forums

Jose Jose

Advertisement
itsacanething said:
if i see a dude with face tattoos i am going the other way... apologies in advance to any of my fellow canesinsight members that i might not encounter as a result.

View attachment 111804
Click to expand...
I was in a potential juror pool where the defendant had face tattoos on his cheeks like this guy. One of the questions asked of all the jurors was something like "Is there any reason that you might be unable to be impartial or neutral as a juror?" I was the only one that said "Yes." When they asked me why I said, "Look at this guy! He got tattoos on his face! I wouldn't let my sons hang out with him or my daughter date him!" To my shock I got picked anyway.
 
CFLCane said:
Not to mention the psycological differnce in stabbing someone vs shooting them from a distance.
Click to expand...
A really long blade is sometimes the answer for those who struggle with the invasion of personal space and the uncomfortable closeness that usually accompanies stabbing someone to death. I know an autistic dude who had beef with me and a blade as long as a stretch limo and stabbed me from 3 houses away.
 
Last edited:
Loss of human life is never an easy thing to accept, but when you live by the sword....I feel for the kids and families that live on.
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
JG14 said:
Its also annoying when people don't know the proper use of "their" and "there."

Using the FBI's definition of mass shootings, 85 people died in the US in 2018 as a result of mass shootings. 1,515 people in the US died from knives or cutting instruments in 2018. Which of the 2 do you think is a bigger issue?
Click to expand...
Completely ignorant comment. How may of those stabbing involved more than 2 people being killed. Try harder to make a valid point.
 
Ash Joshi said:
Completely ignorant comment. How may of those stabbing involved more than 2 people being killed. Try harder to make a valid point.
Click to expand...

You are the ignorant one. Apparently deaths only matter to you if more than 2 people are killed at once. Let's just ignore the vast majority of killings and only those with more than two people. Logic is just so hard for some people.
 
JG14 said:
Its also annoying when people don't know the proper use of "their" and "there."

Using the FBI's definition of mass shootings, 85 people died in the US in 2018 as a result of mass shootings. 1,515 people in the US died from knives or cutting instruments in 2018. Which of the 2 do you think is a bigger issue?
Click to expand...
You can’t compare mass shorting deaths to all stabbing deaths. That’s apples to oranges and just a useless analogy.
if you want some credibility in this discussion then either compare mass shooting deaths to mass stabbing a deaths; 85-0
pr compare all gun deaths to stabbing deaths on 2018; approximately 39,000-1515

now continue to make the nonsensical argument that knives are as dangerous as guns.
or better yet, do my job for 1 day of your life (first go to law school for 3 years), and see the empirical difference in gun and knife deaths.
then come back and tell s what you think
 
Advertisement
Ethnicsands said:
There are not a whole lot of mass shootings, either.
Click to expand...
Again, are we really going to make such dumb arguments? Please. I’ve read your posts about football and respect them.
but it is just ignorant at best and stupid at worst to compare gun violence to knife violence, whether in the mass context or overall context.

i can only assume you feel you are a constitutional expert and support the 2nd amendment. If so, then do some reading about it and you’ll see that in the congressional record (yes they kept one even in the 1770’s), the conversation about “arms” was in the context of armed militias. At no point did the framers conceive of a world like today in which almost 40,000 people in 1 year alone died from gun violence; homicides, accidents and suicides.

please elevate the discourse if you choose to comment on this subject, as you do about football.
 
Ash Joshi said:
Again, are we really going to make such dumb arguments? Please. I’ve read your posts about football and respect them.
but it is just ignorant at best and stupid at worst to compare gun violence to knife violence, whether in the mass context or overall context.

i can only assume you feel you are a constitutional expert and support the 2nd amendment. If so, then do some reading about it and you’ll see that in the congressional record (yes they kept one even in the 1770’s), the conversation about “arms” was in the context of armed militias. At no point did the framers conceive of a world like today in which almost 40,000 people in 1 year alone died from gun violence; homicides, accidents and suicides.

please elevate the discourse if you choose to comment on this subject, as you do about football.
Click to expand...



More people are killed each year by knives than by rifles.

And whether or not the framers envisioned 25,000 suicides by gun is irrelevant to the right to own a gun.
 
Ash Joshi said:
Again, are we really going to make such dumb arguments? Please. I’ve read your posts about football and respect them.
but it is just ignorant at best and stupid at worst to compare gun violence to knife violence, whether in the mass context or overall context.
Click to expand...
Would you tell someone from Rwanda that they are dumb to think that knife violence can compare to gun violence?

In any case, this issue isn’t about stupidity, it’s about dishonesty. And the dishonesty is on the part of folks who attach emotions to the topic then melt down when others dare disagree with their emotional views. You went there with your Col. Jessup tirade about THREE YEARS OF LAW SCHOOL. There are quite likely more lawyers than you appreciate who post on this board, all of whom did the same thing you did in law school, and I suspect many disagree with you on this topic, but no one else had to get on a soapbox over their credentials.

As it happens, mass shootings are in fact very rare, and FAR more Americans die in other ways. Car accidents, e.g. Drownings, too. The TRUTH is that people talk about ’mass shootings‘ because they sound scary to middle class suburban voters. Well over 90% of non-self-inflicted gunshot victims are killed by handguns in criminal / gang situations. You almost never hear politicians talk about gun violence in Chicago. Wonder why?

Ash Joshi said:
i can only assume you feel you are a constitutional expert and support the 2nd amendment. If so, then do some reading about it and you’ll see that in the congressional record (yes they kept one even in the 1770’s), the conversation about “arms” was in the context of armed militias. At no point did the framers conceive of a world like today in which almost 40,000 people in 1 year alone died from gun violence; homicides, accidents and suicides.
Click to expand...
LMAO. You are quite a sock puppet. You fancy yourself an expert, and defend a discredited, biased perspective that the U.S. Supreme Court rejected. Sorry if it is upsetting to you, but you’re just wrong on this topic. And I wouldn’t need to be a Constitutional expert to tell you so, though it is patently obvious you are no expert either, based on your comments.

Your projection of what you imagine the Framers couldn’t have conceived is particularly funny. I’ll tell you two other things the Framers couldn’t have conceived of, that are more likely accurate and relevant than your suggestion:

- The Framers couldn't have conceived of a Federal government that was big or powerful enough to fancy it could disarm its citizenry, let alone surveil everyone at all times. If they had, it’s reasonably clear they’d have been more expansive in their second (and fourth and fifth) amendment language. They were focused on preserving limited government and individual rights, not ensuring that future federal governments could take all rights away just by claiming it’s convenient to do so.

- Secondly, and more importantly, they couldn’t have conceived of a time when there would be citizens like you out there who were desperate for the government to take away not only your own rights, but everyone else’s, as well. The people who fought the King of England for freedom and ushered in limited government and individual rights would have found you and all like you to be seriously strange creatures, I suspect. But then, Marx hadn’t come along yet back in the late 18th Century, so they couldn’t have anticipated very clearly the ideology of autocratic juntas destroying liberty in the name of whatever excuse of the day sounds appealing. It was enough that they had to deal with divine sovereignty. As bad as that is, it’s a lot less scary than rule by people who fancy themselves ‘experts’ and talk unprompted about their ‘credentials.’
 
Advertisement
Advertisement
Back
Top