Gun Control...is being able to hit your target.

Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM

04/21/2007 09:06:47 AM · #101

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by RayEthier:

First, some things are very dangerous to produce (some people actually blow themselves up and save all of us a lot of grief); and

Second is the matter of conveyance and visibility. It is much easier to conceal a gun in your pocket than say a propane tank that one could use as a makeshift bomb.

Suicide/car/IED bombers seem to have little trouble producing, concealing and using bombs.

Perhaps you could enlighten me as to the number of mass murders committed in the USA by this method versus those that were the result of guns.

I never said it was impossible, I made mention of the visibility factor.

Ray

NathanWert

Canon EOS-90D

04/21/2007 09:15:28 AM · #102

This is gun control....

Miss America 1944 takes a different kind of beauty shot.

David Ey

Nikon D80

Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8D

04/21/2007 09:19:20 AM · #103

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by David Ey:

Originally posted by RayEthier:
...... but the ready availability of guns to such deranged individuals does tilt the table to their advantage somewhat.
Ray

However, armed citizens help tilt the balance to a more favorable condition.

Yes indeed... everyone in a circle firing away somehow seems to balance things out...it really does.

Ray

I see you have no idea how to use a firearm. Think God you don't have one and have your government to protect you at a moments notice.

bucket

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

04/21/2007 09:23:03 AM · #104

This thread should be printed and used in a debating course...in the HOW NOT TO section...

04/21/2007 09:24:31 AM · #105

Originally posted by NathanW:

This is gun control....

Miss America 1944 takes a different kind of beauty shot.

Ray takes a note... don't ever stop at a farmhouse in Waynesburg, Kentucky to ask for directions. :O)

Ray

Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8D

04/21/2007 09:27:09 AM · #106

Originally posted by David Ey:

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by David Ey:

Originally posted by RayEthier:
...... but the ready availability of guns to such deranged individuals does tilt the table to their advantage somewhat.
Ray

However, armed citizens help tilt the balance to a more favorable condition.

Yes indeed... everyone in a circle firing away somehow seems to balance things out...it really does.

Ray

I see you have no idea how to use a firearm. Think God you don't have one and have your government to protect you at a moments notice.

... and you would be absolutely wrong my friend. You truly should take the time to read some of the things I have posted in this thread... you might actually learn something. Chances are that I have had a gun in my hands a lot more often than you have.

Ray

Message edited by author 2007-04-21 09:29:15.

David Ey

Nikon D80

04/21/2007 09:29:23 AM · #107

Lets see. Have I got this straight? Guns are responsible for mass murder and without them the public could easily recognize a deranged person with a bomb and run to safety? And even more lives would be saved with the banning of propane tanks, or by at least reduction of their size and the licensing of them?

Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8D

04/21/2007 09:34:00 AM · #108

Originally posted by David Ey:

I see you can read...it's your level of comprehension that has me baffled. Have a nice day... I am off to shoot.......... pictures that is. :O)

Ray

David Ey

Nikon D80

04/21/2007 10:40:14 AM · #109

Try a self portrait.

deapee

Kodak V803

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

04/22/2007 12:56:02 AM · #110

Maybe we should ban farms, guns, automobiles, airplanes, knives, rocks, propane, fertilizer, high fructose corn syrup, and anything else that's deadly.

Oh yeah, not to mention smoking kills more people every year than AIDS, car accidents, murder (with any weapon), suicide, drug overdoses, and fires combined. Last year, 440,000 people died from tobacco related illnesses.

deapee

Kodak V803

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

04/22/2007 12:57:30 AM · #111

Anyway, let's just split the US up...East and West.

East = guns owners, and supporters of guns...
West = anti-gun owners where guns will be outlawed and only outlaws will have guns.

It will be a nice test drive. And we'll build a huge wall in between us and this time, no fence jumping.

theSaj

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

04/22/2007 01:14:00 AM · #112

Originally posted by "spazmo99":

The last I heard, being placed on suicide watch is NOT a crime.

Never said it was...but crime is not the only reason we don't allow things. We don't let people under 21 by alcohol. Those under 18 we don't allow to buy cigarettes. Those under 16 don't drive.

Originally posted by "spazmo99":

Should medical records be made accessible for transactions, that would open up a whole giant can of worms.

Unlike some, I am less inclined to all medical records being completely private. I believe that the reporting of such as a "yellow flag" is a valid use. The yellow flag does not need to state why. Simply alert the dealer that there is a flag. And that the dealer can't sell until flag is removed.

The buyer can then talk to the government watchdog organization to find out why there is a flag and how to get it removed.

