DC5 - Posted - 07/27/2019:  16:12:05

Your position can't be very strong.
It's no secret that Hollywood is opposed to private gun ownership - except for the elite millionaires who can afford private bodyguards or afford to get around gun restrictions. It is also no secret that they make a lot of money promoting gun violence in movies and television.

This week I was watching Elementary, I love just about anything Sherlock Holmes. One of the bad guys acquired guns, supposedly on a trip to Vermont to take advantage of Vermont's lax gun laws. This argument has also been proposed by several politicians claiming that New York's gun violence problem is because it is too easy to buy a gun in Vermont. The problem is, this is false. It is NOT easy to buy a gun in Vermont if you are not a resident of Vermont. All gun dealers in the U.S. are federally licensed and must adhere to federal regulations. States can put more strict regulations in place, but cannot have less restrictive regulations than those imposed by the feds. Vermont requires no permit to purchase, own, or carry a firearm for Vermont residents. But dealers still have to file federal paperwork for all transactions. If an out of state resident wishes to purchase a gun in Vermont, then the laws of both Vermont AND the residents state must be adhered to. For example, if I wanted to buy a gun in Vermont, I would go through the background check, pay for the gun, but I could not take possession. The gun would have to be shipped to a licensed gun dealer in Connecticut - where I would go through a second background check before taking delivery. Since New York's laws are so restrictive there is no way that someone from New York could legally purchase a gun in Vermont. Thus, it is disingenuous to claim that the laws are lax, and that they contribute to New York's gun violence. The same argument has been made by Chicago, claiming the problem is because of the laws in Michigan and Ohio, and by Washington DC claiming it is Virginia and Tennessee that cause the violence in DC. If you have to lie to make your point, you really don't have a point.

mike gregory - Posted - 07/27/2019:  16:22:29

I hope you're not just making that up!

OK, in all honesty and seriousness, I agree with you 100%.

If you have to LIE to defend your position,  you' should change your position.

Reminds me of an article I read, DECADES ago, about West Point.

The cadet's Code of Honor includes something about NOT lying, and not tolerating those who do.

And the PRACTICAL reason for this, is that, in COMBAT, when you ask a brother officer if his troops are protecting your flank, you don't want him to tell you YES just because that answer would make you FEEL happier and more confident.

You want to hear NO if he doesn't. and YES if he's really GOT your flank covered. Literally a matter of life and death.

Edited by - mike gregory on 07/27/2019 16:24:11

DC5 - Posted - 07/27/2019:  16:35:03

quote:

---

Originally posted by mike gregory

I hope you're not just making that up!

 

                     

 

OK, in all honesty and seriousness, I agree with you 100%.

 

---

Actually, when I heard the claim, I looked up Vermont's gun laws.  What get's me about these claims that the guns are coming from somewhere else, is that if Vermont is so lax, why isn't there more gun violence in Vermont?  

Owen - Posted - 07/27/2019:  16:47:58

No comment re. guns and gun laws, but in the wider context.... I've seen/heard enough "mis-speaking"  [at various levels of boards, businesses and governments] to make me think it's a tried-and-true, and to some extent expected,  modus operandi. 

DC5 - Posted - 07/27/2019:  17:01:05

quote:

---

Originally posted by Owen

No comment re. guns and gun laws, but in the wider context.... I've seen/heard enough "mis-speaking"  [at various levels of boards, businesses and governments] to make me think it's a tried-and-true, and to some extent expected,  modus operandi. 

---

I agree, and don't want this to become a gun thread, though it will, and then it will become political and then get locked.  This was just one example.  I find the same mis-information in Intelligent Design proponents, Climate change deniers, and a host of other situations.  My claim that if you need to lie, then your position is not solid.  It needs to stand on the truth.  Argue guns one side or the other, but don't make false claims to support your position.  Same with any other argument.  

mander - Posted - 07/27/2019:  17:18:20

quote:

---

Originally posted by DC5

quote:

---

Originally posted by Owen

No comment re. guns and gun laws, but in the wider context.... I've seen/heard enough "mis-speaking"  [at various levels of boards, businesses and governments] to make me think it's a tried-and-true, and to some extent expected,  modus operandi. 

---

I agree, and don't want this to become a gun thread, though it will, and then it will become political and then get locked.  This was just one example.  I find the same mis-information in Intelligent Design proponents, Climate change deniers, and a host of other situations.  My claim that if you need to lie, then your position is not solid.  It needs to stand on the truth.  Argue guns one side or the other, but don't make false claims to support your position.  Same with any other argument.  

---

Totally agree with you.

I think I would put exaggerating a grain of truth in the same boat as a lie. 

Given how willing folks are to believe lies and how rare the consequences, there really isn't much to prevent folks from repeating the behavior.

OldBlindGuy - Posted - 07/27/2019:  17:35:44

Many are swayed by emotion & could care less about truth, facts or reality.

mander - Posted - 07/27/2019:  17:37:55

quote:

---

Originally posted by DC5

quote:

---

Originally posted by Owen

No comment re. guns and gun laws, but in the wider context.... I've seen/heard enough "mis-speaking"  [at various levels of boards, businesses and governments] to make me think it's a tried-and-true, and to some extent expected,  modus operandi. 

---

I agree, and don't want this to become a gun thread, though it will, and then it will become political and then get locked.  This was just one example.  I find the same mis-information in Intelligent Design proponents, Climate change deniers, and a host of other situations.  My claim that if you need to lie, then your position is not solid.  It needs to stand on the truth.  Argue guns one side or the other, but don't make false claims to support your position.  Same with any other argument.  

---

Not necessarily an argument, but on the topic of lying in general, would you agree, if a person feels the need to lie about where he/she is going, what he/she is doing, and who he/she with, then maybe he/she ought to re-think those things?

banjo bill-e - Posted - 07/27/2019:  18:30:11

It should be allowed to talk about the premise without getting mired in the particulars of this example. The subject worthy of discussion is------- lying to advance a cause that is deemed to be more important than mere truthfulness.

So what do you say? Yay or Nay? 

Edited by - banjo bill-e on 07/27/2019 18:31:25

DC5 - Posted - 07/27/2019:  18:55:12

It also comes down to who is doing the lying. In my example of Elementary, most people will not look up the information. It is a fiction program, but they slip this subtle factoid into the script and viewers will accept it for fact without verifying. Most of us expect our politicians and elected officials to lie - and isn't that a sad proposition.

I read an article recently about someone who, in his youth, was identified by his church as a faith healer and was trained by the church in this regard. In the training he was shown several "tricks" to use to fake a healing. The church justified these tricks as a method of "helping God". He was in his 20s before he broke away, realizing all the lies that he was part of.

Mooooo - Posted - 07/27/2019:  18:59:07

quote:

---

Originally posted by banjo bill-e

It should be allowed to talk about the premise without getting mired in the particulars of this example. The subject worthy of discussion is------- lying to advance a cause that is deemed to be more important than mere truthfulness.

So what do you say? Yay or Nay? 

---

I can't see how we can avoid getting into politics with this premise, this is what politics is founded on.

mike gregory - Posted - 07/27/2019:  19:18:15

quote:

---

Originally posted by DC5

It also comes down to who is doing the lying. In my example of Elementary, most people will not look up the information. It is a fiction program, but they slip this subtle factoid into the script and viewers will accept it for fact without verifying. Most of us expect our politicians and elected officials to lie - and isn't that a sad proposition.



I read an article recently about someone who, in his youth, was identified by his church as a faith healer and was trained by the church in this regard. In the training he was shown several "tricks" to use to fake a healing. The church justified these tricks as a method of "helping God". He was in his 20s before he broke away, realizing all the lies that he was part of.

---

And here we go, also discussing religion.

I would imagine that a God or Goddess which is alleged to be "All-Powerful", does not need help.

(Your worship may vary)

By the way: Was this a recent article about a recent  dropout from the Faith Healing scam?

Or was this a recent article about Marjoe Gortner,  who, as a young preacher, called upon wayward teens to come forth and throw away their marijuana, which he then secretly smoked for himself?

That was news maybe 40 years ago.

Here's some info on him: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marjoe_Gortner

Owen - Posted - 07/27/2019:  19:19:35

...or, to expand it a bit:  "Does the end justify the means?"        ...never? .... sometimes? .... frequently?    ...always?

Edited by - Owen on 07/27/2019 19:20:52

OldBlindGuy - Posted - 07/27/2019:  19:23:50

quote:

---

Originally posted by banjo bill-e

It should be allowed to talk about the premise without getting mired in the particulars of this example. The subject worthy of discussion is------- lying to advance a cause that is deemed to be more important than mere truthfulness.

So what do you say? Yay or Nay? 

---

If a cause is dependent on lying for its advancement, is it really that important of a cause to begin with?

chuckv97 - Posted - 07/27/2019:  19:25:34

Yes, the ends can justify the means....for instance, your wife comes into the room and asks,”Does this dress make me look fat?” , and you say,”No dear, the dress has nothing to do with it.”

Edited by - chuckv97 on 07/27/2019 19:37:30

OldBlindGuy - Posted - 07/27/2019:  19:31:04

To paraphrase someone you may have heard of....
It depends on what the meaning of "means" means.

GrahamHawker - Posted - 07/27/2019:  21:53:39

Elementary is a TV programme. It is fiction, as in made up. TV programmes and films are not known for accuracy, historical or otherwise. It's not really their job. I think these things are called a plot device. If your point is based on fictional programmes what sort of point do you have. Even though it's in a film I don't believe a US submarine captured the enigma machine.

Edited by - GrahamHawker on 07/27/2019 21:54:02

Bill Rogers - Posted - 07/27/2019:  22:10:45

Walking the high wire so far with the discussion. I’m reminded of the line attributed to Daniel Patrick Moynihan: Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own facts.

gradelyduck - Posted - 07/28/2019:  02:06:48

Children learn by example, initially from parents or guardians then from their peers. When the top level of governments use lies as examples or so called proof, it filters down through the population.

figmo59 - Posted - 07/28/2019:  04:29:38

Gilligans Island was ..REAL...!

Texasbanjo - Posted - 07/28/2019:  04:39:54

Let's be very careful here and do our best to keep politics and religion out of the discussion.

DC5 - Posted - 07/28/2019:  04:51:06

quote:

---

Originally posted by GrahamHawker

Elementary is a TV programme. It is fiction, as in made up. TV programmes and films are not known for accuracy, historical or otherwise. It's not really their job. I think these things are called a plot device. If your point is based on fictional programmes what sort of point do you have. Even though it's in a film I don't believe a US submarine captured the enigma machine.

---

Agreed, but when an anti-gun writer puts false information into the script in order to subtly further his agenda, then I think they should be called out on it.  There are many ways that the bad guy could have gotten a gun without condemning the state of Vermont.  Illegal gun sales take place in New York City all the time, this could have been used as the plot device to point out the problem of criminal activity in NYC, not legal activity in Vermont.

A few years ago I was asked to direct a play at my school that was written by the nephew of Norman Mailer.  The play, a multi-media production was about a boy who committed the largest school shooting in history.  There were a lot of interesting devices in the script that made it a challenge, but one fatal flaw that caused me to refuse to take on the project.  How the student acquired his gun.  He bought it at Wal*Mart - and this was back when Wal*Mart was still not selling guns after 9/11.  The type of gun used was not sold at Wal*Mart even before they stopped or after they started selling guns again.  He said he had a friend who worked there and that was how he, with no proper paperwork and being underaged got the gun.  He then said "It is so easy to get a gun in this country."  This has so many blatant falsehoods to put forward an agenda that I could not, in good conscience, put on the play.  Yes, the play was fiction, but there are many ways the student could have acquired the gun without lying about it.  Good fiction writers check their facts.  

DC5 - Posted - 07/28/2019:  05:00:17

quote:

---

Originally posted by mike gregory

quote:

---

Originally posted by DC5

It also comes down to who is doing the lying. In my example of Elementary, most people will not look up the information. It is a fiction program, but they slip this subtle factoid into the script and viewers will accept it for fact without verifying. Most of us expect our politicians and elected officials to lie - and isn't that a sad proposition.



I read an article recently about someone who, in his youth, was identified by his church as a faith healer and was trained by the church in this regard. In the training he was shown several "tricks" to use to fake a healing. The church justified these tricks as a method of "helping God". He was in his 20s before he broke away, realizing all the lies that he was part of.

---

And here we go, also discussing religion.

I would imagine that a God or Goddess which is alleged to be "All-Powerful", does not need help.

(Your worship may vary)

By the way: Was this a recent article about a recent  dropout from the Faith Healing scam?

Or was this a recent article about Marjoe Gortner,  who, as a young preacher, called upon wayward teens to come forth and throw away their marijuana, which he then secretly smoked for himself?

That was news maybe 40 years ago.

