School Shooting in Knoxville

[hog88]

From what I've read, real life Wyatt wasn't exactly a paragon of virtue.

No he wasn’t.

 

[Grand Vol]

I don’t know, you still looking for any excuse to get all indignant?

 

[RockyTop85]

Eh?

I gave you credit for knowing tons of background information. Not sure what else you want. I still stand by my last 8 or so posts which didn’t get a response because you preferred to start name calling.

 

[LouderVol]

I don’t think you’re as contrarian as I am, if it makes you feel any better.

Sure why not.

 

[LouderVol]

Ok, but I don’t think it requires a contradiction for Luther to avoid some laughable outcome when faced with that analogy.

For both issues, the most effective measure would be some Thanos style snap of the fingers that results in no more alcohol and no more guns. But that’s too draconian. No reasonable person would find that to be an acceptable imposition on property rights or self-determination.

One serving per sale is probably a bit closer to “no alcohol period,” than one gun per month is, just in terms of societal norms.

It’s certainly not equivalent to the potential for harm. You can still kill a bunch of people with a gun purchased at a one-off sale. The risk of any harm from a single serving of alcohol is infinitesimal.

As you go less restrictive on that quantity axis to try to make them equivalent, the nexus between the quantity sold at one go and the harm breaks down, depending on context. 7 oz of booze consumed in an hour or two at a bar, your best judgement is probably not to drive home, but 45 oz of booze bought to take home and sit on a shelf between single servings doesn’t necessarily correlate to a higher frequency of death.

So running it through that same rubric of looking for a less invasive, more efficient restriction would produce a different outcome and still be consistent, IMO.

The issue with limiting alcohol and expecting a similar decrease in harm caused relies on a two things being true. Imo

1. Individual tolerance of alcohol doesnt change. Cant say that a single beer gets me drunk yet, but I cant drink like I was in college.
2. People dont just save it up. Which compounds number 1.

Alcohol, at a high enough gravity, 35 proof iirc, makes a dangerous flammable liquid, that could be used to make easy to conceal and make fire bombs. The potential damage there is at least as high as a gun. Some may want to argue about that being an extremely low use for alcohol. But guns used to kill is somewhere around .0001% or so. So extremely unlikely doesnt seem to matter.

I would also say that the biggest harm caused by both alcohol and guns is self harm. Whether intentional or not.

 

[LouderVol]

Sure. But risks of those outcomes attach after a certain quantity is consumed. That quantity is far greater than 1 serving.

Not at all with alcohol. Its russian roulette. Each body handles alcohol differently, and even non genetic factors can play into the risks greatly. Have you eaten, slept, or hydrated enough. Alcohol is literally a mind altering poison that kills off one of your most important organs that was designed to deal with poisons. (Not poison poison, just stuff our body doesnt really process). We just rely on our livers to repair itself enough before our next time out drinking.

The amount of harm we do with alcohol to our livers would be considered assault with a deadly weapon if we did the same damage with a gun.

 

[LookinUp]

Haven't seen the news but I'll bet I can guess the name of the school and the neighborhood where it happens all the time.

 

[K-town Vol Fan]

So the cop accidently shot himself and they are refusing to release body cam footage. Something is fishy here.

 

[Grand Vol]

Eh?

I gave you credit for knowing tons of background information. Not sure what else you want. I still stand by my last 8 or so posts which didn’t get a response because you preferred to start name calling.

Yeah, breaking up posts and expecting me to reply to each of them? I'm far too lazy for that.

Otherwise, thanks for the rare compliment.

 

[RockyTop85]

Yeah, breaking up posts and expecting me to reply to each of them? I'm far too lazy for that.

Otherwise, thanks for the rare compliment.

How convenient.

 

[RockyTop85]

Sure why not.

See? I would have argued about that.

Not at all with alcohol. Its russian roulette. Each body handles alcohol differently, and even non genetic factors can play into the risks greatly. Have you eaten, slept, or hydrated enough. Alcohol is literally a mind altering poison that kills off one of your most important organs that was designed to deal with poisons. (Not poison poison, just stuff our body doesnt really process). We just rely on our livers to repair itself enough before our next time out drinking.

The amount of harm we do with alcohol to our livers would be considered assault with a deadly weapon if we did the same damage with a gun.

Disagree. I say the majority of alcohol related misfortune is a result of people consuming far more than one serving in a sitting or per sitting, until proven otherwise.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Disagree. I say the majority of alcohol related misfortune is a result of people consuming far more than one serving in a sitting or per sitting, until proven otherwise.

So basically, it’s a lack of self control by the individual and has nothing to do with the alcohol itself. Unless of course you’re advocating removal of alcohol from the community “for the greater good”?

 

[InVOLuntary]

So the cop accidently shot himself and they are refusing to release body cam footage. Something is fishy here.

I don't think that's correct. I think what's been reported is that the kid's gun didn't hit the officer but the officer didn't shoot himself which I take to mean one of the other officers shot the cop.

As far as the body cam footage, the police chief said she is anxious to release the video but is being prevented by the DA. She seemed disappointed that she was disappointed that she couldn't release the video. I got the impression that she thought the video would prove that her officers acted appropriately but that's conjecture on my part from reading her statements.

 

[kiddiedoc]

I don't think that's correct. I think what's been reported is that the kid's gun didn't hit the officer but the officer didn't shoot himself which I take to mean one of the other officers shot the cop.

As far as the body cam footage, the police chief said she is anxious to release the video but is being prevented by the DA. She seemed disappointed that she was disappointed that she couldn't release the video. I got the impression that she thought the video would prove that her officers acted appropriately but that's conjecture on my part from reading her statements.

Or... There was a struggle and the kid actually pulled the trigger of the officer's gun?

 

[allvol123]

So the cop accidently shot himself and they are refusing to release body cam footage. Something is fishy here.

Why is it fishy to not release footage in an ongoing investigation?

 

[InVOLuntary]

Or... There was an altercation and the kid actually pulled the trigger of the officer's gun?

It could be that for sure but I thought I saw where they said it wasn't his own gun. I definitely could be wrong though.

 

[Vol737]

Hit us up when those things are “fixed” through laws

China, The Soviet Union, Cuba, Venezuela all did it....oh, wait. Some people just have to keep repeating (stupid) history till it hits them on the teeth.

 

[Grand Vol]

How convenient.

 

[LouderVol]

See? I would have argued about that.


Disagree. I say the majority of alcohol related misfortune is a result of people consuming far more than one serving in a sitting or per sitting, until proven otherwise.

I agree that's how most is done, with more than one drink. But that's why I pointed out you can just save up, like with guns.

One of my best friends wife is a dietitian that deals with liver transplants. She said it's not uncommon to see 28 y.o. with alcohol necrosis (hopefully right term) on otherwise healthy people who drink very little. Enough where it doesnt surprise her when it happens.

 

[RockyTop85]

So basically, it’s a lack of self control by the individual and has nothing to do with the alcohol itself. Unless of course you’re advocating removal of alcohol from the community “for the greater good”?

I’m not advocating anything.

Otherwise: correct!!!



P.S. not sure if you noticed, but your backup got triggered, abandoned rational discussion, and is now reduced to hypocritical insults. Pretty weak exit for somebody who was called in to “have fun with my dumbass arguments.” Hope you’ve got something better planned for next time.

 

[RockyTop85]

I agree that's how most is done, with more than one drink. But that's why I pointed out you can just save up, like with guns.

One of my best friends wife is a dietitian that deals with liver transplants. She said it's not uncommon to see 28 y.o. with alcohol necrosis (hopefully right term) on otherwise healthy people who drink very little. Enough where it doesnt surprise her when it happens.

Sure. I’m not saying there’s no risk of harm from one serving per sale/day/month, or whatever.

I’m saying that risk is not equivalent to the risk of harm from a firearm purchased in a single firearm sale, as a way of showing that the Hog/McDad proposal is more invasive and more risk averse than the Luther proposal.

 

[NorthDallas40]

I’m not advocating anything.

Otherwise: correct!!!



P.S. not sure if you noticed, but your backup got triggered, abandoned rational discussion, and is now reduced to hypocritical insults. Pretty weak exit for somebody who was called in to “have fun with my dumbass arguments.” Hope you’ve got something better planned for next time.

LMFAO nobody is shocked on the way you describe anybody’s exit in an “encounter” with you. Trump will be calling any day now to offer that caddy job

Oh and much fun was had by both of us with your dumbass arguments. You’re a legend in your own mind pettifogger

 

[Grand Vol]

I’m not advocating anything.

Otherwise: correct!!!



P.S. not sure if you noticed, but your backup got triggered, abandoned rational discussion, and is now reduced to hypocritical insults. Pretty weak exit for somebody who was called in to “have fun with my dumbass arguments.” Hope you’ve got something better planned for next time.

I haven't started to insult you yet.

Funny thing is, you really didn't bring any coherent arguments to what I said and actually agreed with me by the end Miller was not a good case and ignored the fact the Heller decision challenged the "2A only protects militia weapons" portion.

Again, if Miller had been tried with an actual lawyer making the defense, it might have turned out differently. And regardless, there are significant loopholes with the interstate commerce portion of it. The "Made in Montana" laws show what a farce it is. Nearly every major piece of gun control legislation that's ever been passed has had to be modified or had a sunset clause because it sucked and manufacturers and citizens found a workaround.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Sure. I’m not saying there’s no risk of harm from one serving per sale/day/month, or whatever.

I’m saying that risk is not equivalent to the risk of harm from a firearm purchased in a single firearm sale, as a way of showing that the Hog/McDad proposal is more invasive and more risk averse than the Luther proposal.

And your statement is complete bull **** as usual. There is no inherent “risk of harm” in a firearm sale. It’s more BS hyperbole from you.

 

[NorthDallas40]

I haven't started to insult you yet.

Funny thing is, you really didn't bring any coherent arguments to what I said and actually agreed with me by the end Miller was not a good case and ignored the fact the Heller decision challenged the "2A only protects militia weapons" portion.

Again, if Miller had been tried with an actual lawyer making the defense, it might have turned out differently. And regardless, there are significant loopholes with the interstate commerce portion of it. The "Made in Montana" laws show what a farce it is. Nearly every major piece of gun control legislation that's ever been passed has had to be modified or had a sunset clause because it sucked and manufacturers and citizens found a workaround.

I’d guess his idiot ass actually finally learned the context and background behind the setup Miller verdict as he was feverishly searching the web to understand the government’s manipulation of the case. I don’t doubt he studied the decision and probably the opinions. But I absolutely believe he was clueless on the setup context of it all and the patsies that Miller and Layton were used as.