't comfortable with him carrying a gun, because to you he's an unsavory character, despite never being convicted or adjudicated of a disqualifying condition.

Here's the problem with your arguments, as I see it, you appear to be agreeing with both sides. You agree that writing an essay, or character references, etc. are burdensome and should not be done.

yet at the same time, you say we do need some tests, some proof of good character, etc. So, it appears that you are opposed to arbitrary conditions for approval, unless they are YOUR arbitrary conditions.

To me, this is either innocent miscommunication, or it is a degree of bigotry.
I invite your clarification of the matter.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is online now  
Old January 26, 2016, 10:03 PM   #53
turkeestalker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 2, 2015
Location: Cottleville, Missouri
Posts: 1,115
My appologies

I'm sorry to gunnerk19 and everyone else who has posted in this thread, I never intended to hijack it or assist in carrying it off topic. I could not disagree more with the line of thinking that some essay needs to be written, (or any other ridiculous hoop jumped through), in order to judge whether or not an individual can enjoy a freedom, better still a right, that is already guaranteed him/her by the Constitution of the United States.

I will sit down and shut up now, but I can not be alone in questioning motivations.
__________________
Vegetarian... primitive word for lousy hunter!
turkeestalker is offline  
Old January 26, 2016, 10:03 PM   #54
MurBob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2016
Posts: 167
Quote:
John Doe may be a bit of a loser, but he is not violent, psychotic, or otherwise prohibited from owning a firearm and getting a carry permit. I may not personally be all that happy with him sitting behind my family at the theater, but he has the same rights I do and is free to exercise them.
I believe that the right to own a firearm should not carry the same criteria as the right to carry one in public as a concealed weapon.
Simply owning a firearm does not require the same level of responsibility as carrying one in public.


Quote:
John is not guilty before the fact, as you intimate.
That is certainly a valid and inarguable point. You can't penalize someone for something they haven't done yet. Interestingly, that's exactly what we do when we deny a mentally ill person. We are simply predicting that giving them a gun is probably going to turn out bad.


Quote:
Jane Doe did make a mistake in her youth. Granted. OK, now what? Cry us a river. There is a legal process for her to follow to have her felony conviction expunged. It's going to cost a few bucks and take a year, but it happens every day in this country. Until she does that, I am quite happy with her not buying a firearm, the law is the law and she needs to follow it.
I didn't know that!! Thank you. I had no idea a felony could be removed in such a way.

Quote:
So do you. Your scenarios are exactly the reason why we have laws in this country that apply equally to every citizen. As distasteful as it may be to think of John Doe with a carry permit, he will only deprive one person of their civil rights if granting the permit was a mistake.
HUH?? Did you type that wrong? Did I read it wrong? Or did you just say John is only going to kill one person if it was a mistake?


Quote:
I note you do not appear to support denial of his license to drive a car, a far deadlier weapon.
You might want to research some of my postings! LOL.. because I mentioned exactly that earlier. But that's really a different conversation of a different type and will probably be rendered irrelevant in the near future.


Quote:
You, however, as the arbiter of who gets permits, will clearly deprive hundreds or thousands of your fellow citizens of their civil rights, based on your subjective opinion and ability to conjure up scenarios calling for the need for intrusive examination and authority out of thin air.
You are wrong on this one. There is nothing arbitrary about the way insurance companies use algorithms to make decisions and manage risk. It is absolutely not an arbitrary process and, in fact, is blind, equal, and scientifically proven.

Quote:
Nothing personal, but the purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect ourselves against people like yourself, should you ever get to wield governmental power and authority.
You are mistaken on this point too. I never suggested the idea that any human would be part of the process.. in fact, I specifically stated that a mathematical formula based on proven insurance company research and experience would be used. That's part of the beauty of what I was proposing.. it removes the human element and places it squarely in the control of science. No bias, no political agenda, no personal agenda, and computers don't discriminate.

You make some good arguments that are difficult to argue with. Calling me the person who people need protections against is not one of them.

I believe (to a lesser extent) your right to own a gun, and much more importantly, to carry one in public should be based upon your own behavior. We already do that! I'm just proposing a better way to implement the criteria we use... a scientifically proven set of criteria that is so well developed it makes insurance companies rich because it is so accurate.
MurBob is offline  
Old January 26, 2016, 10:11 PM   #55
MurBob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2016
Posts: 167
Quote:
Here's the problem with your arguments, as I see it, you appear to be agreeing with both sides. You agree that writing an essay, or character references, etc. are burdensome and should not be done.

yet at the same time, you say we do need some tests, some proof of good character, etc. So, it appears that you are opposed to arbitrary conditions for approval, unless they are YOUR arbitrary conditions.

