Switch Theme:

9th Circuit Court: Concealed Firearm Not Protected By 2nd Amendment  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

 d-usa wrote:
Because "most" means nothing, it's a pointless argument if you refuse to actually show what "most" means in relationship to all the other courts.

Stop making bad arguments.


Most means most. Evidently this is a problem for you.

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Secret Squirrel






Leerstetten, Germany

Okay, it could possibly mean two things:

- ignorance of the actual caseloads and rulings of each circuit court
- dishonesty in the argument someone is making

What it doesn't mean is that they are worse at making constitutional rulings than other circuit courts, since they have the same reversal rate as other circuit courts.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
SemperMortis wrote:
 d-usa wrote:
Because "most" means nothing, it's a pointless argument if you refuse to actually show what "most" means in relationship to all the other courts.

Stop making bad arguments.


I believe that Most has a lot of meaning and since it flies in the face of your opinion and stance you are purposely trying to minimize what it actually means.

The Montreal Canadians have the MOST Stanley Cup wins. That means something. If you want to go by another metric, most cups per year the team has existed then that's another metric, but it does not in any way marginalize or lower the value of the word "Most" in regards to the original statement.

So in other words, your argument is both bad, and invalid.


Can I give you an award for most nonsensical posts?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/14 17:54:15


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 d-usa wrote:
Okay, it could possibly mean two things:

- ignorance of the actual caseloads and rulings of each circuit court
- dishonesty in the argument someone is making

What it doesn't mean is that they are worse at making constitutional rulings than other circuit courts, since they have the same reversal rate as other circuit courts.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
SemperMortis wrote:
 d-usa wrote:
Because "most" means nothing, it's a pointless argument if you refuse to actually show what "most" means in relationship to all the other courts.

Stop making bad arguments.


I believe that Most has a lot of meaning and since it flies in the face of your opinion and stance you are purposely trying to minimize what it actually means.

The Montreal Canadians have the MOST Stanley Cup wins. That means something. If you want to go by another metric, most cups per year the team has existed then that's another metric, but it does not in any way marginalize or lower the value of the word "Most" in regards to the original statement.

So in other words, your argument is both bad, and invalid.


Can I give you an award for most nonsensical posts?


You sure can, but coming from you it would be worse then one of those participation awards they give out at little league games.

The fact that you have to argue the meaning of the word "Most" shows the weakness of your argument.

 Tomsug wrote:
Semper krumps under the radar

 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Secret Squirrel






Leerstetten, Germany

Feel free to explain the purpose of pointing out that the 9th has the most reversals, and then let people decide it knowledge about the relevance of the actual number of cases and reversals is significant.

If you have no reason to hide behind the "most" argument, then you should be able to make a well reasoned and comprehensive post about why the raw number is more important than the meaning of said number and why the fine people of Dakka should ignore the fact that the 9th has the most reversals, while also having the most rulings, and the most affirmations.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 d-usa wrote:
Feel free to explain the purpose of pointing out that the 9th has the most reversals, and then let people decide it knowledge about the relevance of the actual number of cases and reversals is significant.

If you have no reason to hide behind the "most" argument, then you should be able to make a well reasoned and comprehensive post about why the raw number is more important than the meaning of said number and why the fine people of Dakka should ignore the fact that the 9th has the most reversals, while also having the most rulings, and the most affirmations.


How about this then http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/intelprop/magazine/LandslideJan2010_Hofer.authcheckdam.pdf

To summarize, the American Bar Association ranked every Circuit court and guess what? the 9th got the worst grade. Does that help you at all, or are you going to find another way to get around actual facts?

 Tomsug wrote:
Semper krumps under the radar

 
   
Made in se
Ferocious Black Templar Castellan






Sweden

I thought Dakka at least understood why absolute numbers make for completely bollocks arguments, and that relative numbers are a much better indicator of reality.


DakkaDakka OT: the gift that keeps on disappointing.

For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back. 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Secret Squirrel






Leerstetten, Germany

Fact: the article repeated the same argument that you made: having the most reversals means something.

Fact: the article ignored the same principle that you did: looking at the number of rulings reversed means nothing if you don't look at the total number of rulings made.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I thought Dakka at least understood why absolute numbers make for completely bollocks arguments, and that relative numbers are a much better indicator of reality.


