BF2S Forums Gun politics, firearms ownership, and US 2nd amendment discussion

Hey I know, lets ban motorbikes, then when a cop finds a motorbike under a tarp in a garage they'll be able to say "hey thats illegal, we should do something about it" instead of spending 30 seconds to check on a database whether its legal or not.

I'd certainly ban pickup trucks, people don't need them and those things are lethal.

This is what a pickup crash looks like, debris from two exploded cars plus the pickup spread 50m up the road.





If a depressed kid wants to kill himself thats one thing, but don't give them the tools to take multiple other people with them.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2020-05-02 01:00:32)

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Kind of why I'm saying it's hard to prove, isn't it.

I don't know why you're saying it.  But it would also be hard to prove that he was under an alien influence and was compelled to pull the trigger.  How about we stay in the realm of what's supported by evidence and not stray into the weeds of made up stuff?

I said "forget the inscriptions for a moment" in that instance because it is a minor aspect of this whole thing getting a disproportionate amount of attention in the thread.

It's not, though.  It's what I was responding to in your post replying to me when I starting commenting on this part of the thread.  Your entire reply consisted of two things: Brailsford's reinstatement in order to be able to medically retire and the inscriptions.  I took no issue with your criticism of the reinstatement.

Other parts of our back and forth include your madman who harasses a cop every day for twenty years, and your hypotheticals about t-shirts and other firearms not used on duty. Mildly perplexing.

As I've explained before, the hypothetical cop harasser was to illustrate the irrelevance of an officer's subjective motivation when determining the necessity and reasonableness of a use of force.  It was intended to explain the withholding of the inscriptions from the jury.  The t-shirts and other guns were questions posed to you because your opening response to me on this topic indicated your disapproval of the withholding of the inscription from the jury, so they were probing how far removed from the incident you would go when seeking to include the inscriptions.  It's all perfectly relevant to our discussion of the inscriptions and whether or not they should have been disclosed to the jury.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I've already acknowledged that I'm unsure about its admissibility in terms of character or establishing possible, but hard to prove, premeditation (not to specifically kill Shaver, but to take advantage of an opportunity to shoot someone; probably hard to prove against a policeman).

Even if Brailsford did have a desire to kill someone, it still doesn't matter.  All that matters is answering the objective question of whether some amount of force was necessary from Brailsford's perspective, and whether the force used was reasonable at the moment it was applied.

• The hallway approach looked unsafe and seemed to put everyone at risk.
• The orders were confusing and the increasingly agitated reaction to Shaver's attempts to follow them didn't make sense to me.
• That the jury was intentionally kept in the dark on some details does not look good in the public eye, regardless of legal correctness.
• It doesn't look look good that the sergeant later moved out of the country.
• It doesn't look good that the shooter was (quietly?) brought back into the force long enough to be released on a PTSD paycheck.
• One drop in the bucket in many avoidable cop-on-civilian incidents in America leading to increased public frustration with law enforcement.

I agree with everything on this list, with the exception of the emphasized entry.

Last edited by HollisHurlbut (2020-05-02 00:51:00)

Jay wrote:

Dilbert, how many millions of illegal guns are currently buried in Australian backyards?

Who knows, lets say 50-100,000 for the sake of argument.
The largest state, NSW, didn't have firearm registration, so no-one can say.

Apparently cap ends for 8" sewer pipe were sold out for months.

The fact is also that they're the weapon of choice for spree shooters, and without them most spree shootings wouldn't realistically happen.

I like firearms and target shooting is my thing, and I think its a social good, but I really think if people want to defend their country they should join the army or the reserves.

Dilbert_X wrote:

The fact is also that they're the weapon of choice for spree shooters, and without them most spree shootings wouldn't realistically happen.

This claim requires much in the way of support.

I like firearms and target shooting is my thing, and I think its a social good, but I really think if people want to defend their country they should join the army or the reserves.

Uh, okay?  What does that have to do with owning an AR?

dilbert thinks people holding arts degrees is an important factor in mass shootings. good luck getting him to support any statement with balanced evidence or established causation.

HollisHurlbut wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Kind of why I'm saying it's hard to prove, isn't it.

I don't know why you're saying it.  But it would also be hard to prove that he was under an alien influence and was compelled to pull the trigger.  How about we stay in the realm of what's supported by evidence and not stray into the weeds of made up stuff?

I said "forget the inscriptions for a moment" in that instance because it is a minor aspect of this whole thing getting a disproportionate amount of attention in the thread.

It's not, though.  It's what I was responding to in your post replying to me when I starting commenting on this part of the thread.  Your entire reply consisted of two things: Brailsford's reinstatement in order to be able to medically retire and the inscriptions.  I took no issue with your criticism of the reinstatement.

Other parts of our back and forth include your madman who harasses a cop every day for twenty years, and your hypotheticals about t-shirts and other firearms not used on duty. Mildly perplexing.

As I've explained before, the hypothetical cop harasser was to illustrate the irrelevance of an officer's subjective motivation when determining the necessity and reasonableness of a use of force.  It was intended to explain the withholding of the inscriptions from the jury.  The t-shirts and other guns were questions posed to you because your opening response to me on this topic indicated your disapproval of the withholding of the inscription from the jury, so they were probing how far removed from the incident you would go when seeking to include the inscriptions.  It's all perfectly relevant to our discussion of the inscriptions and whether or not they should have been disclosed to the jury.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I've already acknowledged that I'm unsure about its admissibility in terms of character or establishing possible, but hard to prove, premeditation (not to specifically kill Shaver, but to take advantage of an opportunity to shoot someone; probably hard to prove against a policeman).

Even if Brailsford did have a desire to kill someone, it still doesn't matter.  All that matters is answering the objective question of whether some amount of force was necessary from Brailsford's perspective, and whether the force used was reasonable at the moment it was applied.

• The hallway approach looked unsafe and seemed to put everyone at risk.
• The orders were confusing and the increasingly agitated reaction to Shaver's attempts to follow them didn't make sense to me.
• That the jury was intentionally kept in the dark on some details does not look good in the public eye, regardless of legal correctness.
• It doesn't look look good that the sergeant later moved out of the country.
• It doesn't look good that the shooter was (quietly?) brought back into the force long enough to be released on a PTSD paycheck.
• One drop in the bucket in many avoidable cop-on-civilian incidents in America leading to increased public frustration with law enforcement.

I agree with everything on this list, with the exception of the emphasized entry.

Will reply in sections.

1) To clarify, yes it would be hard to use an inscription (alone) to prove motive to pull the trigger to x an item on his bucket list or whatever. This is why I said I'd like to see the transcript. Did they talk about his character at all?

2) I said it was getting disproportionate attention because it kept coming up as an unintentional side effect of my having mentioned it. It's an annoying detail that speaks to me of other issues that need to be addressed, but hardly on the same level as the actual shooting having taken place.

3) Again though, if it's against policy, it's against policy. The department stated it was against policy. It's at least extremely relevant to his firing regardless of its admissibility to the trial. Or of your apparent notion that if he bought it with his own money he should be able to do whatever he wants with it. Reflex sights probably =/= tactical profanity scrawls.

4) If I were a gambler I'd probably bet on more of a Call of Duty aesthetic as motive for the inscription than a secret desire to dispense death and mayhem. But it is an item of psychological interest.

5) Which part of the emphasized entry? It isn't even my opinion standing against the tide. There have been articles and commentary about it that further colored the affair in a foul light. If I were a judge, I wouldn't want the jury to be spoiled with preconceived notions that may not belong within the scope either (see 1, was his character at all brought up?). And it does smell bad.

The point is registration isn't difficult, if you want to ban things because they're excessively dangerous then do so, don't dress it up as an administrative issue.

What next? Require people to plead guilty after the police have arrested them? That would save the police a ton of time, paperwork and looking things up on databases.

the whole 'few ruining it for the many' thing doesn't make sense if you don't agree with them being available in principle, full-stop. it's a bit redundant.

it's a bit like saying 'the few who overdose or get addicted to heroin are ruining it for the many'. yeah, it's probably just a better idea to ban heroin.

Pochsy wrote:

Nah, I was always behind banning them because they're dangerous. My point regarding the administrative hurdle is that the current registration list doesn't work as well as it needs to in order to mitigate the risk sufficiently. It's unfortunate, but we tried it. So knowing they're excessively dangerous, and knowing registration doesn't appear to work well as a solution, I can support the few ruining it for the many in this case.

So the govt has, possibly deliberately, failed to put in  place an efficient registration system - still not an argument for banning things.

Dilbert_X wrote:

I thought you were in favour of people making their own choices wrt drugs.

i'm not talking about my views. i mean as an example of a commonly held presupposition that justifies a law/regulation.