To me, this is either innocent miscommunication, or it is a degree of bigotry.
I invite your clarification of the matter.
Please see my post just above.. Or better yet, I'll quote myself in order to clear this up.. Let me know if you still have an argument against it.. IE: you see a flaw in the idea.

Please note, you'll have to read between the lines as this was directed at another comment.. but you'll get the idea..

QUOTE
You are mistaken on this point too. I never suggested the idea that any human would be part of the process.. in fact, I specifically stated that a mathematical formula based on proven insurance company research and experience would be used. That's part of the beauty of what I was proposing.. it removes the human element and places it squarely in the control of science. No bias, no political agenda, no personal agenda, and computers don't discriminate.

You make some good arguments that are difficult to argue with. Calling me the person who people need protections against is not one of them.

I believe (to a lesser extent) your right to own a gun, and much more importantly, to carry one in public should be based upon your own behavior. We already do that! I'm just proposing a better way to implement the criteria we use... a scientifically proven set of criteria that is so well developed it makes insurance companies rich because it is so accurate.
MurBob is offline  
Old January 26, 2016, 10:35 PM   #56
MurBob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2016
Posts: 167
Quote:
Your proposed idea in my opinion has ZERO merit. I'm sorry, but you have a perspective that is so far from mine, and I'd venture to say from that of most responsible gun owners, that it is hard to even wrap my head around where you could be coming from with it. Your views are certainly NOT coming from the perspective of a supporter of the second amendment from where I stand.

You frighten me because you pose as great of a threat to my freedoms as a public official who would dare to proclaim that Australia is a model for gun control that the US should follow. We all know which specific two have publicly made that claim.

I'm sorry, but you truly DO scare the crap out of me, far more than any John Doe in our society. The John Doe out there at least I have a chance to handle successfully should the need ever arise, though I doubt it ever will. That is because I DO exercise my constitutional right to keep and bear arms and I DO legally carry concealed all day, every day. As I've stated before on this forum, if I am dressed, I am armed. Not because I am some paranoid bat-x-crazy fool, but because that really is the only way to insure that no one else ever has access to the firearm that I've chosen to and committed myself to carry for the protection of myself and family. I unfortunately can not protect myself or my family as readily from flawed ideologies, that far greater danger just isn't as obvious.
Don't take this the wrong way but frankly, you've said nothing of meaning here other than you obviously disagree.. Tell me what you disagree with. What part and why? I'm all ears, if you see a flaw, point it out..

Telling me I'm wrong and that you're frightened by the idea and how you're going to protect yourself does not add anything.. Its not debatable argument, its posturing.

And on that note, please tell me how you're going to protect yourself, and your family, when John Doe sits down behind you in a movie theater and starts fumbling with his weapon?
You see, you could be the best marksman in the world, with the fastest draw, and have a level of personal responsibility that is second to none.. and it won't help you or your loved family one bit when John Doe sits down behind you in a movie theater. (metaphorically speaking).

The fact is, we have the technology to predict John Doe.. insurance companies have been using it on you and I for over a decade and it is accurate to standards that turn the differences of a few dollars into riches for the insurance industry.
MurBob is offline  
Old January 26, 2016, 10:56 PM   #57
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by MurBob
I never suggested the idea that any human would be part of the process.. in fact, I specifically stated that a mathematical formula based on proven insurance company research and experience would be used. That's part of the beauty of what I was proposing.. it removes the human element and places it squarely in the control of science. No bias, no political agenda, no personal agenda, and computers don't discriminate.
No system created by humans can ever truly be without any bias or agenda, and furthermore, any system designed to prevent relatively rare events such as shootings would have to use very broad criteria that would disqualify a lot of people unfairly. However, this argument doesn't really quite summarize my feelings on this matter.

My next argument is that this system would intrinsically discriminate against the poor, since they often lack the resources to defend themselves against such things as petty criminal charges or creditor collection attempts, and they're often inadequately educated to avoid these circumstances in the first place. But this doesn't really summarize things either.

I'll put it simply. I find this idea to be an affront to the values that this country was founded upon. Rights should not be made conditional upon patterns of personal spending and behavior in a quixotic quest for safety. What next? Shall we take away these folks' right to vote? Perhaps make them wear uniforms and force them to shave their heads so they can be readily identified? I'll let your imagination take it from there.