DakkaDakka OT: the gift that keeps on disappointing.


To quote the article: "figures dong lie, but liars figure".

"Most rulings overturned" is a figure and it doesn't lie, but people will try to make that figure mean something that it doesn't.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/14 18:16:31


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 d-usa wrote:
Fact: the article repeated the same argument that you made: having the most reversals means something.

Fact: the article ignored the same principle that you did: looking at the number of rulings reversed means nothing if you don't look at the total number of rulings made.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I thought Dakka at least understood why absolute numbers make for completely bollocks arguments, and that relative numbers are a much better indicator of reality.


DakkaDakka OT: the gift that keeps on disappointing.


To quote the article: "figures dong lie, but liars figure".

"Most rulings overturned" is a figure and it doesn't lie, but people will try to make that figure mean something that it doesn't.


Fact, you just ignored the opinions of the valid experts on the field in question.

Fact, the 2nd Amendment has just been violated and if we ever get another SCOTUS Justice in place it should be overturned immediately.

 Tomsug wrote:
Semper krumps under the radar

 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Secret Squirrel






Leerstetten, Germany

Fact: I ignored the opinion of one man who was using the reversal rates of circuit courts cases reviewed by the the SCOTUS to make a point about patent law, while ignoring the reversal rates of all cases in the process.

The next SCOTUS ruling may well declare that the constitution limits the 2nd to the militias in the form of the national guard, who knows. In the long term, it doesn't matter what you or I think. The ruling of the 9th is constitutional for now, it will stop being constitutional when, and if, SCOTUS reverses it. And if SCOTUS affirms it it will remain constitutional, until they change their mind. The constitution means whatever the courts say it means.

We have covered most these arguments earlier in this thread though, you just have missed most of these posts when you made most of your own arguments that included most of the misunderstandings of what is and isn't significant about the word "most".
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

You seem pretty hostile there d-usa. Maybe the Oklahoma heat and platelike flatness are getting to you. I suggest a quick vacation to the Appalachians to cool your brow. Plus...barbeque!

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





CL VI Store in at the Cyber Center of Excellence

 d-usa wrote:
Fact: the article repeated the same argument that you made: having the most reversals means something.


No, that isn't what the article said at all. It looked at % reversed, % vacated and % affirmed by circuit. Some circuits, according to the article, had a larger % of the cases SCOTUS reviewed reversed or vacated than others did. The 9th had large percentages of their cases reversed or vacated (80% according to Table 3). Total number of cases each sent to the court does not effect the % of the cases reversed or vacated.

That is a lot different from what you seem to think the article said (in the quote I took from you). Most Reversals as a raw number is NOT what the article looked at. They looked at % reversed, and there IS a difference.


Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings. 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

This entire entry is worth posting:
Spoiler:
Second Amendment
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended scope. On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment's phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States. Under this "individual right theory," the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language "a well regulated Militia" to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defense. Scholars have come to call this theory "the collective rights theory." A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.

In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller. 307 U.S. 174. The Court adopted a collective rights approach in this case, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated milita . . . ." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.

This precedent stood for nearly 70 years when in 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290). The plaintiff in Heller challenged the constitutionality of the Washington D.C. handgun ban, a statute that had stood for 32 years. Many considered the statute the most stringent in the nation. In a 5-4 decision, the Court, meticulously detailing the history and tradition of the Second Amendment at the time of the Constitutional Convention, proclaimed that the Second Amendment established an individual right for U.S. citizens to possess firearms and struck down the D.C. handgun ban as violative of that right. The majority carved out Miller as an exception to the general rule that Americans may possess firearms, claiming that law-abiding citizens cannot use sawed-off shotguns for any law-abiding purpose. Similarly, the Court in its dicta found regulations of similar weaponry that cannot be used for law-abiding purposes as laws that would not implicate the Second Amendment. Further, the Court suggested that the United States Constitution would not disallow regulations prohibiting criminals and the mentally ill from firearm possession.