Here's some info on him: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marjoe_Gortner

 

---

I was a big fan of Margoe Gortner back in the 70's when he did his expose (there should be an accent on that last e, but I can't figure out how to do it.)  documentary.  I also tried to follow his acting career, which as far as I could tell was short lived.

Actually this was an old article, that I pulled out and recently read.  It was from a 2014 issue of Skeptic Magazine. The article was titled "Becoming a Faith Healer, An Insiders Look at the Business of Revealed Religion" by Dustin White.

GrahamHawker - Posted - 07/28/2019:  05:48:04

quote:

---

Originally posted by DC5

Good fiction writers check their facts.  

---

I don't think they do, not in great detail, even in decent programs. Poorly thought out plot devices and plot holes are a regular feature. Failure to inderstand how stuff really works happes all the time. After all as we're talking Sherlock Holmes inspired stuff we have a very successful programme called Sherlock. The whole thing is a gaping plot hole. But it and other programs are an entertainment so I feel disinclined to worry. There are more important things in real life to worry about.

mike gregory - Posted - 07/28/2019:  06:37:50

A lot of people DO unconsciously base their beliefs on what they take in as entertainment.

There was, at one time, a series of silly puns, parodies of Gen. Douglas MacArthur's farewell speech:
"OLD SOLDIERS NEVER DIE... THEY JUST FADE AWAY."

Things like
"Old teachers never go blind; their pupils just flunk out."
and
"Old mermaids never die... they just become less efficient"

Well, somebody posted
"Walt Disney didn't die. He's just in a state of suspended animation"

And, by golly, there are a LOT of people out there who SINCERELY BELIEVE that Walt is frozen in a tank somewhere.

Come ON, people!
He was famous for his ANIMATION.
Mickey Mouse, Snow White, and so on!
it was a PUN, a JOKE.

prooftheory - Posted - 07/28/2019:  06:45:49

The Cato Institute lists Vermont as having the least restrictive gun laws:freedominthe50states.org/guns.  74% of gun crimes illegal guns collected by law enforcement in NYC were from states with lax gun laws: targettrafficking.ag.ny.gov/#part1

Did the bad guy claim to have purchased the gun legally?   The argument is that it is much easier to have proxy sales in Vermont than it is in NY.  Was your show a rerun?  Vermont only passed laws making private sales subject to the laws you describe in 2018.

Edited by - prooftheory on 07/28/2019 07:00:30

DC5 - Posted - 07/28/2019:  06:49:30

quote:

---

Originally posted by GrahamHawker

quote:

---

Originally posted by DC5

Good fiction writers check their facts.  

---

I don't think they do, not in great detail, even in decent programs. Poorly thought out plot devices and plot holes are a regular feature. Failure to inderstand how stuff really works happes all the time. After all as we're talking Sherlock Holmes inspired stuff we have a very successful programme called Sherlock. The whole thing is a gaping plot hole. But it and other programs are an entertainment so I feel disinclined to worry. There are more important things in real life to worry about.

---

I said GOOD fiction writers.  Most medical shows have a staff doctor to make sure things are not stretched too far from reality.  Courtroom dramas have lawyers.  Mystery writers make sure of their facts before publishing.  Even Conan Doyle, who believed in faeries, spiritualism, seances and other fringe beliefs, used factual knowledge in developing the plot lines for Sherlock Holmes.  The stretch was making Holmes a person who was expert in all these facts, but the facts were real.  

Owen - Posted - 07/28/2019:  06:55:14

quote:

---

Originally posted by mike gregory

A lot of people DO unconsciously base their beliefs on what they take in as entertainment.



it was a PUN, a JOKE.

---

I suppose a lack of mental wherewithal counts as "unconsciously."   OTOH, some of the "news" [and newsmakers] seems somewhat of  a joke. 

Edit: I've forgetten the topic under discussion at our local hockey rink several years ago, but one of our local community leaders commented, without a shred of sarcasm,  that "It has to be true, I saw it on TV."

Edited by - Owen on 07/28/2019 07:00:24

banjo bill-e - Posted - 07/28/2019:  08:13:09

Back on point. Are there any issues which anyone feels are more important than Telling The Truth? What is a lie compared with climate disaster? If a false accusation derails a despised politician's career, have you done a good and noble thing? Would you lie on the witness stand to get a jury award for someone you feel needs that money much more than that rich corporation? And will you find it convenient to add "evil" to that rich corporation to justify yourself? Is it right, fair, ethical to write an news story that gives a false impression of what happened, if what actually happened was bad for your cause? Is the very notion of honesty and ethics a quaint and obsolete conceit in an age where winning is the only value? Do you owe anyone the truth? Do you owe it to yourself?