In a broader philosophical sense, I believe that humanity must tread REALLY cautiously when considering the idea that governance and justice can be reduced to impersonal and supposedly perfect scientific algorithms that utilize the vast computer database we're assembling. Consider that we're rapidly approaching a technological nexus where most of man's guns really could be taken away, but not by "libruls" – rather by some version of Skynet or Klaatu.

Democracy and the criminal justice system may be imperfect and sometimes unfair, but I find them preferable to being reduced to the sum of my credit rating and my grocery store receipts.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is offline  
Old January 26, 2016, 11:03 PM   #58
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by MurBob
And on that note, please tell me how you're going to protect yourself, and your family, when John Doe sits down behind you in a movie theater and starts fumbling with his weapon?
I can't.

But then again, I could also be vaporized in a fireball of burning Jet-A when one of those Southwest Airlines 737s that constantly fly over my house crashes in my backyard while I sit at my computer writing this.

Perhaps we can mitigate this risk by restricting airline ticket purchases to those who are truly worthy of air travel, thus reducing the number of jets in the air, and the resultant risk to folks on the ground. I feel safer already.

But less free.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is offline  
Old January 26, 2016, 11:06 PM   #59
turkeestalker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 2, 2015
Location: Cottleville, Missouri
Posts: 1,115
... and I said I would sit down and shut up, but you won't.

IF you would like to start a discussion about insurance companies infallible scientific criteria that makes them rich being used for wielding or abolishing our inalienable rights under our constitution, then please do so under it's own title in it's own thread.
I would wager that you'll not get the response to and praise for, your awesomely intuitive line of thinking that you seem to presume.

You're going to have to find another utopia if you wish to be able to protect yourself and your family from every danger out there. That society is a fallacy that simply does not exist, nor can it be created, but people keep trying. The means by which they attempt to do so is a part of what scares the crap out of me.

I am not posturing. From where I stand you seem hell bent on arguing, in this and most of your other posts. You simply have a tact for doing it that I would liken to that of the fictional character that was Ray Romano's mom. I honestly now believe what I suspected shortly after you arrived and mentioned FICO scores as some unit of measure, that is precisely the reason why you're on this forum, I'll not play your game.

There is an old sayin, or not so old... 'you can't fix stupid'. My own impression at this point is that you would deny yourself the very right that you claim to support based on the fact that....
Quote:
Stupid people do stupid things... put a gun into that equation?. I don't think that's a good idea.
.... and it has absolutely nothing to do with literacy.
__________________
Vegetarian... primitive word for lousy hunter!

Last edited by turkeestalker; January 26, 2016 at 11:12 PM.
turkeestalker is offline  
Old January 26, 2016, 11:18 PM   #60
K_Mac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 15, 2010
Posts: 1,850
Murbob I agree with 44 Amp that your system of determining value, or risk if you prefer, is bigotry. I say it is disguised as reason. Is it reasonable to deny the basic right to defend oneself to a person based on their credit report, financial status, marital status, zip code, religion, race, education, gender or any other arbitrary measure? You make an argument that John's failures make him unqualified to carry a weapon. I will take my chances with John. He is smart enough to have stayed out of jail while struggling to live. John and I may come from the same place. He is far less a threat to me than self-righteous people who would protect me by taking my liberty.
__________________
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Benjamin Franklin
K_Mac is offline  
Old January 26, 2016, 11:42 PM   #61
MurBob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2016
Posts: 167
Quote:
My next argument is that this system would intrinsically discriminate against the poor, since they often lack the resources to defend themselves against such things as petty criminal charges or creditor collection attempts, and they're often inadequately educated to avoid these circumstances in the first place. But this doesn't really summarize things either.
That is a good argument. Not even sure if its possible to work around it.. back to the drawing board.
MurBob is offline  
Old January 26, 2016, 11:45 PM   #62
MurBob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2016
Posts: 167
Quote:
I can't.

But then again, I could also be vaporized in a fireball of burning Jet-A when one of those Southwest Airlines 737s that constantly fly over my house crashes in my backyard while I sit at my computer writing this.

Perhaps we can mitigate this risk by restricting airline ticket purchases to those who are truly worthy of air travel, thus reducing the number of jets in the air, and the resultant risk to folks on the ground. I feel safer already.