Thus, the Supreme Court has revitalized the Second Amendment. The Court continued to strengthen the Second Amendment through the 2010 decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago (08-1521). The plaintiff in McDonald challenged the constitutionally of the Chicago handgun ban, which prohibited handgun possession by almost all private citizens. In a 5-4 decisions, the Court, citing the intentions of the framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment, held that the Second Amendment applies to the states through the incorporation doctrine. However, the Court did not have a majority on which clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the fundamental right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. While Justice Alito and his supporters looked to the Due Process Clause, Justice Thomas in his concurrence stated that the Privileges and Immunities Clause should justify incorporation.

However, several questions still remain unanswered, such as whether regulations less stringent than the D.C. statute implicate the Second Amendment, whether lower courts will apply their dicta regarding permissible restrictions, and what level of scrutiny the courts should apply when analyzing a statute that infringes on the Second Amendment.

Recent case law since Heller suggests that courts are willing to, for example, uphold:
  • regulations which ban weapons on government property. US v Dorosan, 350 Fed. Appx. 874 (5th Cir. 2009) (upholding defendant’s conviction for bringing a handgun onto post office property);

  • regulations which ban the illegal possession of a handgun as a juvenile, convicted felon. US v Rene, 583 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2009) (holding that the Juvenile Delinquency Act ban of juvenile possession of handguns did not violate the Second Amendment);

  • regulations which require a permit to carry concealed weapon. Kachalsky v County of Westchester, 701 F.3d 81 (2nd Cir. 2012) (holding that a New York law preventing individuals from obtaining a license to possess a concealed firearm in public for general purposes unless the individual showed proper cause did not violate the Second Amendment.)

  • So... had California defined what it really meant by "for good reason", then it'd likely be kosher.



    This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/14 18:49:10


    Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


     
       
    Made in us
    Proud Triarch Praetorian





     Frazzled wrote:
    yellowfever wrote:
    I'm not trying to be rude to anyone but 3 to 4 basic rules are not difficult to learn. I was taught (in no specific order)

    1 treat every weapon as if it is loaded
    2 never point a weapon at anything you don't want to shoot
    3 Keep your finger off the trigger until your ready to fire.
    4 be sure of your target and what's in line with it

    Now of course people with no training won't know these. But these rules are not difficult to learn.


    Deadwinter is what you would call...a troll.

    I learned four rules myself when a lad.
    1. Do unto others before they do unto you.
    2. Never leave a bridge behind you. You don't know who's following.
    3. Always have a slower friend with you at all times. The hyenas will go after them first.
    4. Bourbon. Its not just for breakfast any more.


    Oh wow, a troll for asking questions and pointing out inconsistencies? That is high praise there Fraz. Also, I thought there was a rule stopping people from coming out and whining "Troll!" when somebody disagreed with them.

     NuggzTheNinja wrote:
     Dreadwinter wrote:
     NuggzTheNinja wrote:
     Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


    I'm not saying that people shouldn't defend themselves if the situation warrants it. I'm saying that if you're trying to return fire, and dozens of innocent people are crossing your line of fire, and knocking into you as they run past, it's not always a good idea.

    Even a highly trained Navy Seal or SAS member, would struggle to get a clear shot at a bad guy in that type of situation.


    The fact that the terrorist was stopped by good guys with guns completely obliterates the argument that he could not be stopped by good guys with guns.




    No, it does not. Because by the time the good guys with guns showed up, people had already made their way out of the night club and fled. The ones left were hiding or already shot and on the ground.

    If somebody had been concealed carry at the start of it, they would have been returning fire while people were running and confused. Possibly making things worse by hitting people they did not intend to hit in a dark night club.

    However when the police arrived, the night club had already been evacuated and no additional people had been shot by a person with a CC permit trying to be a hero. Sorry for blowing holes in your flimsy argument.


    Your opinion on coulda woulda shoulda doesn't really change the fact that this terrorist was, in fact, stopped by good guys with guns. My post was a statement of fact, not an argument.


    Um, you do realize there is a difference between the Good Guys with Guns(Cops) and the hypothetical Good Guys with Guns(CC Owners) you were referencing, right?
       
    Made in us
    5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




    The Great State of Texas

    Calling troll because you're seriously dicking around "so many first rules ohs" get real.


    And my four rules are better.

