Leave the guns alone!!! - DPChallenge Forums

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/13/2011 03:22:18 PM · #326

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Just a note that "children" when used in the media, can be a pretty broad range as well. 17 year olds seduced by much older men become "children" when the media gets their hands on the story. Granted, I don't know what the piece in question meant by the term "children" either, just that I know that when it comes to media you just never know.

Which was my original point... People tend to use the term with the most impact when describing things, and Gang Member, just carries so much more impact than Juvenile or Child, although in your example, of course they'd use Child then... It makes a bigger badder better badguy.

Message edited by author 2011-01-13 15:22:27.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

01/13/2011 03:24:45 PM · #327

I remember someone pointing out a long time ago that it is impossible to be a "juvenile delinquent," since juvenile means incapable of being responsible and delinquent means failing to perform some responsibility -- you can't be held responsible for failing to do something you're previously adjudged incapable of doing. Somewhat similar reasoning is the principle behind "Good Samaritan" laws regarding actions during medical emergencies.

Mick

Canon EOS-5D

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

01/13/2011 03:34:00 PM · #328

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Mick:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Mick:
Being a vet from Montana who loves Reagan doesn't necessarily mean he knows shit from Shinola.

I assume you speak from a position of authority, having made a careful comparison study yourself.

Absolutely. I tested a large number of Reagan loving Montana veterans using a Craftsman model 1019 Laboratory Edition Signature Series bullshit meter. The kind used by Caltech high energy physicists. And NASA engineers. A split second before the bullshit meter was applied to each test subject, it had been calibrated by top members of the state AND federal Department of Weights and Measures... to be dead on balls accurate! Here's the certificate of validation. The test results clearly showed that a significant percentage of the subjects were full of shit.

Satisfied?

Thank you for the clear explanation of your Materials and Methods. I believe you have provided enough information for me to complete my National Science Foundation grant application to attempt to replicate and verify your results. Publishing concurrently in a peer-reviewed journal (perhaps we can get a recommendation from The Gun GuyÂ®) will lend credence to any similar findings, or we could co-author a single article if necessary ... ;-)

Unfortunately, I am prohibited from publishing my findings for reasons of national security. I conducted the study as part of a top secret DARPA/NSA project code named "Airhead". The project has an Ultra Blue security classification issued by the National Security Council, so naturally my study and its results are highly classified. I'm not supposed to talk about it to anyone, even myself. But I knew I could trust you to keep a secret. Just please, don't mention it to anyone else, okay?

However, I would be happy to help you ~~spend the grant money~~ conduct a similar study if your grant comes through. Contrary to popular belief, the best place to study Reagan loving Montana veterans at this time of year is in the Bahamas. We can begin as soon as you have access to funding. I estimate it will take approximately two months to complete. You are certified for scuba diving, right? :)

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

01/13/2011 03:42:43 PM · #329

Originally posted by coryboehne:

As for the Doc, I'm not sure how unwarranted it was, as that was certainly what I was thinking. My overarching point, implied as it was, is that statistically I suspect that children make up a VERY small percentage of the public gun crime, juvenile is a broad age range, and granted can include a huge number of socioeconomic statuses, so perhaps he was talking about gangsters... yeah, they're a threat, a very real one.

I think the larger point is that it is illegal to sell a firearm to a minor, is it not? If a gun show cannot get this right, which would be the easiest of all checks, then they seem to be a problem. This is something we've both already agreed upon so really we don't need to continue. I think it's reasonable to ban gunshows and so do you.

I'm sure the NRA thinks such talk is the same as using the Constitution for toilet paper, but I digress...

shutterpuppy

Sony Alpha a7

Canon FD 70-210mm f/4.0 MF

01/13/2011 03:46:18 PM · #330

Originally posted by Louis:

I can't tell you how completely tasteless it seems to me to show off weapons during a discussion such as this.

But you have to admit that Mousie's "Pajamas" picture was fabulous. I'm thinking that there might even be a Cohen brothers' film in there somewhere - ala "Lebowski," "Oh Brother" or "Fargo" . . . although perhaps this is what Quentin was thinking of with Buscemi's Mr. Pink in "Reservoir Dogs."

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/13/2011 03:53:20 PM · #331

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by coryboehne:
As for the Doc, I'm not sure how unwarranted it was, as that was certainly what I was thinking. My overarching point, implied as it was, is that statistically I suspect that children make up a VERY small percentage of the public gun crime, juvenile is a broad age range, and granted can include a huge number of socioeconomic statuses, so perhaps he was talking about gangsters... yeah, they're a threat, a very real one.

I think the larger point is that it is illegal to sell a firearm to a minor, is it not? If a gun show cannot get this right, which would be the easiest of all checks, then they seem to be a problem. This is something we've both already agreed upon so really we don't need to continue. I think it's reasonable to ban gunshows and so do you.

I'm sure the NRA thinks such talk is the same as using the Constitution for toilet paper, but I digress...

Again, is this a problem? I'm not into gunshows, and haven't really bothered myself with them much. If they're selling to minors, then no, don't ban gunshows, make sure they get it right... Why is it that there are 1000+ convenience stores in a city, and each is usually quite good about the selling to minors thing... Enforcement works there, yet, there might be a single gunshow a week (and that's not even realistic at all), and yet the police are unable to check ID's to ensure that jr is old enough, or that Bob isn't a felon? This is a failure of law enforcement, not the laws.. Enforce what we have, don't ban things willy-nilly because law enforcement is failing at what should be an easy task.

ETA: I really could care less if they are banned though, however, I cannot agree with restricting an individual from selling to another individual, you should have some checks in place, yes, and a gunshow is a great place for that (or should be)...

Message edited by author 2011-01-13 15:57:42.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

01/13/2011 03:58:46 PM · #332

Originally posted by coryboehne:

... Enforcement works there, yet, there might be a single gunshow a week (and that's not even realistic at all), and yet the police are unable to check ID's to ensure that jr is old enough, or that Bob isn't a felon? This is a failure of law enforcement, not the laws...

Taxpayers are increasingly reluctant to pay for police overtime -- my own city, with a significant "crime problem" in full bloom, recently had to lay off 80 officers due to lack of money to pay for them.

And why should the police have to be on hand to make sure dealers obey the law? Isn't that like all of us having an officer riding along with us when we drive to make sure we don't speed?

Message edited by author 2011-01-13 16:00:41.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

01/13/2011 04:04:00 PM · #333

Originally posted by coryboehne:

Enforcement works there, yet, there might be a single gunshow a week (and that's not even realistic at all),

To quote Robert's post...."Between 2,000 and 5,000 gun shows are held annually in the United States each year"

I'd be willing to pay the law enforcement with a tax on guns...

01/13/2011 04:38:07 PM · #334

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by coryboehne:
Enforcement works there, yet, there might be a single gunshow a week (and that's not even realistic at all),

To quote Robert's post...."Between 2,000 and 5,000 gun shows are held annually in the United States each year"

I'd be willing to pay the law enforcement with a tax on guns...

To clarify, you've quoted me a touch out of context, I'm talking about a show per week per city.

01/13/2011 04:41:30 PM · #335

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

And, really, you would be willing to pay with a tax on guns... Hmm, how many do you buy a year? Oooh, so you mean you'd like increased piece of mind, but you want someone else to pay for it... I see. Just like you'd like someone else to defend you should you find a need for that sort of thing (ie, call the cops)...

*shrug* That's just not how I do business. If you want security, you should be willing to pay for it, either by trying to provide your own personal security, or by increasing the amount you pay to the government to provide more security for you...

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

01/13/2011 04:47:45 PM · #336

Originally posted by coryboehne:

Are you seriously proposing, with a straight face, that the costs of regulating something are properly borne by those who don't use it? Come ON, Cory!

R.

Louis

Nikon D800

01/13/2011 05:12:45 PM · #337

Originally posted by Mousie:

Originally posted by Louis:
I can't tell you how completely tasteless it seems to me to show off weapons during a discussion such as this.

There really is no accounting for taste, is there?

Nor tastelessness. Heartlessness, even.

Your photos as posted here aren't provocative, statement-oriented, pushing boundaries, or even artistic. Just posted in very bad taste, complete with the chest-thumping "you're on" stuff. And methinks your long-winded reply reveals a tinge of guilt in that regard.

01/13/2011 05:16:14 PM · #338

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by coryboehne:
And, really, you would be willing to pay with a tax on guns... Hmm, how many do you buy a year? Oooh, so you mean you'd like increased piece of mind, but you want someone else to pay for it... I see. Just like you'd like someone else to defend you should you find a need for that sort of thing (ie, call the cops)...

*shrug* That's just not how I do business. If you want security, you should be willing to pay for it, either by trying to provide your own personal security, or by increasing the amount you pay to the government to provide more security for you...

Are you seriously proposing, with a straight face, that the costs of regulating something are properly borne by those who don't use it? Come ON, Cory!

R.

I expect you would enjoy the security of knowing better regulation was in place... Not only that, but I expect you would benefit more than gun owners, as you are effectively defenseless against an assailant with a gun.

Actually, what I see you proposing is equivalent to only making people who own boats pay for environmental protection of the waterways. It's a shared responsibility that can benefit us all.

01/13/2011 05:16:56 PM · #339

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by Mousie:

Originally posted by Louis:
I can't tell you how completely tasteless it seems to me to show off weapons during a discussion such as this.

There really is no accounting for taste, is there?

Nor tastelessness. Heartlessness, even.

Your photos as posted here aren't provocative, statement-oriented, pushing boundaries, or even artistic. Just posted in very bad taste, complete with the chest-thumping "you're on" stuff. And methinks your long-winded reply reveals a tinge of guilt in that regard.

Well, at least my super short reply didn't make you think I felt guilty...

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

01/13/2011 05:44:20 PM · #340

Originally posted by coryboehne:

*I'M* not proposing a bloody thing. *Sneezy* mentioned a tax increase to improve enforcement of existing regulations might be good.

Gasoline taxes provide dollars for roads. We all benefit from the roads even if we don't drive, but the ones who DO drive pay gasoline taxes. Taxes on tobacco, taxes on booze, taxes on all sorts of things are paid by the users of those things. Sometimes really, really exorbitant taxes. Why should guns be different?

R.

Message edited by author 2011-01-13 17:44:46.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

01/13/2011 05:54:38 PM · #341

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

01/13/2011 06:07:51 PM · #342

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by coryboehne:

I expect you would enjoy the security of knowing better regulation was in place... Not only that, but I expect you would benefit more than gun owners, as you are effectively defenseless against an assailant with a gun.

Actually, what I see you proposing is equivalent to only making people who own boats pay for environmental protection of the waterways. It's a shared responsibility that can benefit us all.

*I'M* not proposing a bloody thing. *Sneezy* mentioned a tax increase to improve enforcement of existing regulations might be good.

Gasoline taxes provide dollars for roads. We all benefit from the roads even if we don't drive, but the ones who DO drive pay gasoline taxes. Taxes on tobacco, taxes on booze, taxes on all sorts of things are paid by the users of those things. Sometimes really, really exorbitant taxes. Why should guns be different?

R.

I was referring to your proposal that only gun owners should bear any responsibility for the costs of regulation.

And which of us benefit from tobacco, or booze... Those are SIN TAXES.. Gun ownership is not a sin.

Lydia

Canon EOS-6D

01/13/2011 06:08:01 PM · #343

Originally posted by Melethia:

Originally posted by bspurgeon:

Originally posted by LydiaToo:
Ben, If I had a carry permit, which I intend to get, I'd carry a weapon in case I was at a mall and my 9-year-old daughter was in danger of being shot and killed.
I'd hate to have been at that shooting and known I could have done something to save my daughter from death... IF ONLY I'd had a gun.

I doubt a civilian with a gun would have prevented the shooting, but an unarmed woman prevented more death.

In Germany, one drunk driving charge and your license is automatically revoked for a year. You must then pass lots of tests and pay tons of money to get it back. Germans love their beverages, but they do make arrangements not to drive when drinking. Bicycling when drinking is a whole 'nuther story, though.

You're both missing my point. It's PEOPLE who are the culprits here... not the vehicles, nor the alcohol, nor the guns.

01/13/2011 06:19:02 PM · #344

Originally posted by coryboehne:

I was referring to your proposal that only gun owners should bear any responsibility for the costs of regulation.

Where did I propose that?

R.

Pentax D-FA* 70-200mm f/2.8 ED DC AW

01/13/2011 06:20:33 PM · #345

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Really, if gun owners think it's their ~~God~~ Constitution-given right to buy firearms and we agree that gun shows are a mess to regulate, then gun owners should be willing to foot the bill. Why would I want to pay? I'd rather have no gun shows period.

But look at the progression of your argument and you'll see that you are making ridiculous claims in order to support your position (which is probably less ridiculous than you are making it sound).

Anti: How about banning gun shows?
Pro: That's fine. but has anybody shown gun show guns are involved with crime?
Anti: 10% of guns used by juveniles in crimes are sold at gun shows, which is illegal.
Pro: So juveniles are a problem? <-- Statistically, I don't expect that they account for a huge proportion of gun crime offenders.. So it's 10% of what %?
Anti: It's against the law to sell to them so we see gun shows are problematic.
Pro: So we should enforce the laws on the books.
Anti: That's fine. Since the pro-gun group wants the shows, they should foot the bill. <-- Since the anti-gun group wants the regulation they should pay for it, the pro gun group is paying for the show and at least a portion of the needed security already.
Pro: What? It benefits everybody.
Anti: Not having the gun shows benefits people in the same manner. <-- And as I've stated, I don't much care about the shows, but this falls into the "slippery slope" argument... Since sports games end up causing the need for increased police protection, etc, I would like to know why the proprietors of those events aren't required to pay for that protection, economic stimulus? Ok, but the gun shows generate revenue as well, and of course, they would require FAR fewer resources, basically an officer and an assistant to check information before people are allowed to leave with newly purchased firearms... At a cost of probably a whole $1000 per show.. Nothing at all like the cost of services surrounding a pro-NFL game.
Pro: But that violates my rights.
Anti: So pay for it. <-- No, that's not appropriate, see above? Vendors at these shows are barely making any money at all anyway, they're not there to make a million, they're just enjoying their rights... Want to exercise your right to protest? Well, we'll need police for that, so we'll need your protest tax please... Hmm, So you like to use the park huh? Well, I don't go there, so it's unfair to tax me for it... You should pay a park tax... Schools?? I don't have kids, why am I paying for those?

My comments are in bold italic above...

Message edited by author 2011-01-13 18:25:27.

K3Master

Pentax K-3

01/13/2011 06:21:34 PM · #346

Originally posted by coryboehne:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by coryboehne:

I expect you would enjoy the security of knowing better regulation was in place... Not only that, but I expect you would benefit more than gun owners, as you are effectively defenseless against an assailant with a gun.

Actually, what I see you proposing is equivalent to only making people who own boats pay for environmental protection of the waterways. It's a shared responsibility that can benefit us all.

*I'M* not proposing a bloody thing. *Sneezy* mentioned a tax increase to improve enforcement of existing regulations might be good.

Gasoline taxes provide dollars for roads. We all benefit from the roads even if we don't drive, but the ones who DO drive pay gasoline taxes. Taxes on tobacco, taxes on booze, taxes on all sorts of things are paid by the users of those things. Sometimes really, really exorbitant taxes. Why should guns be different?

R.

I was referring to your proposal that only gun owners should bear any responsibility for the costs of regulation.

And which of us benefit from tobacco, or booze... Those are SIN TAXES.. Gun ownership is not a sin.

ANYTHING can be a sin. A sin is a made-up value of morality. If the government decides that gun ownership is a sin, you'd be SOL. :) Of course, governments shouldn't be doing anything as far as 'sin' is concerned to begin with, but that's another debate.

01/13/2011 06:21:36 PM · #347

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by coryboehne:
I was referring to your proposal that only gun owners should bear any responsibility for the costs of regulation.

Where did I propose that?

R.

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

01/13/2011 06:22:15 PM · #348

Originally posted by LydiaToo:

You're both missing my point. It's PEOPLE who are the culprits here... not the vehicles, nor the alcohol, nor the guns.

Lydia, we DO understand that. It's *people* that are being regulated, every time; people that drive cars, people that use guns, whatever. The issue is, do we or do we not make a good-faith effort to keep deadly weapons out of the hands of people who can't handle them responsibly. We already HAVE a lot of gun regulation in this country, but it isn't being effectively enforced.

R.

01/13/2011 06:22:16 PM · #349

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Originally posted by coryboehne:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by coryboehne:

I expect you would enjoy the security of knowing better regulation was in place... Not only that, but I expect you would benefit more than gun owners, as you are effectively defenseless against an assailant with a gun.

Actually, what I see you proposing is equivalent to only making people who own boats pay for environmental protection of the waterways. It's a shared responsibility that can benefit us all.

*I'M* not proposing a bloody thing. *Sneezy* mentioned a tax increase to improve enforcement of existing regulations might be good.

Gasoline taxes provide dollars for roads. We all benefit from the roads even if we don't drive, but the ones who DO drive pay gasoline taxes. Taxes on tobacco, taxes on booze, taxes on all sorts of things are paid by the users of those things. Sometimes really, really exorbitant taxes. Why should guns be different?

R.

I was referring to your proposal that only gun owners should bear any responsibility for the costs of regulation.

And which of us benefit from tobacco, or booze... Those are SIN TAXES.. Gun ownership is not a sin.

ANYTHING can be a sin. A sin is a made-up value of morality. If the government decides that gun ownership is a sin, you'd be SOL. :) Of course, governments shouldn't be doing anything as far as 'sin' is concerned to begin with, but that's another debate.

For once in this conversation, I absolutely agree with you.