| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/13/2011 06:30:33 PM · #351 |
Regarding "sin taxes", there's no such thing as a "sin tax"; that's just a made-up phrase people trot out to justify exorbitant and arbitrary taxation on whatever the government thinks it can or should punish. I'm in complete agreement with the K10D guy and Cory on this.
R.
|
|
|
|
01/13/2011 06:31:21 PM · #352 |
Basically my point has been proven about gun control proposals:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The two classic replies:
A) That violates my rights. So don't do it.
B) That won't work. So don't do it.
All gun control measures fall under either A or B so advocates have their bases covered. |
Message edited by author 2011-01-13 18:31:40. |
|
|
|
01/13/2011 06:31:39 PM · #353 |
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. |
Everyone's entitled to their opinion! |
|
|
|
01/13/2011 06:33:48 PM · #354 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Basically my point has been proven about gun control proposals:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The two classic replies:
A) That violates my rights. So don't do it.
B) That won't work. So don't do it.
All gun control measures fall under either A or B so advocates have their bases covered. |
|
I feel that you are implying that there is something wrong with these responses. I see them as valid, should you feel justified in violating the rights of others? Should you feel compelled to do something that will not be productive? I don't see either as something an intelligent reasonable human would want to do. |
|
|
|
01/13/2011 06:42:25 PM · #355 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Basically my point has been proven about gun control proposals:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The two classic replies:
A) That violates my rights. So don't do it.
B) That won't work. So don't do it.
All gun control measures fall under either A or B so advocates have their bases covered. |
|
I feel that you are implying that there is something wrong with these responses. I see them as valid, should you feel justified in violating the rights of others? Should you feel compelled to do something that will not be productive? I don't see either as something an intelligent reasonable human would want to do. |
Depends on the "right". A right is really just a privilege with added safeguards. However, those safeguards are only as strong as the people in power, and any right, at any time, can be taken away. Some rights are considered stronger than others. Rights that fall in the category of relieving human suffering, for instance, are very strong. Rights that fall in the category of personal ownership, however, are never really all that solid. The 'right' to owning a weapon, for instance, is probably a 'right' that is on very shaky ground. There is very little ACTUAL reason for such a right to exist, and under any government it is more a privilege than not. That precious little amendment that is touted is only worth the paper it's written on. I mean, if the government can arbitrarily decide to change a constitutional amendment to deny MARRIAGE to certain people, what strength does gun ownership REALLY have ;)
Of course, I'm just putting something out there. I don't agree that people shouldn't be allowed to own guns. I just think that people would be more responsible and put more care into that ownership if they stopped seeing it as an inalienable RIGHT, and more as an unstable privilege. |
|
|
|
01/13/2011 06:48:28 PM · #356 |
| The photos from Christina Green's funeral this afternoon are just heartbreaking. It somehow puts the views expressed here into perspective. |
|
|
|
01/13/2011 06:50:06 PM · #357 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
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?
Look, part of my personal artistic statement is to make images that are deliberately provocative and poke at things that make many people uncomfortable. You'll see it again and again in my photography and illustration. I have no great, overarching goal in mind, it's just my thing. Maybe I'm uninspired, lazy, or just going for the easy shock. I'm fine with that. I like to ape the violence of our media, pushing it to absurdity, to get a reaction. Apparently that worked. |
He Was My Brother (Paul Simon Lyrics Challenge)
Bits and Pieces (Eponymous Challenge)
License to Kill (Authorrity Challenge)
Razor Bak (Product Shot Challenge) |
Look out dude, you might get accused of being tasteless... or even... non-artistic! *shudder*
However, feel free to disregard the criticism if it comes from someone who's linking pictures of Jesus getting manhandled by hirsute Village People rejects to this very respectful thread. :) |
|
|
|
01/13/2011 06:56:10 PM · #358 |
Originally posted by LydiaToo:
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. |
No argument! It is indeed the person who is penalized, not the vehicle. :)
Message edited by author 2011-01-13 19:03:51. |
|
|
|
01/13/2011 07:18:09 PM · #359 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
.... I just think that people would be more responsible and put more care into that ownership if they stopped seeing it as an inalienable RIGHT, and more as an unstable privilege. |
I argue against more "control" and "regulation" for just that reason... They are already regulated, they are already controlled... It's not a huge leap from here to a full ban. |
|
|
|
01/13/2011 08:42:42 PM · #360 |
There. Will. Never. Be. A. Full. Ban.