But less free.
(Sarcasm Alert) What an original idea! Bravo! Did you have to do research to come up with this idea or did it just pop into your head?
How about we call your new system a "NO FLY LIST"???????????????
MurBob is offline  
Old January 27, 2016, 12:54 AM   #63
kilimanjaro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 23, 2009
Posts: 3,963
While you are at your drawing board, consider that all the actuarial tables, statistical cross referencing, database linkage, and well-meaning insurance policies you are so certain are the answer to your self-annointed cries for solutions mean absolutely nothing when the object of your intellectual fantasy decides not to buy insurance.

People have rights. They are not objects of experiment or manipulation.

When Personnel became a Human Resource, that was a clue to how some perceive the sovereignty of their neighbors.

So go ahead, buy an island and build your Utopia. Don't be surprised when the criminals continue to be criminals and the John Does continue to be a non issue.

By the way, is that NonFly List you are crowing about above the same arbitrary and capricious list containing thousands of innocent persons, many of them added by venal politicians or functionaries? That's exactly the reason we have the Bill of Rights. People like you, given power and authority, are dangerous.

Last edited by kilimanjaro; January 27, 2016 at 12:59 AM.
kilimanjaro is offline  
Old January 27, 2016, 01:05 AM   #64
MurBob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2016
Posts: 167
Ok.. well.. first things first.
CarGuyChris has single handedly invalidated my proposal with a well thought out and uncontestable fact in that it would discriminate against the poor. See his post for specifics.

It was something I had not considered and I applaud his thoughtfulness.

Until I come up with something else (if ever), I must concede my idea as flawed in a in such a significant way as to invalidate it.

That said, I'd still like to make the following response(s) to your comments but will not beat a dead horse and waste time afterwards so you can have the last word if you wish.

Quote:
Murbob I agree with 44 Amp that your system of determining value, or risk if you prefer, is bigotry.
Bigotry is not tolerating different opinions. I do not see that in a system that judges others on their own behavior.

Quote:
Is it reasonable to deny the basic right to defend oneself to a person based on their credit report, financial status, marital status, zip code, religion, race, education, gender or any other arbitrary measure?
Not on any one thing alone but as a larger picture of a pattern of behavior.. And certainly NEVER EVER include any data on the basic and well known discriminatory factors such as gender, religion, race, sexual orientation, etc.
But insurance companies do set your insurance premiums based on other criteria you mentioned. Credit worthiness, zip code, education as well as others. I can't attest to the effectiveness or weight that is applied to each, but they're there.

Quote:
You make an argument that John's failures make him unqualified to carry a weapon. I will take my chances with John. He is smart enough to have stayed out of jail while struggling to live. John and I may come from the same place. He is far less a threat to me than self-righteous people who would protect me by taking my liberty.
We have a difference there. While I have no issue with John owning a weapon, I don't want someone who demonstrates such poor judgement behind me in a theater with a loaded gun. We differ on that, maybe its because I don't frame John's limited right to carry a loaded weapon in public as a choice between him and my liberty being threatened. I should add that even if I did, I would consider John the bigger and more immediate threat to my family anyhow.

One thing is for sure.. I think we can all agree that an essay isn't going to help anything.
MurBob is offline  
Old January 27, 2016, 01:38 AM   #65
MurBob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2016
Posts: 167
Quote:
While you are at your drawing board, consider that all the actuarial tables, statistical cross referencing, database linkage, and well-meaning insurance policies you are so certain are the answer to your self-annointed cries for solutions mean absolutely nothing when the object of your intellectual fantasy decides not to buy insurance.

People have rights. They are not objects of experiment or manipulation.

When Personnel became a Human Resource, that was a clue to how some perceive the sovereignty of their neighbors.

So go ahead, buy an island and build your Utopia. Don't be surprised when the criminals continue to be criminals and the John Does continue to be a non issue.

By the way, is that NonFly List you are crowing about above the same arbitrary and capricious list containing thousands of innocent persons, many of them added by venal politicians or functionaries? That's exactly the reason we have the Bill of Rights. People like you, given power and authority, are dangerous.
I would be embarrassed if I had to resort to an ad hominem attack like this. But I'm me and you're you so it is what it is.

In the future, please consider limiting your attack(s) to the ideas and concepts being presented and not the person presenting them. Its unproductive and unethical.

I own about a dozen guns and am about to have my wife carry one herself. Do you really think I'm some power hungry anti-gun liberal trying to covertly change the gun laws to limit your freedoms? Seriously?

