Should we Ban Guns?

[Michael-5]

Kasz216 said:

Michael-5 said:

 

 

Kasz216 said:

the2real4mafol said:
i just wonder when it comes to gun law, when does it go from protecting yourself to actual murder? How does US law define that?

Varies state to state and generally you have to go to trial.    Even the majority of "Stand your ground" cases in which someone shoots a criminal in their own home goes to trial.

The legal standard is generally "Reasonably fear for your life."  So they'll be looking to make sure the burglar was armed, wasn't shot in the back or running. 

Even then, being found innocent there doesn't mean you won't be found for killing the person at a Civil trial where the burden of proof is lower.

Every sate is different, but this is the general consensus.

O.J. Simpson won in the criminal court, but lost in the civil trial.

The reason for this is because generally criminal charges are laid when the defended is believed to be guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" where civil courts only need you to "likely" be guilty.

Ok... at this point it's very obvious you clearly don't understand statistics in the slightetst. The theoretical was supposed to show you how when making comparisons between different socities people DO NOT use pure rank number to prove rank difference, they use change in statistics.

One more hyopthetical though, just in case you aren't being intentionally obtuse.  Say we're both private tutors.   I Get a straight B Student.  After my tutoring.  He remains a Straight B Student. 

You get a straight D Student.  After your tutroing he becomes a straight C Student.

According to all the logic you have laid out in this thread.   I am the better tutor then you.  My student gets straight B's.

If you REALLY can't see why your logic is flawed now.   There really is no hope for you.

 

B)  OJ Simpson was found innocent because it was the start of DNA Evidence and the time and nobody knew how much of a slam dunk DNA was.

Additionally there had been a recent race riot and a bit more or a race gap then usual at the time... and the main cop was a racist.  (A lot Black people cheered OJ's releaese)  Also the fact that the gloves "didn't fit" and nobody thought to explain that leather shrinks when wet.

 

If the same trial was held today, he'd be found guilty.

"Ok... at this point it's very obvious you clearly don't understand statistics in the slightetst."

This is my impression of you because your opinion is vastly different from what your stats show.

How is your student anology relevent? This is you again, totally ignoring my arguements and arguing with yourself....and then calling me ignorant. Well I guess when you ignore what everyone else says and listen to that little voice in your head which keeps reminding you "Guns are great, sqrew the stats, all I gotta prove is that they aren't bad, and then push for them", then everyone is ignorant to you.



As for OJ, I understand there is A LOT more complexitivity to the case then what I mentioned.

I was just using it as an example, at the time they couldn't prove he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (DNA testing wasn't a full proven science yet). So he got let off criminally, but still lost civilly, when the bulk of the evidence suggested his guilt.