Full stop.
Never.
Not in my lifetime or yours.
Never.
Fear not!
More people bought guns this week than at this same time last year, so violent acts with guns against innocent civilians is NOT a deterrent to gun ownership. It seems in some way to spur it on. I'm not quite sure how that works.
But anyway, there will never be a complete ban of guns in the United States of America during your lifetime. I can pretty much guarantee you that. |
|
|
|
01/13/2011 09:09:00 PM · #361 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
I argue against more "control" and "regulation" for just that reason... They are already regulated, they are already controlled... It's not a huge leap from here to a full ban. |
Its not a huge leap from any isolated point to another, from light to dark, from life to death. Reasonable people ought to be able to notice increments.
Do you agree with the lifting of the Clinton era ban on handgun clips over ten rounds? The ban was placed in 1994 and lifted in 2004, what damage did it do that required remedy? The casualties would have been fewer had the nutcase not had 30 rounds in his clip. In any other area of law something like the extra large clips would be banned because their risks outweigh their advantages to any purpose, except the use Mr. Loughner put it to, the killing of other people. We as a society can come to reasoned agreements on tax law, pollution caps and home building inspections; what is it about guns that make it an area where no possible limits are seen as reasonable by a certain very rigid minority? |
|
|
|
01/13/2011 09:18:00 PM · #362 |
| Here's a really good article about which states you're more likely to get killed by a gun in. It ranks the states by order of gun deaths and level of gun restriction laws... //www.rr.com/news/topic/article/rr/10374903/31871399/20_Deadliest_Gun_States |
|
|
|
01/13/2011 09:20:35 PM · #363 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by coryboehne:
I argue against more "control" and "regulation" for just that reason... They are already regulated, they are already controlled... It's not a huge leap from here to a full ban. |
Its not a huge leap from any isolated point to another, from light to dark, from life to death. Reasonable people ought to be able to notice increments.
Do you agree with the lifting of the Clinton era ban on handgun clips over ten rounds? The ban was placed in 1994 and lifted in 2004, what damage did it do that required remedy? The casualties would have been fewer had the nutcase not had 30 rounds in his clip. In any other area of law something like the extra large clips would be banned because their risks outweigh their advantages to any purpose, except the use Mr. Loughner put it to, the killing of other people. We as a society can come to reasoned agreements on tax law, pollution caps and home building inspections; what is it about guns that make it an area where no possible limits are seen as reasonable by a certain very rigid minority? |
There was no real ban was there? Just a manufacturing ban.. I've always had 25+ round clips... Why? Hell I don't know, I like to pull the trigger a lot. What harm did it do? It cost me about 2x as much as it should have for those clips during that time. It didn't save lives, it didn't stop anyone but the broke from getting hi-cap mags.. It did, however, line quite a few pockets, as every gun dealer who had a stock of those things, saw an instant increase in value, can you imagine having a warehouse full of those things? Hell, I'd be rooting for another ban. And the "ban" wasn't limited to handgun clips.
Just for a touch of reality here, Columbine was in 1999, right in the middle of the ban... And those boys (at least one of them anyway, the other chose to carry 13 10 rnd mags) had hi-cap mags... Yet it was in the middle of the "ban"... Can you really say you think these things work? |
|
|
|
01/13/2011 09:27:30 PM · #364 |
Seems that there is a distinct correlation, but the source may or may not be the availability of weapons, perhaps it's more related to the prevalence of the weapons.
Looks like #5 Lousiana is actually the 23rd most permissive...
Message edited by author 2011-01-13 21:28:40. |
|
|
|
01/13/2011 09:46:34 PM · #365 |
| Maybe, maybe not. But I live in NJ. I know how difficult it is to get a gun here. The rules are really strict. Yet we have a city in NJ (Camden) that has been #1 on the most deadliest cities in America list for many years running. It finally got beat out in 2010, though violent deaths were still higher in Camden. Many years ago, when my husband and I were just married, we lived on the border of Camden. It was literally just a street away, but it was a beautiful house and the rent was cheap. One night when I was upstairs putting my daughter to bed someone broke in. My husband was sleeping on the couch. The person was armed with a baseball bat and upon seeing my husband, started beating him in the head with the bat. I came running down the stairs to see this huge man beating my husband bloody and wished I'd had a gun. I remember wishing it soooo bad. Instead, without thinking I ran and jumped on the guys back and started hitting him in the head. He knocked me off (I'm 5'5" and weighed about 120 lbs at the time), I picked up a chair and hit him in the back with it. At this point my husband with part of his scalp hanging got up & rushed him but was pretty much useless at this point. The guy still got the point that we weren't going to be easy marks and ran out the front door. Now I know how lucky I was not to have a gun, because if I'd shot & killed the guy, I'd be the one sitting in prison. Anyway, hubby got stitches & we moved to a smaller place with higher rent in a better neighborhood. End of story. |
|
|
|
01/13/2011 09:57:45 PM · #366 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
I've always had 25+ round clips... Why? Hell I don't know, I like to pull the trigger a lot.
Just for a touch of reality here, Columbine was in 1999, right in the middle of the ban... And those boys (at least one of them anyway, the other chose to carry 13 10 rnd mags) had hi-cap mags... Yet it was in the middle of the "ban"... Can you really say you think these things work? |
Did banning lead paint work? Hell yes manufacturing bans on dangerous products works, if you don't decide to lift the ban every other month. Lead paint works: it flows well, and lasts much longer than latex enamel, but it poisons people. Kids still eat paint chips because it is still lingering after being banned in 1977. Eventually it will not poison anyone, but it takes time.
As to your "Hell I don't know, but I like it" defense of large clips being reason enough to keep them on the market it seems pretty selfish. Mr. Loughner wounded 12 people and killed 6 despite the heroism of bystanders who tackled him before he could reload. Had he been shooting a ten clip and he kept his kill and wounded average, 8 people would have not been wounded, and 4 people would still be alive. Is your enjoyment really so great that you think it is worth those lives?
Message edited by author 2011-01-13 21:59:08. |
|
|
|
01/14/2011 12:00:43 AM · #367 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by coryboehne:
I've always had 25+ round clips... Why? Hell I don't know, I like to pull the trigger a lot.
Just for a touch of reality here, Columbine was in 1999, right in the middle of the ban... And those boys (at least one of them anyway, the other chose to carry 13 10 rnd mags) had hi-cap mags... Yet it was in the middle of the "ban"... Can you really say you think these things work? |
Did banning lead paint work? Hell yes manufacturing bans on dangerous products works, if you don't decide to lift the ban every other month. Lead paint works: it flows well, and lasts much longer than latex enamel, but it poisons people. Kids still eat paint chips because it is still lingering after being banned in 1977. Eventually it will not poison anyone, but it takes time.
As to your "Hell I don't know, but I like it" defense of large clips being reason enough to keep them on the market it seems pretty selfish. Mr. Loughner wounded 12 people and killed 6 despite the heroism of bystanders who tackled him before he could reload. Had he been shooting a ten clip and he kept his kill and wounded average, 8 people would have not been wounded, and 4 people would still be alive. Is your enjoyment really so great that you think it is worth those lives? |
Sigh, if it wasn't large clips it would have been pipe bombs. |
|
|
|
01/14/2011 12:20:13 AM · #368 |
Hey, I did find a death from a pipe bomb in 2010. Who knew?
