Lovelle Mixon: Oakland Police Shooter Kills 4 Cops

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That's stupid reasoning which has nothing to do with what anyone has said.

Which part dh?

All of it. The misrepresenting of views in the first bit and the subsequent chain of thought.

[Ban Hammer 13,360]

So ... doesn't this read that Mixon was already a convicted felon (violating parole) and was already prohibited by law from owning / possessing a firearm. Guess the law worked in preventing this paroled individual from possessing a firearm. So ... let's make more laws to forbid a convicted felon ... and wanted person (parole violation) from possessing firearms.

When all the facts come out and we find out how he obtained the assault weapon from someone who bought the parts legally, then what will you say? Banning assault rifles will not stop all from obtaining them, but it will make it much more difficult to obtain them.

obtained how?

[Heracles 417]

They don't relate BY. One is in regards to police officers being murdered, the other was from a quote by an officer commenting on police loss in the US during the course of duty. They can't be made to fit together to draw any logical conclusions.

I didn't realize comparing when a police officer is killed vs that of your mother country is not logical.

Clearly anything Steven, Private Azz or you say is logical while anyone who disagrees with you is illogical. How many times do we need to play this game? naturally you guys are then going to back each others assumptions and claim the other person is wrong. Which you will deny of course and claim the person making such an observation is an idiot.

Watch set again.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

So ... doesn't this read that Mixon was already a convicted felon (violating parole) and was already prohibited by law from owning / possessing a firearm. Guess the law worked in preventing this paroled individual from possessing a firearm. So ... let's make more laws to forbid a convicted felon ... and wanted person (parole violation) from possessing firearms.

When all the facts come out and we find out how he obtained the assault weapon from someone who bought the parts legally, then what will you say? Banning assault rifles will not stop all from obtaining them, but it will make it much more difficult to obtain them.

obtained how?

Legal Glitch Allows Assault Weapons in California

[Peikko 1,575]

\They don't relate BY. One is in regards to police officers being murdered by knives in the UK, ie a very specific cause of death, the other was from a quote by an officer commenting on police loss in the US during the course of duty ie very non specific as to the cause of death. They can't be made to fit together to draw any logical conclusions.

I didn't realize comparing when a police officer is killed vs that of your mother country is not logical.

Clearly anything Steven, Private Azz or you say is logical while anyone who disagrees with you is illogical. How many times do we need to play this game? naturally you guys are then going to back each others assumptions and claim the other person is wrong. Which you will deny of course and claim the person making such an observation is an idiot.

Watch set again.

I have explained how it's not logical in this particular instance. They are two very different sets of data that can't be tied together in order to draw any conclusions. I don't know to be more specific in pointing out how wrong you are.

Edited March 23, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You can't tell the difference between a statistic that references murder as a cause of police officers being killed in the line of duty, and one that references all deaths in general.

Someone doesn't have to agree with you to find that reasoning illogical BY. Indeed its hard to agree with you when your arguments rely on faulty reasoning.

[natty bumppo 297]

So ... doesn't this read that Mixon was already a convicted felon (violating parole) and was already prohibited by law from owning / possessing a firearm. Guess the law worked in preventing this paroled individual from possessing a firearm. So ... let's make more laws to forbid a convicted felon ... and wanted person (parole violation) from possessing firearms.

When all the facts come out and we find out how he obtained the assault weapon from someone who bought the parts legally, then what will you say? Banning assault rifles will not stop all from obtaining them, but it will make it much more difficult to obtain them.

So you say. Lets see ... there were two different firearms used ... the so called "assault rifle" was the second one used at the apartment. What happened to the first firearm? Notice there is no "outrage" against this one?