    -"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
    -"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
    -TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
     
       
    Made in us
    [DCM]
    Secret Squirrel






    Leerstetten, Germany

     CptJake wrote:
     d-usa wrote:
    Fact: the article repeated the same argument that you made: having the most reversals means something.


    No, that isn't what the article said at all. It looked at % reversed, % vacated and % affirmed by circuit. Some circuits, according to the article, had a larger % of the cases SCOTUS reviewed reversed or vacated than others did. The 9th had large percentages of their cases reversed or vacated (80% according to Table 3). Total number of cases each sent to the court does not effect the % of the cases reversed or vacated.

    That is a lot different from what you seem to think the article said (in the quote I took from you). Most Reversals as a raw number is NOT what the article looked at. They looked at % reversed, and there IS a difference.



    % reversed of the 175 cases that the Court reviewed, as the article makes clear.

    The article also makes it clear that the 9th sees many more cases and makes many more rulings than any of the other circuit courts.

    And when you look at the total number of rulings made by the circuit court, and the number of cases that get reversed by the SCOTUS, then you find very quickly that the 9th does not do worse than other courts.

    If people want to argue that the 9th has the worst track record of any circuit court when it comes to making rulings that are reversed by the SCOTUS, then they are simply wrong. If people want to narrow the argument down and argue that of the tiny fraction of cases that get picked for review by the SCOTUS the 9th Circuit Court has a higher percentage of cases overturned than the other court in most years (I think the 6th has overtaken them in recent years), then they would be correct. But when they then attempt to imply that that this statistic means that any ruling by the 9th is automatically bad they are simply wrong, because the actual track record for reversals based on every ruling made is in line with most, and better than some, of the other circuits.

       
    Made in us
    Longtime Dakkanaut




    D-USA I guess you didn't bother to read the article? Eitherway, yes they see more cases then any other court, but that is because they are responsible for a larger population, and to help with that case load, they also have almost twice as many judges as any other circuit court, only 1 is actually close, with 15 judges, to the 9th's 29.

     Tomsug wrote:
    Semper krumps under the radar

     
       
    Made in us
    Proud Triarch Praetorian





     Frazzled wrote:
    Calling troll because you're seriously dicking around "so many first rules ohs" get real.


    And my four rules are better.


    When somebody says "The 1st Rule" of something it is an indication of the most important rule. This has been shown to be false because "all rules are equally important." Which is also false because the NRA has a list of 3 Fundamental rules and then a side list of 9 additional rules. As soon as you do not make the 3 Fundamental Rules in to the 12 Fundamental Rules, you have downplayed the importance of the additional 9 rules. This is a very large inconsistency with training. The argument that 3 rules are easier to remember than 12 rules is just absurd. Because we should not be going for easier to remember in gun training. If you cannot remember the 12 Fundamental Rules, you should not be running around with a gun. That is a safety issue. Remembering 12 Rules is not hard.

    Or maybe Moses should have shortened those commandments down to 3. 10 is a lot of commandments and really, who is going to remember all of them?
       
    Made in us
    [DCM]
    Secret Squirrel






    Leerstetten, Germany

    SemperMortis wrote:
    D-USA I guess you didn't bother to read the article? Eitherway, yes they see more cases then any other court, but that is because they are responsible for a larger population, and to help with that case load, they also have almost twice as many judges as any other circuit court, only 1 is actually close, with 15 judges, to the 9th's 29.


    I read the article, a couple of times actually.

    That's how I was able to figure out that it was a single author, and not authors like you seemed to think. It's also how I was able to figure out that they didn't look at total number of rulings per circuit, but only total number of cases reviewed by SCOTUS.

    And man, you totally shocked me with that little nugget about the size of the 9th. Who would have though that the court with the most rulings out of all the circuits is also responsible for the largest percentage of the population and has the largest number of judges and is responsible for the largest number of states. Of course we already addressed the size of the court in this thread, and how having the largest percentage of the population leads to having the most cases, making the most rulings, having the most cases appealed to SCOTUS, and having the most cases overturned. Man, it's almost like you discovered the very core of the actual argument I am making regarding the size of the court and how it impacts the meaning of "most".

    If you keep this up, you might just learn something today


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     Dreadwinter wrote:

    Or maybe Moses should have shortened those commandments down to 3. 10 is a lot of commandments and really, who is going to remember all of them?


    We did have 15 at first, but then he dropped one of the stones.

    This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/14 19:05:39


     
       
    Made in us
    Longtime Dakkanaut




    North Carolina

     Dreadwinter wrote:
     Frazzled wrote:
    Calling troll because you're seriously dicking around "so many first rules ohs" get real.


    And my four rules are better.


    When somebody says "The 1st Rule" of something it is an indication of the most important rule. This has been shown to be false because "all rules are equally important." Which is also false because the NRA has a list of 3 Fundamental rules and then a side list of 9 additional rules. As soon as you do not make the 3 Fundamental Rules in to the 12 Fundamental Rules, you have downplayed the importance of the additional 9 rules. This is a very large inconsistency with training. The argument that 3 rules are easier to remember than 12 rules is just absurd. Because we should not be going for easier to remember in gun training. If you cannot remember the 12 Fundamental Rules, you should not be running around with a gun. That is a safety issue. Remembering 12 Rules is not hard.

    Or maybe Moses should have shortened those commandments down to 3. 10 is a lot of commandments and really, who is going to remember all of them?


    Your subjective opinion and semantic games are objective proof of nothing. My statement remains true pointing a gun in a dark confined space full of people violates the first rule of firearm safety, the NRA's rule that is listed first is to point the muzzle in a safe direction if you don't know what you're pointing at then it's not a safe direction. Your quest to find the singular most important gun safety rule claimed to be such by some form of governing body or bodies is one of your own making and has no relevance to the discussion at hand or at all. Those rules are going to be taught and followed and they will help prevent accidents. Your questions about what the rules mean have been answered do you require further clarification as to what they mean?

    Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
     
       
    Made in us
    [DCM]
    Secret Squirrel






    Leerstetten, Germany

    Edit: and just to clarify my point: maybe it's just me, but I don't find (# of rulings overturned)/(# of rulings accepted for review) to be very indicative of the overall performance of the individual courts and I think that (# of rulings overturned)/(# of rulings made) to be a much better measure for the performance of the individual circuits.
       
    Made in us
    Fixture of Dakka





    CL VI Store in at the Cyber Center of Excellence

     d-usa wrote:
    Edit: and just to clarify my point: maybe it's just me, but I don't find (# of rulings overturned)/(# of rulings accepted for review) to be very indicative of the overall performance of the individual courts and I think that (# of rulings overturned)/(# of rulings made) to be a much better measure for the performance of the individual circuits.


    Neither does that article, which is why it looked at % and not #. The article (as you know) based their grades on % reversed + % Vacated. The higher your combined % the worse your grade. 'More' or # doesn't enter into it, just % of the number, which is why it is a 'fairer' way of looking at it compared to raw numbers.

    Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings. 
       
    Made in us
    [DCM]
    Secret Squirrel






    Leerstetten, Germany

    (# of cases overturned)/(number of cases reviewed)=% of cases overturned after review.

    And again, it doesn't look at the number of rulings actually made, nor the percentage of rulings actually overturned.

    It just states that out of all the cases reviewed, the 9th did bad. It doesn't address the fact that out of all the rulings actually made, the 9th did the same as most other courts and better than some.

       
    Made in us
    Proud Triarch Praetorian





    Prestor Jon wrote:
     Dreadwinter wrote:
     Frazzled wrote:
    Calling troll because you're seriously dicking around "so many first rules ohs" get real.


    And my four rules are better.


    When somebody says "The 1st Rule" of something it is an indication of the most important rule. This has been shown to be false because "all rules are equally important." Which is also false because the NRA has a list of 3 Fundamental rules and then a side list of 9 additional rules. As soon as you do not make the 3 Fundamental Rules in to the 12 Fundamental Rules, you have downplayed the importance of the additional 9 rules. This is a very large inconsistency with training. The argument that 3 rules are easier to remember than 12 rules is just absurd. Because we should not be going for easier to remember in gun training. If you cannot remember the 12 Fundamental Rules, you should not be running around with a gun. That is a safety issue. Remembering 12 Rules is not hard.