Guy in West Virginia killed by bomb intended for his ex-wife
The kicker is that he's the one who built the bomb. Gotta hate when that happens. |
|
|
|
01/14/2011 02:13:58 PM · #369 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Now I know how lucky I was not to have a gun, because if I'd shot & killed the guy, I'd be the one sitting in prison. |
I seriously doubt it -- AFAIK using a gun against someone who has broken into your house and committed physical harm against the occupants is considered self-defense or justifiable homocide in every state. Now, if you'd shot the guy in the back as he ran away down the street you'd probably have a problem, but not shooting an armed intruder inside your house.
Where you might be "lucky to not have had a gun" is that there would have been a real risk the thug could have taken it away from you and used it against your family, and others after he left. |
|
|
|
01/14/2011 03:58:22 PM · #370 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Now I know how lucky I was not to have a gun, because if I'd shot & killed the guy, I'd be the one sitting in prison. |
I seriously doubt it -- AFAIK using a gun against someone who has broken into your house and committed physical harm against the occupants is considered self-defense or justifiable homocide in every state. Now, if you'd shot the guy in the back as he ran away down the street you'd probably have a problem, but not shooting an armed intruder inside your house.
Where you might be "lucky to not have had a gun" is that there would have been a real risk the thug could have taken it away from you and used it against your family, and others after he left. |
I don't doubt it... âAlmost everybody says the same thing at first: âOh, I would just shoot them,ââ Colandro says. âBut ignorance of the law is no excuse. Itâs very, very important that they know when you can and cannot use deadly force.â Pulling the trigger, Colandro emphasizes, must be the last resort. New Jersey law permits a licensed gun owner to shoot an intruder only under narrowly defined circumstances. If you do kill or wound an intruder, Colandro says, be prepared for your life to be turned upside down. Your friends and neighbors will most likely turn against you. Your legal predicament will be messy and expensive. And even if you acted within your rights, the psychological consequences are severe.
link |
|
|
|
01/14/2011 04:03:08 PM · #371 |
Of course in other states you can shoot foreign exchange student trick-or-treaters without any adverse consequence...
Message edited by author 2011-01-14 16:03:16. |
|
|
|
01/14/2011 04:06:01 PM · #372 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Of course in other states you can shoot foreign exchange student trick-or-treaters without any adverse consequence... |
I remember that thread. In Canada, if you catch someone who's broken into your house, while he's in your house, and punch him in the face, you're the one who gets arrested. |
|
|
|
01/14/2011 05:52:53 PM · #373 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Of course in other states you can shoot foreign exchange student trick-or-treaters without any adverse consequence... |
I remember that thread. In Canada, if you catch someone who's broken into your house, while he's in your house, and punch him in the face, you're the one who gets arrested. |
Boy would I have been in trouble... Cops told the kids I beat the snot out of (on the way out of course, they were "resisting", please do note that I was a kid too (16?), and I knew the punks, thought they were freinds..) that they were lucky, because if it was the cop's house he would have "Put a cap in their ass", clearly just a scare tactic, but, well, the obvious beating was of no concern to the police, they actually thought it was quite amusing. |
|
|
|
01/14/2011 06:01:47 PM · #374 |
Not much to do with guns, but was really interesting on NPR this morning.
Fame Through Assassination: A Secret Service Study |
|
|
|
01/14/2011 09:56:27 PM · #375 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
be able to notice increments.
We as a society can come to reasoned agreements on tax law, pollution caps and home building inspections; what is it about guns that make it an area where no possible limits are seen as reasonable by a certain very rigid minority? |
Well, I don't see why either. If it's just a "very rigid" minority, their interests should easily be overcome in congress by the majority. Maybe it's not really a minority after all. |
|