[justashooter 430]

Legal Glitch Allows Assault Weapons in California

the story you reference is about 2 years old and is about a failure of california legislature to correctly draft legislation.

truth is, "assault rilfes" (semiautomatic rifles that look evil but work like an average sporting rifle) have always been legal in Ca. in 1994 the existing rifles of this type were grandfathered and registered, and manufacture or sale of additional examples was prohibited. the law being incomplete, many "glitches" have been used to facilitate the increase in the number of legal and registered "assault rifles" in Ca. funny thing is, most "assault rifles" are chambered in 5.56X45, 7.62X39, and 9X19. all of these cartridges are quite inferior to the standard "thuty-thuty" (30-30) that your grandfather hunted deer with, and much less "deadly".

whay do we need to maintain our 2nd amendment right to keep such devices? in the Federalist Papers (google it) Jefferson said we needed to be able to protect the country from "enemies, foreign and domestic". in the first case, he was speaking about foreign government. in the second, he was speaking about our own government.

you like to be free to type ####### on message boards on the net? that requires a 1st amendment. the only thing guaranteeing your 1st amendment? your 2nd amendment.

[Peikko 1,575]

There isn't any outrage against any firearms that I can tell. FP is quite sensibly wondering whether it makes sense to allow certain types of firearms to be within the public realm because it seems likely that the loss of life was made worse by his being more heavily armed than is usual.

[natty bumppo 297]

There isn't any outrage against any firearms that I can tell. FP is quite sensibly wondering whether it makes sense to allow certain types of firearms to be within the public realm because it seems likely that the loss of life was made worse by his being more heavily armed than is usual.

certain types? define based on more than cosmetic descriptions.

[Heracles 417]

\They don't relate BY. One is in regards to police officers being murdered by knives in the UK, ie a very specific cause of death, the other was from a quote by an officer commenting on police loss in the US during the course of duty ie very non specific as to the cause of death. They can't be made to fit together to draw any logical conclusions.

I have explained how it's not logical in this particular instance. They are two very different sets of data that can't be tied together in order to draw any conclusions. I don't know to be more specific in pointing out how wrong you are.

So how they are killed makes a difference then. Not the fact that they are dead. Yep I better throw that out. Since 11 were stabbed rather than being shot.

Of the officers murdered in England, Scotland and Wales since 1985, 12 have been killed by vehicles, 12 shot, 11 stabbed and three died after being beaten, according to the Police Roll of Honour Trust.

Since we are talking about weapons and your buddies pretty much insist they are the cause, would you like to travel down the path of violent crimes. Which has been discussed before. Where the UK has a rate much higher than the US.

Edited March 23, 2009 by Constellation

[Peikko 1,575]

You still don't get it BY, one is simply deaths in the line of duty, the other is deaths that are as a result of violent assault during the line of duty. It is not possible to draw any conclusions based on two different sets of data.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

There isn't any outrage against any firearms that I can tell. FP is quite sensibly wondering whether it makes sense to allow certain types of firearms to be within the public realm because it seems likely that the loss of life was made worse by his being more heavily armed than is usual.

certain types? define based on more than cosmetic descriptions.

Presumably the sort of firearms that allow a person to gun down 2 police officers then hold off a SWAT team and gun down two of them.

Excepting the possibility that the guy is some sort of master of the bullet-ballet to rival a character in John Woo movie - it might be reasonably surmised that the technology the guy had access to had something to do with his "success"

Edited March 23, 2009 by Private Pike

[Peikko 1,575]

As for the rest, as your line or reasoning is based on such faulty analysis of data, I really can't see any point continuing down any of the paths you suggest.

There isn't any outrage against any firearms that I can tell. FP is quite sensibly wondering whether it makes sense to allow certain types of firearms to be within the public realm because it seems likely that the loss of life was made worse by his being more heavily armed than is usual.

certain types? define based on more than cosmetic descriptions.

Presumably the sort of firearms that allow a person to gun down 2 police officers then hold off a SWAT team and gun down two of them.

Excepting the possibility that the guy is some sort of master of the bullet-ballet to rival a character in John Woo movie - it might be reasonably surmised that the technology the guy had access to had something to do with his "success"

That is my point. The first deaths can be attributed to the surprise factor, but against a SWAT team?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You still don't get it BY, one is simply deaths in the line of duty, the other is deaths that are as a result of violent assault during the line of duty. It is not possible to draw any conclusions based on two different sets of data.

You really ought to give up. BY consistently demonstrates that nothing short of a uranium tank shell will penetrate that thick skull of his: