Saving the expense of a trial

[Michael Tee]

<<LOL.....I rest my case>>

Yeah.  Without even once addressing the main argument.  Typical.

[Michael Tee]

<<Weren't you arguing last week (maybe the week before) that government agencies are to be trusted as fair and reliable?>>

Maybe in a totally different context.  You guys love taking stuff out of context and crying "Gotcha!" but every time you show up with the actual quote, the hollowness of your argument is self-apparent. 

Nevertheless, if you've got anything, show it.  I don't intend to defend something I may or may not have said one or maybe two (or three or four) weeks ago.

[sirs]

<<LOL.....I rest my case>>

Yeah.  Without even once addressing the main argument.  Typical.

Yea, in this case FACTS that you actively ignore, being the main arguement.  Your ignorance and twisted version of what #'s we need to consider and those we need to ignore, coupled with proclaimations how a magazine is more reliable than the FBI, doesn't require any further follow-up.  So, yea, your typical irrational arguementative tact gets a resting the case

[sirs]

<<Weren't you arguing last week (maybe the week before) that government agencies are to be trusted as fair and reliable?>>

I don't intend to defend something I may or may not have said one or maybe two (or three or four) weeks ago.

How convenient

[Michael Tee]

<<Yea, in this case FACTS that you actively ignore, being the main arguement.  Your ignorance and twisted version of what #'s we need to consider and those we need to ignore, coupled with proclaimations how a magazine is more reliable than the FBI, doesn't require any further follow-up.  So, yea, your typical irrational arguementative tact gets a resting the case>>

As I said, the main argument (the difference in reliability between the two sides of the equation) being completely ignored, sirs then "rests his case."  Probably the only thing one can do when one has no case to rest.  Sad, but typical.

[Michael Tee]

<<how convenient>>

for the benefit of sirs and in the interests of honest debate and fair exchange, here's the entire dialogue summed up by sirs as "how convenient" rather than his conveniently edited version:

Ami:  <<Weren't you arguing last week (maybe the week before) that government agencies are to be trusted as fair and reliable?>>

MT:  <<Maybe in a totally different context.  You guys love taking stuff out of context and crying "Gotcha!" but every time you show up with the actual quote, the hollowness of your argument is self-apparent.

<<Nevertheless, if you've got anything, show it.  I don't intend to defend something I may or may not have said one or maybe two (or three or four) weeks ago.>>

Clearly indicating that I was perfectly willing to defend specific words uttered if shown the context.

[Plane]

Leave it to the Republicans to turn this into a political issue.  Arming the onlookers and giving them the power to shoot to kill as they see fit would have undoubtedly saved this one toddler's life at the same time ending many others across the country.

In this situation, I was thinking tazer , pepper spray , hatchet or tire iron. Not everyone finds traveling armed with firearms to be practical.

When the policeman showed up he presumably did the right thing using the tool that is the proper choice for the job. If one of the randomly chosen passerby had shown up with great enough force to halt the action sooner it is possible that the child would still have died , but this odds would be improved.

There will never be more police than civilians , so having someone show up well armed soonest would be best insured by arming every responsible citizen.

The statistics need not be considered subjective , in places where the level of gun ownership rose or the restrictions on gun ownership fell , the effect on crime rates as they actually occur can be measured directly. These stats generally seem to show that having plenty of guns in the public does not cause any sort of crime to rise , but does cause some sorts to fall. The only variable then is the time before and the time after.

This particular time though , I would have been quite happy with an umbrella or a cactus pad if its application had been successfull and the child had been saved , I do not insist on firearms.

[Amianthus]

<<Weren't you arguing last week (maybe the week before) that government agencies are to be trusted as fair and reliable?>>

Maybe in a totally different context.  You guys love taking stuff out of context and crying "Gotcha!" but every time you show up with the actual quote, the hollowness of your argument is self-apparent. 

I'd say they have to apply the law fairly, equally, without favour or discrimination.  Keep in mind, they are not making a law, they are enforcing it.  If the law is unfair, they must enforce the unfair law, but the victim of their enforcement can challenge the law under the Constitution as violating fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution, something we Canadians couldn't do until 1982.

[Michael Tee]

Ami, I knew you weren't making anything up, but I also thought that you were taking my words out of context.  As it turns out, you weren't even finding equivalent words.

What you quoted me on was a government's DUTY to act fairly.  What you tried to twist that into was a statement that you could TRUST the government to be fair.

Apples and oranges, unfortunately.  I recognized a governmental duty to act fairly, but that's a far cry from trusting them all to act fairly.

You should have known better.

[Amianthus]

Ami, I knew you weren't making anything up, but I also thought that you were taking my words out of context.  As it turns out, you weren't even finding equivalent words.

What you quoted me on was a government's DUTY to act fairly.  What you tried to twist that into was a statement that you could TRUST the government to be fair.

Well, you claimed that if a government agency was not acting fairly and properly, the lawyers would be all over them.

So, we have a government agency (we were discussing the FBI, but the the actual compiling of firearm statistics is done by another branch of the DOJ called the Bureau of Justice Statistics) that has a duty to act fairly (in this case, compiling statistics accurately). Since we don't have lawyers all over them for not doing their jobs properly, then we can assume - by your own argument - that they are acting fairly and properly. And before you say otherwise, the anti-gun groups have plenty of lawyers on their side who would LOVE to have the statistics say something other than what they say.

[Michael Tee]

YOu're forgetting a little detail like injury.  If nobody's injured by a failure to keep proper stats, nobody's gonna jump into a lawsuit so fast.  I don't know the context in which I talked about lawyers being all over unfair government agencies, but obviously it had to be in a context wherein the unfairness was gonna do a real injury to somebody or to some interest group.

[Amianthus]

YOu're forgetting a little detail like injury.  If nobody's injured by a failure to keep proper stats, nobody's gonna jump into a lawsuit so fast.  I don't know the context in which I talked about lawyers being all over unfair government agencies, but obviously it had to be in a context wherein the unfairness was gonna do a real injury to somebody or to some interest group.

The statistics are important to a well funded interest group - the anti-gun crowd.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Certainly we could all agree that there would be less toddler abuse if all toddlers were armed and dangerous.

[Michael Tee]

<<The statistics are important to a well funded interest group - the anti-gun crowd.>>

Fine, then show me a case from anywhere in the world where a well-funded interest group got major damages from a government for poorly-designed surveys leading to misleading stats.

(friendly hint - - don't waste your time: ain't no such thing.)

[Amianthus]

Fine, then show me a case from anywhere in the world where a well-funded interest group got major damages from a government for poorly-designed surveys leading to misleading stats.

Then they must be doing a good job.