    Or maybe Moses should have shortened those commandments down to 3. 10 is a lot of commandments and really, who is going to remember all of them?


    Your subjective opinion and semantic games are objective proof of nothing. My statement remains true pointing a gun in a dark confined space full of people violates the first rule of firearm safety, the NRA's rule that is listed first is to point the muzzle in a safe direction if you don't know what you're pointing at then it's not a safe direction. Your quest to find the singular most important gun safety rule claimed to be such by some form of governing body or bodies is one of your own making and has no relevance to the discussion at hand or at all. Those rules are going to be taught and followed and they will help prevent accidents. Your questions about what the rules mean have been answered do you require further clarification as to what they mean?


    I agree with your statement that pointing a gun in a dark confined space full of people violates a rule of firearm safety. I would also say it is one of the dumbest things you could possibly do in a situation like that. My quest was not to find the single most important gun safety rule, it seems you still have not picked up on what I have been saying. I have been saying that there are inconsistencies with training, whether you guys want to admit it or not. Even with the NRA. Everyone claims all of the rules of the NRA are the most important rules, but only 3 are put on their list of "Fundamental Rules." The reasoning I was given is that 3 is easier to remember than 12. Which is absurd, as I have already pointed out. Maybe we need to raise the standard of our gun training. If all the rules are important, they should all be known and memorized. If you only want people to remember the 3 rules, that means the rest of the 9 are not as important as the 3 being hammered in to peoples minds.

    Need me to further clarify or answer any questions for you?
       
    Made in us
    Last Remaining Whole C'Tan






    Pleasant Valley, Iowa

    What I learned from this thread:

    If you have a Mcdonalds that makes a 100 meals, and it gets 2 of them wrong, and across town there is a much larger McDonalds - it makes 1,000 meals, and it gets 4 of them wrong - then obviously the second McDonalds is twice as bad as the first one, because it got twice as many meals wrong.

    ta-da!

     lord_blackfang wrote:
    Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.

     Flinty wrote:
    The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
     
       
    Made in us
    5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




    The Great State of Texas

     Ouze wrote:
    What I learned from this thread:

    If you have a Mcdonalds that makes a 100 meals, and it gets 2 of them wrong, and across town there is a much larger McDonalds - it makes 1,000 meals, and it gets 4 of them wrong - then obviously the second McDonalds is twice as bad as the first one, because it got twice as many meals wrong.

    ta-da!


    I learned that the first rule can be confusing for some people. Thats why I have 237. 199 of them involve food and illumination on the evil that is Cats.

    This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/14 19:56:04


    -"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
    -"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
    -TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
     
       
    Made in us
    Longtime Dakkanaut




    North Carolina

     Dreadwinter wrote:
    Prestor Jon wrote:
     Dreadwinter wrote:
     Frazzled wrote:
    Calling troll because you're seriously dicking around "so many first rules ohs" get real.


    And my four rules are better.


    When somebody says "The 1st Rule" of something it is an indication of the most important rule. This has been shown to be false because "all rules are equally important." Which is also false because the NRA has a list of 3 Fundamental rules and then a side list of 9 additional rules. As soon as you do not make the 3 Fundamental Rules in to the 12 Fundamental Rules, you have downplayed the importance of the additional 9 rules. This is a very large inconsistency with training. The argument that 3 rules are easier to remember than 12 rules is just absurd. Because we should not be going for easier to remember in gun training. If you cannot remember the 12 Fundamental Rules, you should not be running around with a gun. That is a safety issue. Remembering 12 Rules is not hard.

    Or maybe Moses should have shortened those commandments down to 3. 10 is a lot of commandments and really, who is going to remember all of them?


    Your subjective opinion and semantic games are objective proof of nothing. My statement remains true pointing a gun in a dark confined space full of people violates the first rule of firearm safety, the NRA's rule that is listed first is to point the muzzle in a safe direction if you don't know what you're pointing at then it's not a safe direction. Your quest to find the singular most important gun safety rule claimed to be such by some form of governing body or bodies is one of your own making and has no relevance to the discussion at hand or at all. Those rules are going to be taught and followed and they will help prevent accidents. Your questions about what the rules mean have been answered do you require further clarification as to what they mean?