Originally posted by "spazmo99":

Maybe the results of your latest cholesterol screening should be used to decide if you'll be allowed to purchase that Big Mac Value Meal.

Okay, that's just stupid. Sorry...

*The Saj takes a Big Mac at Spazmo99 and says "splat!"*

As said before, the dealer isn't alerted to why. Just receives a flag.

Originally posted by "spazmo99":

If someone was considered enough of a risk to themselves to be placed on suicide watch, the Doctors evaluating him would have to be convinced that risk was past in order to release him. Should that person then be banned from buying a gun forever? for 6 months? 10 years? until their happy pills kick in?

Perhaps 6 months. Perhaps a year. And it could be evaluated.

Originally posted by "matthew":

Jason, you have made a lot of points that respond to points different to those that I made (I am not sure if deliberately or not).

I've replied, you may not see the relation. If you do not see the relation, I apologize - it wasn't deliberate.

Originally posted by "matthew":

I did not say that constitutional protection is weak, but that the argument is weak: the argument that just because it is in the constitution, it is right.

From a man who has argued legality over morality with me so many times. I find it comical for you to now argue against that point.

In this case it is the legal stance, and for me the moral stance. So with that said. Accept it as the "legal" argument.

Originally posted by "matthew":

How will individual gun ownership prevent the change of national control? A modern military coup does not involve massed battles. They do not involve the collapse of government, but its redirection. They may not involve any more loss of freedom than you are currently experiencing with the elimination of important rights such as habeus corpus. In order to happen, they are usually popular. What apocalyptic (or perhaps regressional) vision exactly are you guarding against?

They may not...and they may. The variety of coups and government change overs in the world within the past 100 yrs have been quite diverse. From Moscow and the coup against the Soviet Union to situations like Rwanda that led to massive genocide. Or simply civil disturbances, events like the Los Angelos riots that occurred in the U.S. (albeit localized).

Originally posted by "matthew":

But you have so often expressed your support for the curtailment of important freedoms in the "war" on terrorism. How do you reconcile, say, protecting the law of habeus corpus with your support for extraordinary rendition and Guantanamo Bay?

Actually, it's quite simple - even if you like to repeatedly misportray the situation.

I) First issue, there is a difference between citizen and non-citizen. This may be offensive to you. I understand that many Europeans desire a global community where all are equals. I don't, unless your end of the community is equal to mine. And few really do. Few really want the drug dealers on their streets and the prostitutes walking their corners. But they like to expand that to a global scale and then say they do.

You come to this country, become a citizen, receive the rights of a citizen.

II) Enemy combatants out of uniform are in breech of Geneva conventions. They therefore do not get the protections of those conventions. Plain simple. "awwww....too bad..."

III) If you are a citizen talking on the phone to a suspected Al-Quaeda or terrorist agent. Then I see no issue with your phone call being monitored. I believe we have the right to monitor enemies of the state and don't have to cease just because they're talking with a citizen.

I do have other issues and believe there needs to be a balance. And I think how the government handles things is poor.

Originally posted by "matthew":

This is all very interesting, but the point is that small groups fighting asymmetric war are either terrorists or freedom fighters - depending on your side.

Well, let me put a simple difference to you of my personal opinion. And with regards to this matter I really don't care about anyone else's.

If you target civilians and civilian targets - you are a terrorist. If you engage only military targets and government support targets, than I'll accept your argument that you are a freedom fighter or a non-terrorist opposition. Doesn't mean I agree with your reasons or motives.

You have your viewpoint, I have mine. I know what I would do. I would not attack families. There are means to attack military objectives and to cause strategic damage without resorting to the deliberate targeting of children. And if you feel the need to target children deliberately (as opposed to collaterally) then I have no problem seeing you eradicated from the planet.

Originally posted by "matthew":

For the reasons I gave, I am not sure that your statement (which agrees with mine then disagrees with it) follows: guns are easy. Take away or reduce the ease, and the regularity of occurrence should go down.

Would it reduce it in the short term. But other means resorted to would be perfected and made easier until the benefit was lost within a few years.

Conversely, all those who have protected their lives and those of others would now be dead.

Originally posted by "matthew":

You have reversed my statement: I said that there are barriers to obtaining illegal weapons. In order to obtain one,

No, I merely corrected and clarified a statement you made which was factually wrong.

Originally posted by "matthew":

I would have to make contact with people I never normally deal with and persuade them to deal with me and hope that they don't rip me off or kill me.

As I said, it just depends on where you come from.

a) depending on where you lived, it might be a friend or neighbor

b) if I wanted to buy a gun legally, I would still have to meet someone I did not know and hope they didn't rip me off.

c) so really, the issue at hand is the assumption that you will be killed. Of course, in the ghetto, they are quite use to white people coming to buy things. I've pulled into projects and within 30 seconds of getting out been asked "what d'ya need, got any goods you want". Of course, as soon as we explained we were with a church and delivering meals for the holidays. The individual change attitude, was very polite and helped lead us to the houses.

Originally posted by "matthew":

You make my point perfectly: Switzerland has a totally different culture and everyone with a gun has spent years training with it in the armed forces and keep weapons as part of the territorial force protecting Switzerland under continued training - that engenders some degree of responsible ownership.

And you make my pointer even better than I have. My point being that our culture lacks "responsibility" and that is the issue - not guns. So fix what is the cause of the problem.

Originally posted by "matthew":

I said "some" people here. You yourself don't seem to want to tackle the underlying causes (say, restricting uncontrolled and irresponsible ownership) as much as defend an ancient right that appears to perpetuate some of the problems.

Right, because I am fully aware that what you propose will do jack. But who knows, maybe you've never lived in an urban environment in the U.S. Or perhaps you have and just never encountered some of the realities of such environments.

But let's put it this way. NYC has a complete ban on guns. Let me demonstrate to you a city in which gun crimes occur but citizens have no means to protect themselves.

What you suggest is putting the entire nation into that same predictiment.

If one could ensure that criminals could never get guns - I might accept your hypothesis. But until then it is unforgivably flawed.

Originally posted by "matthew":

"Australia" is not an argument. Of course there is a degree of gun confiscation: you implement controls, and then you have to enforce them.

Of course not, Australia is a continent. But the events that have transpired in Australia are good arguments against the propositions you put forth.

Originally posted by "matthew":

Could you produce a car bomb today?

Yes, I could.

Originally posted by "matthew":

Could you use a gun to shoot someone today?

No, I could not. Not without stealing a gun. Which, is not very easy to do, and could get one killed.

Originally posted by "matthew":

Bombs are not that easy to make and they have a different purpose and effect to guns.

Originally posted by "matthew":

Powerful bombs require either a large amount of space and huge quantities of ingredients (the kind of quantities that attract the attention of the secret services), or a smaller space and experienced chemists with laboratory equipment. Scaremongering about chemical weapons and gas bombs replacing banned guns is even more absurd: these would be very difficult to make effectively.

We're not talking about "powerful bombs". Just enough to hurt a small crowd of people. Inflammatory bombs in the right place will also cause the death of people. Mix that with chemicals that are toxic, chlorine, etc. You can inflict a fair amount of damage. And no, most things the secret service aren't tracking.

Originally posted by "matthew":

I am not saying these things cannot be done (bombing attacks are proof that they can be) - but they generally require groups of people to organise them and require expertise, time and space.

And as Matthew forgets, the VTech shooter had been plotting this for over a month.

Originally posted by "matthew":

, I daresay that finding an illegal gun would take a lot less effort than building an equivalent bomb. Per my original point, it is a bad argument to say that people would turn to bomb making if guns were not so easily available.

You seem to be arguing to opposing points. One that getting an illegal gun is easier than making a bomb (which I agree). Then you argue against people turning to bomb making if guns weren't readily available.

But you've just stated above that illegal guns are readily available. (Something I can atest to on a personal level.) So the point is first off moot. And no argument has actually been made against people turning to bomb making if guns weren't available. You've simply made one argument and than declared a second point as fact without substantiating it with arguments. Great lawyer double-speak. Works well on jururs I am sure.

One final point. You make it out to be extremely difficult to make bombs. But I have had friends who have done that just for fun in backwoods building explosives and going "K-A-B-O-O-M".

And let's not forget how easy it is to make molatov cocktails.

Originally posted by "rayethier":

Yes indeed... everyone in a circle firing away somehow seems to balance things out...it really does.

Most citizens who own guns are smart enough not to stand around in a circle firing them. They will ensure that they stand on one hemicircle and fire at the bad guys on the opposite side.

Originally posted by "rayethier":

Perhaps you could enlighten me as to the number of mass murders committed in the USA by this method versus those that were the result of guns.

I am unsure over the total number. But I do know that whatever the number it is approximately 4,000 (but may be higher).

Remember, those who died in the Oklahoma City bombing and on 9-1-1 fall into the "use of improvised bombs" category.

But we don't like to point out the fact that not a single gun was used in the largest mass murders of our nation's history.

Originally posted by "rayethier":

Chances are that I have had a gun in my hands a lot more often than you have.

Then why did you say that? And sorry Ray, I can only label your statement as pure sarcasm (which doesn't make a valid argument).

So here, let me give you this rebuttal. It's better to have a circle of citizens shooting the bad guys in the center. Than a circle of bad guys surrounding and shooting you. Which is the proposed alternative.

I'll take my odds with the me on the outside firing in. I have a chance of survival. Where as in the other - I am a dead man.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

04/22/2007 01:32:34 PM · #113

Originally posted by theSaj:

Originally posted by "spazmo99":
The last I heard, being placed on suicide watch is NOT a crime.

Never said it was...but crime is not the only reason we don't allow things. We don't let people under 21 by alcohol. Those under 18 we don't allow to buy cigarettes. Those under 16 don't drive.

Nice try, but no. Those are age limits, not related to any action on the part of the person, being the "age of consent". Totally irrelevant to your argument, or lack thereof.

Originally posted by theSaj:

Originally posted by "spazmo99":
Should medical records be made accessible for transactions, that would open up a whole giant can of worms.

Unlike some, I am less inclined to all medical records being completely private. I believe that the reporting of such as a "yellow flag" is a valid use. The yellow flag does not need to state why. Simply alert the dealer that there is a flag. And that the dealer can't sell until flag is removed. The buyer can then talk to the government watchdog organization to find out why there is a flag and how to get it removed.

Originally posted by "spazmo99":
Maybe the results of your latest cholesterol screening should be used to decide if you'll be allowed to purchase that Big Mac Value Meal.

Okay, that's just stupid. Sorry...

*The Saj takes a Big Mac at Spazmo99 and says "splat!"*

As said before, the dealer isn't alerted to why. Just receives a flag.

Actually it's not stupid, perhaps you need to sit down and think. The clerk at McDonald's would not be alerted as to why you were flagged either. Perhaps you'd be allowed a garden salad or certain other healthy menu items. Heart disease kills many more that homicidal maniacs each year or suicides. You're just as dead by clogging your arteries with grease from Big Macs as if you put a .357 to your head and pulled the trigger. And please, don't say that what a person orders at Mc Donalds can't physically harm others, people feed the same food to their kids and they have no say in the matter. Childhood obesity, diabetes and other related diseases are soaring in this country. It's illegal to physically abuse your children, but you can set them up for a life of misery and suffering with nothing more than Happy Meals.

Also, What about a potential employer getting test results and deciding to hire another candidate based on the potential cost increase you represent to their health plan due to your genetic predisposition to a disease that is very expensive to treat? Certainly all employers would access this data, effectively blackballing you from employment anywhere, which would have the effect of limiting your access to health care, unless you are already quite wealthy. Limiting preventative care in this way would likely increase your risk of developing the very disease that you were blackballed for. Since the treatment is expensive, your disease will probably go untreated, leading you to an early grave. For your family's sake, I hope you have life insurance in place now so that you can at least provide something for them.

Message edited by author 2007-04-22 15:30:30.

dacrazyrn

Nikon D300

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

04/22/2007 01:54:53 PM · #114

Originally posted by "spazmo99":

Maybe the results of your latest cholesterol screening should be used to decide if you'll be allowed to purchase that Big Mac Value Meal.

When they started banning smoking "in public places," this is the direction I started thinking.
Obviously overweight person comes into a resaurant...."Oooops, I am sorry sir, but you can only order off of the right side fo the page. That is all the healthy, low fat and low cholesterol foods. Sorry, new law. It is illegal for us to contribute to your obvious obesity problem. We cannot be responsible for that."
I don't remember my health insurance ever asking if I was, and how much, overweight, to increase my premiums, as they do for smokers.

Matthew

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

04/22/2007 02:16:30 PM · #115

Originally posted by theSaj:

Originally posted by "matthew":

I did not say that constitutional protection is weak, but that the argument is weak: the argument that just because it is in the constitution, it is right.

From a man who has argued legality over morality with me so many times. I find it comical for you to now argue against that point.

In this case it is the legal stance, and for me the moral stance. So with that said. Accept it as the "legal" argument.

Please read what I write, not what you want to read. I have said (twice now) that the argument that "because a rule is in the constitution, it is right" is weak. I have made no comment on morality, or the strength of the constitution, or whether the constitution is right. I have said that that argument, being employed here, is weak.

Originally posted by theSaj:

None of these would have been altered by the minority opposition being armed (in recent violent revolutions - the opposition generally have been armed to no effect). The Los Angeles riots were not quelled by armed citizens, but by the apparatus of the state. To use your example, the oppressed people (the black people in LA) resorted to violent disobedience and were quelled by the state: being armed did not help them overthrow anyone or anything.

Every example I have seen you previously give re: LA (various reports of people protecting their premises) are examples of self defence - which I said is a good argument - not defence from oppression by the state (bad argument).

Originally posted by "theSaj":

I) First issue, there is a difference between citizen and non-citizen.

so much for "inalienable"...

Originally posted by theSaj:

This may be offensive to you.

It depends on the context. Here we are talking about very basic human rights. Right to know what you have been charged with, to trial, and not to be tortured - yeah, I think that those are things that everyone has a right to, even when they are foreigners. There are not many countries in the world with a sufficient absence of morality where what you propose would be acceptable.

Originally posted by theSaj:

II) Enemy combatants out of uniform are in breech of Geneva conventions. They therefore do not get the protections of those conventions. Plain simple. "awwww....too bad..."

It is all well and good to repeat the self-justifications of the self interested in power in the US, but if you were to look at how this is interpreted in any court, it is highly inaccurate: they are PoWs or civilians. Either way, they get protections of various kinds.

I would be interested to know, if the abandonment of these most basic of human rights is acceptable, what you find problematic.

Originally posted by theSaj:

If you target civilians and civilian targets - you are a terrorist. If you engage only military targets and government support targets, than I'll accept your argument that you are a freedom fighter or a non-terrorist opposition. Doesn't mean I agree with your reasons or motives.

This is still at a tangent to my point, best resolved by looking at a dictionary - terrorism is not determined solely by reference to choice of target.

Originally posted by theSaj:

Originally posted by "matthew":
I would have to make contact with people I never normally deal with and persuade them to deal with me and hope that they don't rip me off or kill me.

As I said, it just depends on where you come from.

a) depending on where you lived, it might be a friend or neighbor

b) if I wanted to buy a gun legally, I would still have to meet someone I did not know and hope they didn't rip me off.

c) so really, the issue at hand is the assumption that you will be killed. Of course, in the ghetto, they are quite use to white people coming to buy things. I've pulled into projects and within 30 seconds of getting out been asked "what d'ya need, got any goods you want". Of course, as soon as we explained we were with a church and delivering meals for the holidays. The individual change attitude, was very polite and helped lead us to the houses.

Originally posted by theSaj:

Originally posted by "matthew":

You make my point perfectly: Switzerland has a totally different culture and everyone with a gun has spent years training with it in the armed forces and keep weapons as part of the territorial force protecting Switzerland under continued training - that engenders some degree of responsible ownership.

And you make my pointer even better than I have. My point being that our culture lacks "responsibility" and that is the issue - not guns. So fix what is the cause of the problem.

So would you agree that restricting legal gun ownership to people who can demonstrate a degree of responsibility would be desireable? That is the only point that I am trying to make here.

Originally posted by theSaj:

Originally posted by "matthew":

I said "some" people here. You yourself don't seem to want to tackle the underlying causes (say, restricting uncontrolled and irresponsible ownership) as much as defend an ancient right that appears to perpetuate some of the problems.

Right, because I am fully aware that what you propose will do jack. But who knows, maybe you've never lived in an urban environment in the U.S. Or perhaps you have and just never encountered some of the realities of such environments.

But let's put it this way. NYC has a complete ban on guns. Let me demonstrate to you a city in which gun crimes occur but citizens have no means to protect themselves.

What you suggest is putting the entire nation into that same predictiment.

If one could ensure that criminals could never get guns - I might accept your hypothesis. But until then it is unforgivably flawed.

I don't think that you even read my post or know my hypothesis - it has nothing to do with disarming all of the US. My points were objections to the various weak arguments that were going unchallenged - not advocating that there were no arguments (indeed - I highlighted what I think to be good arguments).

If you are going to respond to my points, please try and focus on the point I am making rather than going off on a rant about something else.

Originally posted by theSaj:

1 cup of gasoline is equivalent to a stick of dynamite if vaporized. Of course you'd have to contain the pressure for a bit. And then have it packed with nails and such. Besides. Fireworks are legal too. But I could probably manage.

We're not talking about "powerful bombs". Just enough to hurt a small crowd of people. Inflammatory bombs in the right place will also cause the death of people. Mix that with chemicals that are toxic, chlorine, etc. You can inflict a fair amount of damage. And no, most things the secret service aren't tracking.

Look through the annals of failed terrorist attacks - that is, attacks by people who have expertise, the right materials, the strong motive, buit still do not manage it, and you will see that it is not straightforward. To give a couple of anecdotal examples, there is a trial at the moment in London of the failed suicide tube bombers whose bombs contained fractionally incorrect proportions of the bomb making chemicals and did not go off. An infamous Islamic cleric, Abu Hamza, (the kind of guy you like to rant about) had his hand blown off when making bombs in Afghanistan. It is not easy or risk free.

Originally posted by "theSaj":

Originally posted by "matthew":
, I daresay that finding an illegal gun would take a lot less effort than building an equivalent bomb. Per my original point, it is a bad argument to say that people would turn to bomb making if guns were not so easily available.

You seem to be arguing to opposing points. One that getting an illegal gun is easier than making a bomb (which I agree). Then you argue against people turning to bomb making if guns weren't readily available.

But you've just stated above that illegal guns are readily available.

You are getting confused. I said that illegal guns are not as easy as legalised guns to get hold of, but probably still easier than trying to build a significant bomb. The argument that restricting guns will result in people bombing each other is therefore a weak argument.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

04/22/2007 03:29:06 PM · #116

Originally posted by dacrazyrn:

I don't remember my health insurance ever asking if I was, and how much, overweight, to increase my premiums, as they do for smokers.

If you have insurance through your employer, they probably didn't ask about your weight or other health issues. Unhealthy employees do result in higher premiums, but since the premiums are spread out over the whole group of employees, the effect is small and on the average, a few very sick people won't cause everyone's premium to go up much. Premiums will go up or down if, on average, the employees are healthy or unhealthy. Since employers cannot ask about medical conditions, (They are private, at least until Jason gets put in charge), they cannot make a hiring decision that will help keep premiums low based on the health of one candidate vs. another.

However, if you have ever inquired about getting health insurance individually, they do ask about weight, smoking and any other health issues. They are directly tied to your premiums or your eligibility for coverage at any price, the more bad things, the higher your premiums.

Also, when I purchased life insurance, I had to get a complete physical, including blood pressure and cholesterol screening.

theSaj

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

04/22/2007 11:42:36 PM · #117

Originally posted by "Spazmo99":

a) if a parent eats a Big Mac, it doesn't make a kid fat. If they feed a Big Mac to their child. Yes, it will.

b) you said heart disease kills more people than homicidal maniacs. So why not leave us alone and go fuss with them. Since you've established according to your viewpoint eating a Big Mac will kill other people. So go waste your time against the Big Mac

Originally posted by "spazmo99":

What about a potential employer getting test results and deciding to hire another candidate based on the potential cost increase you represent to their health plan due to your genetic predisposition to a disease that is very expensive to treat?

a) we mentioned a limited amount of information

b) don't see how this is much different than present day, and how insurance companies act.

c) you guys are the ones advocating restrictions. We're arguing against limitations or at least reduce limitation. Then you guys argue about the dangers of limitations. Sorry, find it a flat argument.

Originally posted by "dacrazym":

I don't remember my health insurance ever asking if I was, and how much, overweight, to increase my premiums, as they do for smokers.

You must have a short memory, or been added a long time ago. Because now, it is fairly standard for them to get height, weight, blood pressure, HIV test, etc.

Originally posted by "matthew":

Please read what I write, not what you want to read. I have said (twice now)

:P

*hands matthew bottle of medicine labelled "Matthew's Medicine"*

Originally posted by "matthew":

because a rule is in the constitution, it is right" is weak. I have made no comment on morality, or the strength of the constitution, or whether the constitution is right. I have said that that argument, being employed here, is weak.

I've already addressed this. If you took your own medicine and read you'd have realized that.

a) NO, THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT PROVE SOMETHING IS RIGHT.

b) The term RIGHT refers to a moral determination. So you are correct, as said before, just because something is in the Constitution doesn't make it right.

c) In the U.S., the Constitution is our utmost legal document. So being in the Constitution makes it "legal" though does not necessitate that it is in fact moral or right.

Which leaves us at a moral argument of whether it is right or wrong. This is what has been taking place in this thread for a several days now.

Originally posted by "matthew":

a) Firstly, I disagree with your use of oppressed. And will point out Rodney King has repeatedly found himself in trouble with the law.

b) The riots may have been subdued by the apparatus of the state. But for the period of their activity the state had been 100% incapable of protecting the citizens.

c) Those citizens with guns were able to protect themselves during the state's failure.

Thus I see it as completely valid. If you do not, that is your perogative.

Originally posted by "matthew":

very example I have seen you previously give re: LA (various reports of people protecting their premises) are examples of self defence - which I said is a good argument - not defence from oppression by the state (bad argument).

You're not an American. I guess I shouldn't expect a Brit to understand. But America only exists because we had arms. We were able to make it too troublesome for you Brits to be worth your while.

IT'S CALLED HISTORY!!!!!

Originally posted by "matthew":

so much for "inalienable"...

a) Let me remind you, as you have done to me on a number of occasions that the "Declaration of Independence" is not a legal document. I believe you've used this a number of times on me with regards to religious discussions.

b) "that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. â�� That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, â�� That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new"

NO ONE HAS SAID TO TAKE AWAY NON-CITIZEN'S RIGHTS TO "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". Second, as the passage continues it points to the establishment of governments and the abolishing. And mind you, the understanding was that there would likely be bloodshed in the abolishing of a government.

Originally posted by "matthew":

Oh well...that's fine. But the fact that they were caught in an engaged combat zone makes me have little sympathy. Yes, I know...you want anyone freed until proven guilty. I on the other hand view their mere presence there as enough guilt for holding.

I'd hate to lose NYC or Washington D.C. because we didn't hold someone because we didn't have enough evidence to convict.

Perhaps it's time to create a new legal category. *shrug*

Originally posted by "matthew":

What, a modern court? or a court when the laws were written.

Originally posted by "matthew":

I would be interested to know, if the abandonment of these most basic of human rights is acceptable, what you find problematic.

Here we have a difference of opinion. I don't view their most basic rights as neglected. They are receiving food. They are detained as possibly being a part of a criminal terrorist organization.

Originally posted by "matthew":

This is still at a tangent to my point, best resolved by looking at a dictionary - terrorism is not determined solely by reference to choice of target.

I was expressing a personal stance and interpretation. And dictionaries do not always include all the nuances.

But anyways, just to pleasure you I decided to check on Dictionary.com, found this as one of the definitions.

"terrorism (noun) - the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear"

That is the one I hold too. It is different from yours. Just as my understanding of the world is different from yours.

Originally posted by "matthew":

All very interesting and tangential - but do you accept my initial point that most people, most of the time, would have to overcome social barriers in order to locate and buy an illegal weapon? Ie - it is not as easy as walking in to a lawful gun shop and buying a gun over the counter. For a start, your warranty is going to be worth more in the gunshop... [quote]

I don't really accept the premise. But I will agree that your point about a warranty is a valid one. Though many gun buyers fear that if they purchase a gun legally the information of record will be used to confiscate their gun.

So all factors weighed, I think it's fairly balanced.

[quote="matthew"]
So would you agree that restricting legal gun ownership to people who can demonstrate a degree of responsibility would be desireable? That is the only point that I am trying to make here.

Actually, I am not necessarily opposed to this. But would be extremely cautious as to what is considered responsible. If your definition is only law enforcement, etc. Than no. But if your requirement was for someone to go through an education class. Akin to a driver's license. I would not necessarily be opposed to such personally. Though I know other's might.

Originally posted by "matthew":

If you are going to respond to my points, please try and focus on the point I am making rather than going off on a rant about something else.

Well considering that in the past unless I cover every little base with you - you tent to criticize me for not addressing your points. Or for leaving gaps. So that is why I respond the way I do to you. I often find your replies to be tangential or unrelated. In fact, sometimes I find you to criticize me for not responding when I have specifically. I can either assume that you don't read my posts. Or merely that we think so differently that we tend to have an ongoing communication problem. Probably the latter.

Originally posted by "Look through the annals of failed terrorist attacks - that is, attacks by people who have expertise, the right materials, the strong motive, buit still do not manage it, and you will see that it is not straightforward. [/quote:

And look at all the thousands of drive by shootings that never hit their target because the idiot gangsters have no experience or training in the use of their firearms.

So, don't really see any validity in that argument...

[quote="matthew"]
You are getting confused. I said that illegal guns are not as easy as legalised guns to get hold of, but probably still easier than trying to build a significant bomb. The argument that restricting guns will result in people bombing each other is therefore a weak argument.

Illegal guns are harder for law abiding citizens to get but in fact, illegal guns are much easier for felons to get than legal ones.

Second, there is no relevance in your legal versus illegal argument with regards to your second point against people turning to bomb-making.

Our argument has been:

a) ban legal guns, and criminals will just turn to the use of illegal guns

b) remove every gun from the planet, and I am sure that criminals will be resourceful enough to find other tools to accomplish their means.

Originally posted by "Spazm099":

(They are private, at least until Jason gets put in charge), they cannot make a hiring decision that will help keep premiums low based on the health of one candidate vs. another.

Okay, I think I'm done with this thread because I am near the point of losing my cool.

And just calling you guys what you are....I'll just call you 'liberals' instead.

Look, YOU guys are the one's demanding restrictions. Then because I mention that being on a suicide watch might be a prudent flag. You guys make me out as some demonization trying to reveal all of your medical details.

So let's not have any checks. Obviously, having personal information used in any way is evil according to you liberals.

(Sure wish someone would explain why any company can access my credit information, why insurance companies have access to tons of personal info.)

Message edited by author 2007-04-22 23:42:46.

theSaj

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

04/22/2007 11:45:27 PM · #118

BTW...I'm done, I am going to add this thread to my ignore list.

And guess what, know that if you try to take my right to bear arms away. Nothing you will do will take one from me. Pass any law you want.

It won't prevent me from bearing a gun, nor many others. And if you want it enforced. You'll have the killing you claim you don't want. Have fun replying to someone who won't be here.

End of discussion.

Message edited by author 2007-04-22 23:46:01.

Artyste

Sony Ericsson W810i

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Pentax

04/23/2007 12:55:36 AM · #119

Heh. I've only been a reader so far. I actually have no official position on this whole debate.. but wow.

From what I *have* read, I'd be more comfortable with most of the children I know owning guns than some of the gun owners in this thread acting more like children than the children I know.

Way to prove your points guys. lol.

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

04/23/2007 01:10:28 AM · #120

I'll make a contribution here. Yesterday I sold a car. I was in the street in front of my house helping my x-husband and his friend, who bought the car, load it onto a car hauler. Across the street from my house (very suburban neighborhood) I heard a man (a reclusive possible-naval officer who lives across the street) yelling at a boy, a minor, 17 ys old. The boy is my best friend's son. I walk across and calmly ask what is going on, seems MARK STEVEN FLOYD thinks he's already payed for this months lawn care, but also thinks this month is March. I tried to calm the situation so did another neighbor who was outside and saw what was going on (the guy's landlord). We both corrected him on the date, told him to pay the kid end of story... right?

As landlord and I were walking back to the street MARK STEVEN FLOYD pushed the kid against the wall of his house and said "muther fucker I'll cut you up". My x-husband and his friend heard it at the same time I did and all of us headed back to where they were. I grabbed the kid and started pushing him off the property. My x-husband and his buddy confronted the man who just threatened a minor. (Quick version) He pulled a gun and put it 6" in front of X's friend's nose, then pointed it at my x, then... while pointing at my x looked at his friend.... My x grabbed the gun with one hand and punched the guy to his ass with the other. MARK STEVEN FLOYD ran into his house and we (12 of us including kids milling around, etc) RAN LIKE HELL and called 911. 4 Police cars, 2 tazar strikes and finally MARK STEVEN FLOYD is arrested.

Why do I keep mentioning MARK STEVEN FLOYD's name? Because he is a Naval Officer and I cannot get the navy to speak to me about why this man has 12 guns in his house, takes prescribed, self-administered morphine, his home is covered in dog feces and gallon liquor bottles and they still let him live across the street from me. So far I've hit brick walls with them and I'm hoping its because its the weekend, so I'll keep going tomorrow. But this isn't just on the news, guys. This is my home, my family, my friends. This was here and was real just yesterday. In 3 days this guy could be home from jail, if the Navy doesn't do something nobody will. He'll just come home... and be very angry.

Edit: Oh yeah, the cops left me the key to his house to go in and feed his dogs, that's why I know what is in there. Its horrifying.

Message edited by author 2007-04-23 01:13:50.

thegrandwazoo

Nikon D750

04/23/2007 01:13:34 AM · #121

Originally posted by idnic:

Holy Shit!

04/23/2007 01:18:05 AM · #122

Yeah, I'm changing my mind about gun control really really really fast! Like good idea yesterday morning, horrible idea yesterday afternoon.

04/23/2007 02:02:18 AM · #123

Since this thread sucks without pics....

We were all made to go into our houses while the arrest was being made. This (and a few dozen others) was made with my 70-200 from my office window. I later told the officer who was taking our statements that I am a photographer and had grabbed a few shots was that okay and he said "Do what you want to do, its your house"... then later said "well don't use them against us!" lol He was great and was just teasing me, I think. :)

Matthew

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

04/23/2007 04:12:42 AM · #124

Originally posted by idnic:

Yeah, I'm changing my mind about gun control really really really fast! Like good idea yesterday morning, horrible idea yesterday afternoon.

That's a horrible experience.

I am intrigued by your conclusion - do you mean that you would prefer better restrictions on gun ownership, or you would prefer that it was easier to obtain guns because you think that if more people were armed this would not have happened?