DC5 - Posted - 07/28/2019:  08:13:11

quote:

---

Originally posted by Owen

 

Edit: I've forgetten the topic under discussion at our local hockey rink several years ago, but one of our local community leaders commented, without a shred of sarcasm,  that "It has to be true, I saw it on TV."

---

Now that has been replaced with "I Googled it"

Richard Hauser - Posted - 07/28/2019:  08:25:04

Although I think a certain degree of gun control is necessary, I prefer having the states control the degree of gun control. Even within a state, gun control requirements can vary from region to region.

Before owning a weapon, a person should be required to attend classes on gun safety and hunting regulations. I was raised in an area where most homes had multiple rifles/shotguns. Using a weapon involves more than loading, disengaging the safety, and pulling the trigger. Before I started using my first rifle, I attended gun usage training for about a week. It was time well spent.

I am not a big believer in absolutes. Many of our prejudices are created when we are young, or experience as a mature adult. There are usually valid pros and cons to most arguments.

DC5 - Posted - 07/28/2019:  08:28:49

quote:

---

Originally posted by banjo bill-e

Back on point. Are there any issues which anyone feels are more important than Telling The Truth? What is a lie compared with climate disaster? If a false accusation derails a despised politician's career, have you done a good and noble thing? Would you lie on the witness stand to get a jury award for someone you feel needs that money much more than that rich corporation? And will you find it convenient to add "evil" to that rich corporation to justify yourself? Is it right, fair, ethical to write an news story that gives a false impression of what happened, if what actually happened was bad for your cause? Is the very notion of honesty and ethics a quaint and obsolete conceit in an age where winning is the only value? Do you owe anyone the truth? Do you owe it to yourself?

---

The problem is, when the lie is found out, it usually backfires big time.  The example of a group of scientists finding that the planet had stopped warming as predicted and they could not figure out why, a memo was released to say that they should not release the information, but the memo was leaked, giving huge ammunition to the deniers.  Regarding the despised politician, despised by whom?  If you cannot derail them by the truth, maybe they shouldn't be derailed.  In the U.S. there is a large segment that despises the current president, but also a large segment that supports him.  Lies have been told on both sides, but the lies get revealed by the opposite side and it only bolsters each sides position.  Truth should win out over lies.  Regarding lying on a witness stand, I can't speak for others, but I would not perjure myself.  There used to be something called journalistic integrity.  I don't think it ever truly existed, but if you read old news stories they are not editorialized, today they almost always are.  Of course there are also lies of omission, so not reporting all the facts can also be an issue.   That is why we should use multiple news sources.

Lying to my wife about her birthday or Christmas present is about the only one I can truly justify.  Have I lied about other things? Probably, but I try and get better.  

mike gregory - Posted - 07/28/2019:  08:41:58

The last two motorists in Milwaukee, who fired a weapon into a vehicle, one of which wounded a five year old, and one of which killed a three-year old, were ALSO charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm.



So much for having laws restricting guns to only those who are sane enough NOT to shoot at kids in cars, and have demonstrated an ability to OBEY laws.



It is entirely possible that the guy who wounded the 5-year old lied- TO HIMSELF- about needing a gun for self-defense.

But the event was caught on camera, and shows him shooting at the vehicle as it was driving away. Nothing "defensive" about that.



OH HLL! This IS turning into a GUN LAWS topic.

I'd better go outside and see if I can get the new (to me) motor scooter running.

All y'all have a nice, calm discussion about anything OTHER THAN religion, politics, or guns.

How about BANJOS??

That's often fun and informative.

GrahamHawker - Posted - 07/28/2019:  08:52:05

quote:

---

Originally posted by DC5

---

I said GOOD fiction writers.

---

Which is who I was describing. Even good writers are liable to make plot errors. It happens all the time.

Paul R - Posted - 07/28/2019:  08:54:47

A good example of the temptation to lie and its consequences.

youtube.com/watch?v=hRZmgkgDZqQ

waystation - Posted - 07/28/2019:  08:55:42

quote:

---

Originally posted by banjo bill-e

If a false accusation derails a despised politician's career, have you done a good and noble thing? ... Is the very notion of honesty and ethics a quaint and obsolete conceit in an age where winning is the only value? Do you owe anyone the truth? Do you owe it to yourself?

---

This conversation is drifting uncomfortably political for this forum, but this is a critical argument that sums up the core conflict of the current age. Discard the truth and you have removed the only possible common ground for people who disagree with each other, and have committed us to a society where the strong - or those who can shout the loudest or hit the hardest - will always dominate the weak. People who have practiced "means justify the ends" strategies have been on a winning streak over the past forty years or so, and have taken that success as justification to pursue the strategy even further.

Check out Jane Mayer's article from the recent issue of the New Yorker. She investigated the accusations that drove Al Franken out of the senate. All turned out to be lies, exaggerations or misinterpretations of intent, many spread by people for whom Franken was an inconvenient voice of dissent. The stories broke with no fact checking or further investigation, driven by the Internet's desire for sensational stories over truth. By Mayer's account, Franken likely would have been exonerated by a Senate ethics investigation, but he never got the chance because of political pressures caused by the storm of "news" surrounding his case. Whether you agree with Franken's politics or not, he was exactly what you describe - a politician, despised by some, driven from office by lies, and one more voice silenced.

Please don't take this as a liberal vs. conservative screed. I picked the Al Franken case because I just read Mayer's article and it's a good example. I could have suggested any number of politicians with different points of view whose careers were ended by lies. When it comes down to it, it's really about truth vs. power.

Edited by - waystation on 07/28/2019 09:04:52

OldBlindGuy - Posted - 07/28/2019:  09:01:59

quote:

---

Originally posted by DC5

quote:

---

Originally posted by Owen

 

Edit: I've forgetten the topic under discussion at our local hockey rink several years ago, but one of our local community leaders commented, without a shred of sarcasm,  that "It has to be true, I saw it on TV."

---

Now that has been replaced with "I Googled it"

---

If ya can't trust an algorithm, who CAN ya trust?

banjo bill-e - Posted - 07/28/2019:  10:12:37

waystation posted----" this is a critical argument that sums up the core conflict of the current age. Discard the truth and you have removed the only possible common ground for people who disagree with each other, and have committed us to a society where the strong - or those who can shout the loudest or hit the hardest - will always dominate the weak. People who have practiced "means justify the ends" strategies have been on a winning streak over the past forty years or so, and have taken that success as justification to pursue the strategy even further.-----"

Thank you Rich. This is sort of a continuation of a conversation that I tried to have with South Jersey Mike (where you at, dude?) about Saul Alinsky and the ethics-free tactics of Rules for Radicals. In essence I was asking if, in the fight for a better world you destroy the very nature of Truth itself, what have you won? How can you have a better world that is built on lies? What better world is run by people with no integrity or honesty? I personally do not think that this can build a better world, it can only change who is on top, and while that may be temporarily "better" for the current victors who will certainly enjoy the spoils, will it be any better for those who come after us? I believe that a win at any cost culture will produce winners from the very worst of us, not the best.

DC5 - Posted - 07/28/2019:  10:41:04

Yeah, what Bill said.

Laurence Diehl - Posted - 07/28/2019:  10:52:34

Is this post about objective truth or about gun laws?
Anyway, objective truth is very hard to find. We are ruled by our inherent bias no matter what.
And as Giuliani famously said "truth isn't truth".

banjo bill-e - Posted - 07/28/2019:  10:58:43

The title says it all, everything else is a sidetrack.

mike gregory - Posted - 07/28/2019:  11:01:24

In the words of the Greek philosopher,  Arrow Stottle:

"It is better to ignite just one little scandal,

Than to sit in the dark with nothing FUN to gossip about!"

Let's see if I can get the PEARLS BEFORE SWINE cartoon for July 28,2019

NOPE.

Not today.

But it's a good one, about investigating claims.

Texasbanjo - Posted - 07/28/2019:  11:05:30

Let's be careful, we're getting political. A couple of posts have been hidden. Keep it up and the thread will have to be locked.

BanjoLink - Posted - 07/28/2019:  11:51:22

quote:

---

Originally posted by prooftheory

The Cato Institute lists Vermont as having the least restrictive gun laws:freedominthe50states.org/guns.  74% of gun crimes illegal guns collected by law enforcement in NYC were from states with lax gun laws: targettrafficking.ag.ny.gov/#part1

Did the bad guy claim to have purchased the gun legally?   The argument is that it is much easier to have proxy sales in Vermont than it is in NY.  Was your show a rerun?  Vermont only passed laws making private sales subject to the laws you describe in 2018.

