Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 54

Thread: Why Do Victims Suddenly Aquire Field-Expert Status?

  1. #21
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,845
    Quote Originally Posted by isired View Post
    I guess you have to look at items individually - I'd say MADD was good, because at the time it was founded, there was basically NO discussion and no enforcement. That's not the case for every issue though, fer sure.

    By the same token, I'm not saying someone affected by (guns, drunk drivers, leukemia) should be silent. They can certainly be vocal, and try to persuade. I think the audience should consider the source and the intent. And I think they may be too close to draft policy and law.
    +1

    I was being facetious...as I always am.


    Because:

    Gabby Giffords, with respect, is about the last person I'd want to hear on the issue of Gun Control, her bias and lack of expert knowledge is obvious.

    Yeah. That damn "bias". Taking a bullet to the head. She probably did it on purpose to advance her liberal agenda. It was all a set up.


    It's not what you said, Is.


    But this is why some people can't take some LibPublicans seriously.


    She's a jerk for getting shot in the face at a political event by a person who was politically motivated?


    Sheesh.....


    We are supposed to think that Mrs. Giffords is the death of free America?





    C.MON MAN!

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by isired View Post
    I guess you have to look at items individually - I'd say MADD was good, because at the time it was founded, there was basically NO discussion and no enforcement. That's not the case for every issue though, fer sure.

    By the same token, I'm not saying someone affected by (guns, drunk drivers, leukemia) should be silent. They can certainly be vocal, and try to persuade. I think the audience should consider the source and the intent. And I think they may be too close to draft policy and law.
    When or who ever stated she was testifying as an expert? La Pierre testified too, what's his background, lifelong lobbyist.

  3. #23
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    nyc
    Posts
    11,581
    Quote Originally Posted by cr726 View Post
    When or who ever stated she was testifying as an expert? La Pierre testified too, what's his background, lifelong lobbyist.
    I don't know that she was, and I don't know that it was fish's point either, that she was an acknowledged "expert witness", but I was agreeing that public opinion seems to grant expert status to victims. I don't think that can really be disputed.

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by isired View Post
    I don't know that she was, and I don't know that it was fish's point either, that she was an acknowledged "expert witness", but I was agreeing that public opinion seems to grant expert status to victims. I don't think that can really be disputed.
    That seems to be a pretty big leap "expert status", her life was shattered and she has a right to be heard.

  5. #25
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    From Parts Unknown
    Posts
    10,327
    This reminds of Sandra Fluke when she demanded free contraceptives.

  6. #26
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    nyc
    Posts
    11,581
    Quote Originally Posted by cr726 View Post
    That seems to be a pretty big leap "expert status"
    I agree, that's what we're discussing, a victim has a certain knowledge, but probably not an "expert," or at least not an unbiased one, in most cases.
    Quote Originally Posted by cr726 View Post
    her life was shattered and she has a right to be heard.
    yep.

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by FF2 View Post
    You are not wrong but you are assuming that only "experts" testify at such things.

    Much like victim impact statements her experience adds to the complete picture. May seem overkill, but if some folks are for some form of gun control, there needs to be a base reason why.

    Much like puttin' and obese kid up there to talk about nutrition I suppose.

    Knowing you a little, I think you will find fault that emotion may trump logic dues to such testimony. Certainly something to be said for that, but if she merely shares her experience and doesn't testify about gun facts, etc. it seems OK to me.
    No, actually. I think this is a reasoned, and well thought out post with a point.

    Emotion does have a place, but I think it must be kept in check when it comes to law and policy. Just like making hasty decisions while emotionally compromised, making law after watching some 6 year old talk about his 40 dead classmates is not (IMO) the route to good law or policy for 330 million people.

    Quote Originally Posted by parafly View Post
    Giffords is a gun owner and a US Congresswoman. I don't see any evidence to suggest she is not knowledgeable on the topic.
    Please. The entire and only reason she was up there was so she could add emotional weight by mumbling out here heartfelt pleas of "won't.........anyone.........think.......of...... ....the...........children".

    Political Theatre of the most obvious, exploitive and transparent kind.

    There was nothing abut Giffords pre-assault that made her an expert on gun violence or gun policy, and there is certainly nothing about her in her reduced post-injury capacity to change that othe rthan being a victim of a lone crazy. She was a victim of "guns", she ws a victim of Jared Lauhner, a person, an insane person at that.

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by cr726 View Post
    When or who ever stated she was testifying as an expert? La Pierre testified too, what's his background, lifelong lobbyist.
    For the record, I strongly object to that as well. A Special Interest Group has no place in this testimony IMO.

    Scientists (Social). Economists (Specializing in Socio-Economics and Crime). Mental Health Professions (to cover links between mental problems and violent crime). Etc.

    Gabby Giffords and Wayne NRA? Waste of time IMO.

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    For the record, I strongly object to that as well. A Special Interest Group has no place in this testimony IMO.

    Scientists (Social). Economists (Specializing in Socio-Economics and Crime). Mental Health Professions (to cover links between mental problems and violent crime). Etc.

    Gabby Giffords and Wayne NRA? Waste of time IMO.
    I agree with you, but they get invited anyway.

  10. #30
    I hope she becomes the new "face" of gun control. Because then my district won't have any use for that one issue woman McCarthy in Congress.

  11. #31
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The depths of Despair.
    Posts
    40,000
    Quote Originally Posted by Ernie View Post
    I hope she becomes the new "face" of gun control. Because then my district won't have any use for that one issue woman McCarthy in Congress.
    I fired off a letter to State Sen. Dean SKelos (R) to remind him that while my vote is now useless on the national level, my local vote still counts....and I didnt elect him to help Andy Cuomo get elected president by assisting him with spurious, ill-thought-out legislation.

    Got a very nice letter back basically stating that the penalties for illegal gun possession will be increased bla bla bla.

    The irony being, I was now one of the illegal gun possessors because of the legislation he voted for.

    So...I guess he was threatening me?





    Meanwhile, the flow of illegal guns to bad guys remains unabated....and 30,000 plus good guys in NYS just became.... criminals.

    Good times.

  12. #32
    If you look at most of these tragedies the shooters have been borderline psychos. Is there a simple answer on how to stop this? I frankly don't know!

  13. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by MnJetFan View Post
    If you look at most of these tragedies the shooters have been borderline psychos. Is there a simple answer on how to stop this? I frankly don't know!
    Minimize the risk?

  14. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by cr726 View Post
    Minimize the risk?
    How? Look at the Ct Trajedy both the Mother who left the guns out and the son were both loonies. To bad they didn't just shoot each other. No loss!

  15. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by MnJetFan View Post
    How? Look at the Ct Trajedy both the Mother who left the guns out and the son were both loonies. To bad they didn't just shoot each other. No loss!
    There are not any valid reasons for a civilian to own a AR-15. If the kid in Sandy didn't have that weapon it would of had a very different result, I'm not saying no one would of been killed.

  16. #36
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,440
    Quote Originally Posted by Bonhomme Richard View Post
    It's easier to pass new laws and implement sweeping regulations when you appeal to the emotions of the simple-minded public.

    The really vile thing here is how victims are exploited by lawmakers for political gain. We saw it with Cindy Sheehan, we are seeing it with Giffords and the parents of the kids who were murdered in Newtown.
    best answer so far. its politics - and all's fair in politics. We don't make laws based on logic - just emotion.

  17. #37
    Experiences in life can sometimes instruct as much or more then a college course or paper degree. One example (there are countless) is an average person taken as a hostage for months by terrorists and then released. That person can offer analysis and perspective that may be far more valuable then what some "experts" offer.

    And we have seen many examples from history where supposed "experts" in various fields were tragically ineffecient at their jobs. Enter exhibit A;

    Last edited by intelligentjetsfan; 02-01-2013 at 09:48 AM.

  18. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by cr726 View Post
    There are not any valid reasons for a civilian to own a AR-15.
    So what you're really saying, is there is no "valid reason" as YOU see it why a citizen should own ANY Semi-Automatic Rifle.

    Because as a Law Enforcement professional, surely you're intimately aware that there is no material functional difference in killing-power or speed between a "millitary style" blinged up, pistol gripped, foregriped, barrel shrouded, threaded barrel .223 semiauto with 10 round capacity and a standard, entry-level plain vanilla rifle-stocked, wooden .223 hunting-style semiautomatic rifile with 10 round capacity, right?

    Other than looks, of course.

    If the kid in Sandy didn't have that weapon it would of had a very different result, I'm not saying no one would of been killed.
    So if he was in posession of a M1911 Semiauto Handguns (i.e. WWII vintage), he couldn't have done the same thign in the same time, eh?

    I think I'll agree to disagree on that point. Unless he was stuck with a bolt-action longrifle, any semi-auto or any type would have been effective at those ranges, withthat lack of opposition, and with the time he had at his disposal.

    But that AR-15 sure does LOOK scary, I will admit.

  19. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan View Post
    One example (there are countless) is an average person taken as a hostage for months by terrorists and then released. That person can offer analysis and perspective that may be far more valuable then what some "experts" offer.
    Really?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    The expression anecdotal evidence refers to evidence from anecdotes. Because of the small sample, there is a larger chance that it may be unreliable due to cherry-picked or otherwise non-representative samples of typical cases. Anecdotal evidence is considered dubious support of a claim; it is accepted only in lieu of more solid evidence. This is true regardless of the veracity of individual claims.


    Somehow I doubt you'd be so quick to accept annecdotal evidence if the topic were say, criticism of Teachers....selective acceptance, eh?

  20. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    Really?





    Somehow I doubt you'd be so quick to accept annecdotal evidence if the topic were say, criticism of Teachers....selective acceptance, eh?
    As the sole basis for an evaluation? Of course not. But if the person offers a perspective to help understand a complex issue, I have no issue with it.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us