Armalite AR10 (.308cal) w/Springfield Armory Scope and Bipod
Remington 870 Slug gun w/Nikon Slughunter
Remington 1100
Ruger 10/22
Beretta 92 in stainless w/multiple 30 round extended clips
M&P Shield 9mm (New for the wife this month)

I have about 8 or 10 more guns but I'm too lazy to go get the model numbers as I inherited them instead of purchasing them myself.

I'd be happy to take a photo of any of them for you and would even put this thread in the background of the photo so you know the photo isn't faked.

Do you really think I'm trying to limit your freedoms or mine? Or did you just run out of intelligent arguments and resort to a personal attack?

It was an idea dude.. not even a good one.. but just an idea.. Why get so upset?

You may have the last word if you wish.
MurBob is offline  
Old January 27, 2016, 05:40 AM   #66
turkeestalker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 2, 2015
Location: Cottleville, Missouri
Posts: 1,115
Quote:
Do you really think I'm some... anti-gun liberal trying... to limit your freedoms?
Bottom line, yes.
__________________
Vegetarian... primitive word for lousy hunter!
turkeestalker is offline  
Old January 27, 2016, 05:47 AM   #67
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
Quote:
Bigotry is not tolerating different opinions.
Bigotry is a lot of things, small and large, and it includes prejudging others based on your opinions, not on the actual facts.

Quote:
I do not see that in a system that judges others on their own behavior.
Nor do I. And we have a system that does that, in principle, with varying degrees of success. It is called the Criminal Justice System. But that's not directly what we are talking about here.

I understand you make a distinction between the right to keep, and the right to bear arms. So do some states, which is wrong (but that's another argument, something for a different thread, I think) which is the reasoning behind the existence of permits.

Now we come to what is, and is not justification for the individual to be granted a permit. This is stated in law. Also in law are the specific disqualifiers. Behavior(s) that do not meet those disqualifiers should not be used to disqualify an applicant.

However, what those disqualifiers are can vary widely, all depending on the applicable laws. This is where the writing of essays, character references etc., comes in. The governing laws say things like "demonstrated responsibility" or "good character" or other language with the same general intent.

Now take Mr Doe you have created. He's borderline fail in several areas of his life. But not to the point where he has been convicted of anything, or judged incompetent through due process. Although he isn't a prohibited person, he doesn't seem like a good risk. Right?

And he probably isn't a good risk, going by "the numbers". However, he might be the kind of guy who is poor or borderline fail at some things and competent, or even hyper-capable at something else. Perhaps safe and sane gun handling is one thing he is actually very, very good at. You simply don't know.

How do you find out? There seem to be two schools of thought. On is that you create a set of standards, some kind of test, which must be passed before approval is granted. Lets call this "may issue".

The other is that absent the legally stated disqualifiers, LIFE is the test. You accept the risk as part of the price of freedom. Call this "shall issue".

With John Doe, by looking at things that aren't legal disqualifiers I feel you are judging a book by its cover, or not heeding that little warning in all the ads that want you to buy stock "past behavior is no guarantee of future performance,..."

This is the essence of "may issue"

I also think it is a mistake to look at insurance companies and their rate practices and apply it to anything else. For one thing, they are in business to make a profit! I spent more than a little bit of my life working in the industrial safety field (mostly the "field" part), and I think I have a basically sound understanding of risk assessment and the graded approach, among other things.

Insurance companies have their own approach, and I assure you it is not 100% about safety, it's about calculated risk, both individual and in general terms for their company. Clearly this works well enough for them to not only stay in business, and profit enormously, but I don't think it is the way we should look at fundamental human rights.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is online now  
Old January 27, 2016, 08:16 AM   #68
mehavey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 6,869
And I'm still waiting for MurBob's procedural plan to amend the Constitution.
All else in this conversation is moot until that point.
mehavey is offline  
Old January 27, 2016, 08:42 AM   #69
JimPage
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 21, 2010
Location: Rome, NY
Posts: 941
None of this makes sense. We have the Constitution. No laws impeding compliance with the Constitution should be sanctioned.
__________________
Jim Page

Cogito, ergo armatum sum
JimPage is offline  
Old January 27, 2016, 09:05 AM   #70
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by MurBob
I am not going to argue constitutional points because I am not well versed enough on some of the finer aspects of that type of debate.
That is a considerable impediment in a discussion of limitations on a right set forth explicitly in the COTUS.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MurBob
We already do that! I'm just proposing a better way to implement the criteria we use... a scientifically proven set of criteria that is so well developed it makes insurance companies rich because it is so accurate.
You've repeated this idea several times, so may believe that it has merit.

Actuarial predictions are not individually accurate to a high degree; they only need to work in aggregate to predict frequency in a population rather than likelihood for a specific individual.

They do not approximate due process.
zukiphile is offline  
Old January 27, 2016, 11:47 AM   #71
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
Quote:
Even some things that were fundamental truths back then have been rendered irrelevant, ineffective, or even downright counterproductive.
Lacking further clarification, I am left to assume the "irrelevant..." parts are those pesky sections after "We The People"......

Ducking that subject, claiming ignorance is a cowardly tactic. If you are unskilled, or just unwilling to engage in the duel, you should NOT slap us with your gauntlet!!!!!

Trust me on this, if you are incorrect or inaccurate about the Constitution, someone(s) here WILL point it out to you. Possibly someone with a real law degree (we do have a couple of those on the forum).
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is online now  
Old January 27, 2016, 01:01 PM   #72
K_Mac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 15, 2010
Posts: 1,850
Murbob I don't give a rip about having the last word What I do passionately care about is being able to live my life enjoying the freedom that is afforded to me by our Constitution and our system of government. I understand there is sometime tension between individual freedom and the greater good.

Our founding fathers understood this too. What they came up with is as valid today as it was then. To quote that old book that is sometimes waved around and used as a compass, "There is nothing new under the sun." One can reject the reference, but human nature, technological advances notwithstanding, has not changed. The founding fathers developed a system of government that gave the people the final authority, recognizing that government by its nature will always overreach in its efforts to protect and control.

I think that discussion of how to reduce violence within our society and the governments role in this is important. For me enforcement of existing laws and a meaningful commitment to helping people help themselves is the answer, recognizing that the cost of ignoring poverty, mental health, and many other social issues is too high. It is far easier place Band-Aids, demand more laws and blame guns.
__________________
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Benjamin Franklin

Last edited by K_Mac; January 27, 2016 at 01:07 PM.
K_Mac is offline  
Old January 27, 2016, 01:25 PM   #73
Al Norris
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
I was all ready to debunk the so-called science of insurance actuarial tables, because no one seemed to understand that these tables start with an assumption of risk based upon mob behavior.

Only then do personal traits enter into the picture.

Positives do not decrease your rate, below the mob threshold. Negatives will increase your rates and that is a given. It is how those tables work. Real science would decrease your rates to below the mob level if there were positives. In the insurance world, you can not go below the mob rate for your area or state.

Thank you zukiphile, for bringing up the obvious fallacy of the "science" behind insurance rates.
Al Norris is offline  
Old January 27, 2016, 02:04 PM   #74
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
Quote:
Thank you zukiphile, for bringing up the obvious fallacy of the "science" behind insurance rates.
Certainly, though I do not want to overstate the critique.

Actuaries do real work and what they do does carry a predictive value. However, they will be the first to tell you about the limits of what they do.

If out of a group of 1 million people who have been screened for a half-dozen traits, the actuary concludes that 15,000 of them will contract lung cancer prior to age 65, his prediction may turn out to be a bit low or a bit high, but he is probably about right on the number. Insurance companies don't need individual predictions; they just need to be able to forecast the future cost of claims made by insureds.

That isn't anything like an individualized prediction that Al Norris will get lung cancer before the age of 65.

Consequently, using even sound actuarial methods to effectively convict individuals of a pre-crime involving a firearm is not a sound use of those methods.


On the other hand, if you are standing in front of the judge because you've been convicted of armed bank robbery, you have received due process and are the subject of an individualized determination about whether you should have several civil rights available to you in the future.

Last edited by zukiphile; January 27, 2016 at 02:23 PM.
zukiphile is offline  
Old January 28, 2016, 01:24 PM   #75
Clock
Member
 
Join Date: November 29, 2015
Posts: 77
I'm not in favor of this law because of it's potential for abuse. Having said that, it strikes me that many victims of inner city education, can't read or write. Many immigrants can't write in English. I was taking a work related exam once, and a Hispanic girl next to me copied my paper to the extent of filling out my name instead of hers. I kid you not.
For better or worse this would eliminate a lot of people, many of which should be eliminated.
Clock is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.12717 seconds with 10 queries