---

Frank, I read those reports and nowhere did I see the term "lax gun laws".  Maybe I missed the use of that term, however, even if the term was used, compared to the state of New York, all the other states do have less restrictive gun laws.  So it stands to reason that any gun found in New York that was brought in another state, it was bought in a state with less restrictive gun laws .... not lax gun laws.  I think Dave made it clear that all states must abide by federal gun laws.

Back to the subject of telling lies, I guess there are different categories of lies and lying, although all of them mean not speaking the truth.  The answer to the "do I look fat in this dress" answer (presumably still a lie), I assume is not meant to mislead the person who asked the question, but to keep from hurting feelings.  Lies meant intentionally to mislead seem to me to be of a different category and far more egregious.

Edited by - BanjoLink on 07/28/2019 11:55:03

Owen - Posted - 07/28/2019:  11:58:24

quote:

---

Originally posted by banjo bill-e

Back on point. Are there any issues which anyone feels are more important than Telling The Truth? 

---

For your consideration... What about a deception (?) - by omission - that harms no one, but may  contribute to a person not committing suicide? 

Edited by - Owen on 07/28/2019 12:00:14

chuckv97 - Posted - 07/28/2019:  12:00:28

At 2:29 listen to this one..LOL!..... kind of a sideways take on not hurting feelings.  (and fwiw, the answer ”does this dress make me look fat” in my post [from a joke i heard] is also a sideways insult)

youtu.be/yG9PllY1TG8

Edited by - chuckv97 on 07/28/2019 12:07:52

Gutbucket - Posted - 07/28/2019:  12:41:11

I live in Illinois. (Yes We Are The Most Corrupt State In The Union With Four Governors Sent To Prison). My state has required background checks on all gun buyers and owners since around 1968. You can not even handle a gun in a gun shop without first showing your card. Is Illinois the safest state with the least violent crime? Far from it. All these laws do is hinder and infringe upon the law abiding citizen. Chicago has some of the most strict gun use and ownership laws in the country, (Along With Washington D.C.), but I invite anyone to look at the rate of violent crime and murder in these areas with the strictest firearm laws. They are far from safe. New laws are concocted by a clueless state government and the one's on the books are not enforced. It's become a joke. Every election cycle certain politicians pander to another certain small group of constituents at the expense of a larger group law abiding citizens. It's become truly frustrating . No wonder my state is one of the top states for population loss.

donc - Posted - 07/28/2019:  12:46:47

In this age of unlimited news and unlimited lies it goes to show that a general lack of education can overthrow any society. Educated people probably do have a political bias because they are human but those same people are more likely going to read and listed to the opinions of opposing sides. I barely made it through two years of college but it doesn't take a rocket science degree to read a few different opinions. When I see a political rally falling into same frenzy as a Rolling Stones concert I get that sinking feeling that people are getting into the mood with no real truth being contributed.

prooftheory - Posted - 07/28/2019:  12:50:54

quote:

---

Originally posted by BanjoLink

---

Frank, I read those reports and nowhere did I see the term "lax gun laws".  Maybe I missed the use of that term, however, even if the term was used, compared to the state of New York, all the other states do have less restrictive gun laws.  So it stands to reason that any gun found in New York that was brought in another state, it was bought in a state with less restrictive gun laws .... not lax gun laws.  I think Dave made it clear that all states must abide by federal gun laws.

 

---

I don't understand what you are saying.   Are you claiming that "less restrictive" does not imply "lax"?  I guess I agree but if someone said "Vermont has lax gun laws compared to NY", I don't think I would have difficulty understanding him to mean "less restrictive".   There is no Federal law requiring a background check on private sales.   Again there was no law in Vermont requiring background checks on private sales until 2018.   So in 2017, if a person from New York wanted to legally buy a gun without any background check, they could find an ad on Craigslist and drive to Vermont and do so.   

I do not know the circumstances of the program that Dave was watching so I don't know if they were presenting out of date information or lying or simply doing a bad job at furthering a narative.   I do know that not very long ago it was true that people could and did go to Vermont from New York to buy guns.  I also know that guns from Vermont have been used to commit crimes in New York, whether they were legally purchased or not.