Page 10 of 11

Re: Hiking in hunting season

PostPosted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 5:37 pm
by mrchad9
Tanngrisnir3 wrote:Unless you can cite some statistically significant rising trend in hunters negligently shooting people, it seems like a rather unnecessary legal option to increase penalties.

Consider the goal of reducing the number of occurrences that are happening versus the current frequency. I don't thing the penalties should be harsher to stop a rising trend, and I have no idea how you got that impression. They should be harsher in order to decrease the number of incidents from the current level.

simonov wrote:
mrchad9 wrote:I simply said that I though the penalties for shooting someone should be greater than they currently are.


You said, "The issue is hunters endanger others." A gross simplification, and absolutely incorrect to boot.

When you choose to couch your arguments in sweeping generalizations like this, it tends to diminish the impact of your thesis, however much merit it might actually have.

You are in danger when a hunter shoots you, so hardly incorrect. That is all "The issue is hunters endanger others." means. If have difficulty understanding that or you want to disagree with it then that is your prerogative. This is old, neither of us are legislators, and I don't really care anymore.

Re: Hiking in hunting season

PostPosted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 6:28 pm
by Tanngrisnir3
mrchad9 wrote:
Tanngrisnir3 wrote:Unless you can cite some statistically significant rising trend in hunters negligently shooting people, it seems like a rather unnecessary legal option to increase penalties.
Consider the goal of reducing the number of occurrences that are happening versus the current frequency. I don't thing the penalties should be harsher to stop a rising trend, and I have no idea how you got that impression. They should be harsher in order to decrease the number of incidents from the current level.


OK, what data do you have that indicates/suggests:

A. what the current number of accidental shootings by hunters are?
B. that there's a correlation between any potential increased penalties and a decrease of the current amount of shootings?

Re: Hiking in hunting season

PostPosted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 6:43 pm
by mrchad9
Tanngrisnir3 wrote:A. what the current number of accidental shootings by hunters are?

It is non-zero, and the penalties are small compared to what the result of the incident is. BTW I think if you cause another's death via numerous other mechanisms the penalties should be greater as well. This is not an anti-hunter thing. I'm a big fan of the Singapore style of justice. It's a very clean and safe country, no crime issues. One of the best cities in the world IMHO.

Far example, I think we should have the death penalty for voilet rape, we used to. But to be effective it needs to apply frequently, not just in a very small percentage of cases as it is currently used, and not after 20 years.

Tanngrisnir3 wrote:A. what the current number of accidental shootings by hunters are?
B. that there's a correlation between any potential increased penalties and a decrease of the current amount of shootings?

Of course there is a correlation that increased penalties will decrease the amount of crime. You don't have to limit is to this particular type of incident even. Take the Singapore example. Do more severe penalties decrease drug use? Hell yes. That is not even debatable. Increase prison terms to twice as much, might be too small to notice the correlation. Increase them by an order of magnitude and you have a real impact.

Re: Hiking in hunting season

PostPosted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 7:02 pm
by Tanngrisnir3
It is non-zero, and the penalties are small compared to what the result of the incident is.


So essentially you want new legislation and criminal penalties to address a problem that you are unable to quantify.

BTW I think if you cause another's death via numerous other mechanisms the penalties should be greater as well. This is not an anti-hunter thing. I'm a big fan of the Singapore style of justice. It's a very clean and safe country, no crime issues. One of the best cities in the world IMHO.


I'm not a big fan of paternalistic, authoritarian quasi-police states, myself. HS Thompson once called it 'Disneyland w/the death penalty' and I tend to agree.

Tanngrisnir3 wrote:A. what the current number of accidental shootings by hunters are?
B. that there's a correlation between any potential increased penalties and a decrease of the current amount of shootings?
Of course there is a correlation that increased penalties will decrease the amount of crime.


Excellent. Go ahead and provide that data, then.

You don't have to limit is to this particular type of incident even. Take the Singapore example. Do more severe penalties decrease drug use? Hell yes.


Really? Then quite apart from such issues as having a historical drug culture or not, you'll be able to provide data indicating what drug use once was, when the current laws were put in place and what the rate of use is now.

That is not even debatable. Increase prison terms to twice as much, might be too small to notice the correlation. Increase them by an order of magnitude and you have a real impact.


But, of course, everything is debatable in the absence of any relevant data, and Singapore is irrelevant to the topic of this discussion.

Re: Hiking in hunting season

PostPosted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 7:19 pm
by mrchad9
Singapore is not irrelevant. You only said it was. Does not make it so.

Very harsh penalties over there. Very little crime. That's the data. Only a fool would think the lack of crime there today has always been so and has nothing to do with their current judicial system. You are either that, or have never been and lack the cognitive ablities to draw the correlation. Take a trip and maybe you will understand the connection, and your opinion might be a little more informed.

Have fun in your fantasy world where crime rates and sentences are independent variables where one has no impact on the other. I perfer to converse with those who are able to reason.

Re: Hiking in hunting season

PostPosted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 7:28 pm
by fatdad
Nitrox wrote:
Cascade Scrambler wrote:There's an enormous difference between being lumped in with someone who got lost or injured, and being lumped in with a group of people where one or two idiots has shot someone. Call me wreckless if you must, but because I don't carry in the mountains, I'm in no danger of shooting someone.


Sometimes climbers get there partners killed. I hear about a lot more tragic climbing accidents than I do hunting accidents.

Such B.S. Such a false analogy too. Climber dies and it's because his partner. I don't think so.

Do us all a favor and give me a single example of your point.

Re: Hiking in hunting season

PostPosted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 7:35 pm
by Tanngrisnir3
mrchad9 wrote:Singapore is not irrelevant. You only said it was. Does not make it so.


Given the subject matter, you have yet to have make it so in anything other than the most cosmetic of ways.

Very harsh penalties over there. Very little crime. That's the data.


Since it seems to be beyond your cognitive ability, that's actually your summation of the what you believe the data indicates. The actual data is something quite different from that. Glad I could clear that up for you, Sport.

Only a fool would think the lack of crime there today has always been so and has nothing to do with their current judicial system.


Actually, the fool here is the one advocating for punitive legal measures for a crime that he cannot quantify, and who yammers on about things he cannot actually support when asked to do so.

You are either that, or have never been and lack the cognitive ablities to draw the correlation.


Yes, I have been there, and I'm quite intimately familiar with our legal/penal system here, thanks. But since correlation is not causation, as every first year statistics student already knows, did you actually have some sort of cogent, relevant point you were trying to make?

Take a trip and maybe you will understand the connection, and your opinion might be a little more informed.


I am very well informed on the law here, it's nature, dynamics and how/when it applies, thanks. Thus far, you have given no indication that you posses even the most rudimentary cognitive faculties to address the point at hand and support the contentions you've made here.

Have fun in your fantasy world where crime rates and sentences are independent variables where one has no impact on the other. I perfer to converse with those who are able to reason.


Yawn. How about you actually support what you've contended and not engage in breathless, emotional smokescreens when you've been called on your vacuous bullshit?

Re: Hiking in hunting season

PostPosted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 8:06 pm
by mrchad9
Tanngrisnir3- You are this ignorant bullshitter who in one post indicated your belief that changing penalties would affect a rising trend in accidents if there was one,
Tanngrisnir3 wrote:Unless you can cite some statistically significant rising trend in hunters negligently shooting people, it seems like a rather unnecessary legal option to increase penalties.

and in the very next post claimed that you need proof that an increase in panalties would affect the number of shootings.
Tanngrisnir3 wrote:OK, what data do you have that indicates/suggests:
...
B. that there's a correlation between any potential increased penalties and a decrease of the current amount of shootings?

You have contributed nothing of value to this discussion. If you really believe there is no correlation, you can wallow in that belief, and other members of this site can reach their own (better) conclusions. Seeing as you cannot connect those dots, I pity you.

Re: Hiking in hunting season

PostPosted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 8:21 pm
by Tanngrisnir3
Tanngrisnir3- You are this ignorant bullshitter who in one post indicated your belief that changing penalties would affect a rising trend in accidents if there was one,
Tanngrisnir3 wrote:Unless you can cite some statistically significant rising trend in hunters negligently shooting people, it seems like a rather unnecessary legal option to increase penalties.


No, that's a request for you to supply more data to support your contentions. You seem to have trouble w/reading comprehension. What I asked for didn't indicate what I believe, other than more information (from you) was required. This isn't rocket science.

and in the very next post claimed that you need proof that an increase in panalties would affect the number of shootings.
Tanngrisnir3 wrote:OK, what data do you have that indicates/suggests:
...
B. that there's a correlation between any potential increased penalties and a decrease of the current amount of shootings?

You have contributed nothing of value to this discussion. If you really believe there is no correlation, you can wallow in that belief, and other members of this site can reach their own (better) conclusions. Seeing as you cannot connect those dots, I pity you.


You're really so transparently desperate that you have to bumblingly attempt to misportray what my statements, all in simple English, actually said?

Thanks for chuckle. Other members here can, indeed, conclude for themselves here who is the clown.

What I've contributed to this discussion appears to have been shedding light your utter pig-ignorance of logic, the rules of debate and statistics, and how that noxious brew exposes your complete incompetence in presenting a rational argument here and rank intellectual dishonesty.

None of the above, however, even begins to address how you've completely failed to support your, ahem, 'arguments', when requested to do so. When speaking about hunting accidents, a matter you cannot even quantify, railing about the death penalty for rape in SPR is irrelevant.

Glad we could have this little talk and I could clear these things up for you, Sport.

Re: Hiking in hunting season

PostPosted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 8:34 pm
by mrchad9
My statement was that severe punishments do affect crime rates, thus the relevant examples. If you think that is pig-ignorance of logic, so be it, and I will pity you.

Others can draw their own conclusions.

Re: Hiking in hunting season

PostPosted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 8:47 pm
by Tanngrisnir3
mrchad9 wrote:My statement was that severe punishments do affect crime rates, thus the relevant examples. If you think that is pig-ignorance of logic, so be it, and I will pity you.

Others can draw their own conclusions.


*chucking*

I'm sure they already have, Sport, and I'm quite sure they've drawn those conclusions long before I ever got here.

Re: Hiking in hunting season

PostPosted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 11:56 pm
by MoapaPk
I think there are about 100 hunting-related fatalities in the US and Canada per year. Some small fraction of those are non-hunters shot by hunters; most fatalities result from hunters shooting themselves, each other, falling out of blinds, and so on.

It's not negligible, but it is a fairly small number compared to deaths due to vehicular negligence.

We have laws for various categories of manslaughter; I think the real problem is getting prosecutors and juries to make the right call. I suppose there might be a category analogous to "criminally negligent vehicular manslaughter" that might give juries less wiggle room; but this is probably a blip in the crime stats for most states, unfortunately. If the prosecutor comes on too strong, we risk jury nullification.

Re: Hiking in hunting season

PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 12:08 am
by Tanngrisnir3

Re: Hiking in hunting season

PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 12:20 am
by mrchad9
yes