    I agree with your statement that pointing a gun in a dark confined space full of people violates a rule of firearm safety. I would also say it is one of the dumbest things you could possibly do in a situation like that. My quest was not to find the single most important gun safety rule, it seems you still have not picked up on what I have been saying. I have been saying that there are inconsistencies with training, whether you guys want to admit it or not. Even with the NRA. Everyone claims all of the rules of the NRA are the most important rules, but only 3 are put on their list of "Fundamental Rules." The reasoning I was given is that 3 is easier to remember than 12. Which is absurd, as I have already pointed out. Maybe we need to raise the standard of our gun training. If all the rules are important, they should all be known and memorized. If you only want people to remember the 3 rules, that means the rest of the 9 are not as important as the 3 being hammered in to peoples minds.

    Need me to further clarify or answer any questions for you?


    There aren't inconsistencies in training. 3 things are easier to remember than 12 things, that's objectively true. You can hold the opinion that that statement is absurd but it doesn't change it's objective truth. The 3 fundamental rules are broad rules that should be and can be applied to any instance in which you handle a firearm. The 9 additional rules are more specific rules dealing with more specific circumstances in which you could be handling a firearm. The broad rules always apply, therefore they take prominence over the additional 9. This is just like my explanation to your question about Cooper having 4 rules and the NRA having 3. Cooper takes one of the NRA rules and splits it into two rules with greater specificity but the one broad NRA rule still covers both Cooper rules. Since the 3 NRA rules apply to any situation wherein you handle firearms and will always help reduce accidents and negligence they should always be remembered. Knowing the fundamental 3 rules makes knowing the additional 9 rules unnecessary but still helpful.

    Here's an analogy to help clear things up further. Murder is against the law. As long as you recognize that murder is illegal that should remind you not to do it. We also break down murder into 3 separate degrees of murder with more specificity and certain circumstances dictate which degree of murder you would get charged with by the DA. You don't need to know the 3 degrees of murder and the circumstances that dictate them to know that murder is illegal and you shouldn't do it. It would help to know the additional specificity but it's not neccessary but knowing the murder is illegal tells you not to commit any kind of murder.

    There is no governmental agency or body that oversees all firearm training/safety standards. Different states have different training requirements or no training requirements to own and carry firearms. The federal agency that oversees firearms is the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives. They enforce federal firearm laws and provide people with copies of the laws but they don't do safety training although some laws do cover things like safe storage and transport. The Civilian Marksmanship Program is a government program that does offer training, sells firearms and ammunition to the public and holds competitive shooting matches. The CMP offers safety training and instruction but there is no federal requirement to undergo any of it. The NRA offers safety and training classes and instruction but it is not a government agency and taking NRA safety classes isn't required at the state or federal level.

    Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
     
       
    Made in us
    [DCM]
    Secret Squirrel






    Leerstetten, Germany

    If we really want to be sad and/or scared, we can look at the firearms training standards for our local PDs for inspiration!
       
    Made in us
    Longtime Dakkanaut




    North Carolina

     d-usa wrote:
    If we really want to be sad and/or scared, we can look at the firearms training standards for our local PDs for inspiration!


    Very true, very sad, very scary.

    Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
     
       
    Made in us
    Fixture of Dakka





    CL VI Store in at the Cyber Center of Excellence

     Ouze wrote:
    What I learned from this thread:

    If you have a Mcdonalds that makes a 100 meals, and it gets 2 of them wrong, and across town there is a much larger McDonalds - it makes 1,000 meals, and it gets 4 of them wrong - then obviously the second McDonalds is twice as bad as the first one, because it got twice as many meals wrong.

    ta-da!


    No because the first has a 2% failure rate and the second a .4% failure rate, which is how the article linked judged. 2% is a higher failure than .4%, correct?


    Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings. 
       
    Made in us
    5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




    The Great State of Texas

     d-usa wrote:
    If we really want to be sad and/or scared, we can look at the firearms training standards for our local PDs for inspiration!


    Its fun to beat them in competitions. The county sheriff's/or city's shooting team is, however, a completely different animal.

    -"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
    -"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
    -TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
     
       
     
    Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
    Go to: