DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Is this hypocrisy?
Pages:   ... ...
Showing posts 576 - 600 of 1154, (reverse)
AuthorThread
01/15/2013 09:55:10 AM · #576
I picked up two 20rd Mags for my M4 yesterday. Will buy every time I see one on the shelf.

Also, I'm going to get the whole reloading kit myself.

Originally posted by cowboy221977:

Originally posted by kenskid:

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo unveiled his proposal to bolster the state's gun laws late Monday after weeks of behind-the-scenes negotiations with legislative leaders, with a full ban on assault weapons slated to take effect as soon as it is passed.

The Senate passed Cuomo's bill in a 43-18 vote around 11 p.m. Monday. The Assembly is set to take up the legislation when it returns to session at 10 a.m. Tuesday.

I suggest that SCALVERT read up on some civics.

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by kenskid:

You're the Governor of the state - You can get ANY law passed. What is your Gun Law that will stop school shootings?

High school civics: a governor cannot get ANY bill passed (much to the chagrin of Jan Brewer) and, with the possible exception of Hawaii, any legislation would have to be national for what should be obvious reasons (see Chicago).


and it has begun..........I am glad that I went ahead and purchased my assault rifle...I think I am going to go ahead and buy a die for the 5.56 round so I can reload my ammo
01/15/2013 10:09:34 AM · #577
I already have a couple 30 round mags...army issue.
01/15/2013 10:42:51 AM · #578
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Cory:

The problem with that is that I can then no longer just sell a friend a gun, I have to route the transaction through a dealer, and pay him a cut. Of course, there is also the registration fear, but I don't really think that's an issue.

You can't sell your prescription drugs to your neighbor either, and even if you sell your car to someone you have to submit paperwork detailing the transaction.

How about requiring gun owners to carry mandatory liability insurance, just like for your car? A million-dollar policy is supposed to be relatively inexpensive; I'd be like to know if the rate for that is higher or lower if it is declared that there is a legal gun in the household ...


Prescription drugs are not a right, nor are they something which can safely be used by another person in many cases.

The car is not a right.

While in practical terms I do see the reason that this is a good idea, I still don't like the idea that I can't treat a gun as a simple commodity like a hammer or knife.
01/15/2013 11:37:07 AM · #579
LOL....it's so easy !

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Cory:

The problem with that is that I can then no longer just sell a friend a gun, I have to route the transaction through a dealer, and pay him a cut. Of course, there is also the registration fear, but I don't really think that's an issue.

You can't sell your prescription drugs to your neighbor either, and even if you sell your car to someone you have to submit paperwork detailing the transaction.

How about requiring gun owners to carry mandatory liability insurance, just like for your car? A million-dollar policy is supposed to be relatively inexpensive; I'd be like to know if the rate for that is higher or lower if it is declared that there is a legal gun in the household ...


Prescription drugs are not a right, nor are they something which can safely be used by another person in many cases.

The car is not a right.

While in practical terms I do see the reason that this is a good idea, I still don't like the idea that I can't treat a gun as a simple commodity like a hammer or knife.
01/15/2013 03:16:29 PM · #580
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by GeneralE:



How about requiring gun owners to carry mandatory liability insurance, just like for your car? A million-dollar policy is supposed to be relatively inexpensive; I'd be like to know if the rate for that is higher or lower if it is declared that there is a legal gun in the household ...


I assume that you'd also support higher liability insurance rates for the mentally ill too.

I might if there was evidence that the "mentally ill" commit violent crime at a higher rate than others not so designated -- unfortunately (for your position) all the research I've heard about indicates this is not the case.


It was a mentally ill man who shot those kids in Sandy Hook, the sanity of James Holmes is questionable (at best) and Jared Loughner had to be forcibly medicated to even make sense in court.



Message edited by author 2013-01-15 15:19:15.
01/15/2013 03:20:02 PM · #581
Your point is largely irrelevant, since mass shootings of that sort constitute a tiny fraction of the total gun homocides, the vast majority of which are commited by people ajudged legally sane.

You might want to be careful about greasing the mental illness slippery-slope too ... I think there's a reasonable case to be made that anyone who stockpiles high-capacity armaments out of an irrational fear that "the Governement" is persecuting them might might meet the DSM IV clasification of paranoid ...

Message edited by author 2013-01-15 15:25:05.
01/15/2013 03:24:46 PM · #582
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Your point is largely irrelevant, since mass shootings of that sort constitute a tiny fraction of the total gun homocides, the vast majority of which are commited by people ajudged legally sane.


Wait... Is this about preventing school shootings and mass murders, or outlawing all guns?

I only ask because it seems that the only possible solution to the problem you stated above would be outright firearms bans.
01/15/2013 03:30:32 PM · #583
You keep making it out that this is an all-or-nothing proposition.

We will never get rid of every gun, we will never prevent every gunshot death.

We can more effectively regulate firearms and address the conditions which make their illegitimate use so prevalent, and thus (hopefully) reduce gunshot deaths.
01/15/2013 03:56:49 PM · #584
Originally posted by cowboy221977:

and it has begun..........I am glad that I went ahead and purchased my assault rifle...I think I am going to go ahead and buy a die for the 5.56 round so I can reload my ammo


I think it probably would be wise to be prepared to make your own ammo for assault weapons as those are the most likely rounds to be hit by bans and higher taxes/fees. Frankly the notion of someone like you (that is a trained and careful person who is probably very conscientious about gun safety) making their own rounds does not scare me, and if that is the price of keeping those rounds out of the hands of people who are less familiar with weapons, I am sorry you have to be put to that extra effort, but I see it as better for the country to make those rounds hard to get.

Originally posted by Cory:

Wait... Is this about preventing school shootings and mass murders, or outlawing all guns?


The occasional mass murder/ slaughter of the innocents is only the outrage that allows the public to examine the question of gun ownership. IMHO there are real benefits and real costs to our nation's gun policy, but guns are a public health issue at this point. Health professionals are suggesting that the country attack the firearms problem in a manner similar to that used in previous decades for the public-health problems of smoking and auto deaths.

Cigarettes are still legal, but I smoke a filtered cigarette and pay taxes that are meant to discourage me and defray the cost of my behavior to the public at large. I still drive, but my truck has seat belts, air bags and crumple zones. If sensible laws are passed on guns, I fully expect to still be able to shoot skeet, go down to the range and blow holes in things and carry a revolver into the woods in boar country.

We will never stop gun deaths, but we can certainly make them rarer, as we did with smoking deaths and auto fatalities.

Message edited by author 2013-01-15 15:58:03.
01/15/2013 04:08:02 PM · #585
PTSS
01/15/2013 04:29:51 PM · #586
I can kill just as many "sitting ducks, dogs, cats...etc.." with my 22LR with five 10 shot magazines just as easy as I could with my "assult rifle". (I purposly left off PEOPLE)

edit: On another note...as for safety of re-loading your own ammo...it's not hard and now you will have the "less familiar" loading them too.

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

I think it probably would be wise to be prepared to make your own ammo for assault weapons as those are the most likely rounds to be hit by bans and higher taxes/fees. Frankly the notion of someone like you (that is a trained and careful person who is probably very conscientious about gun safety) making their own rounds does not scare me, and if that is the price of keeping those rounds out of the hands of people who are less familiar with weapons, I am sorry you have to be put to that extra effort, but I see it as better for the country to make those rounds hard to get.

Originally posted by Cory:

Wait... Is this about preventing school shootings and mass murders, or outlawing all guns?


The occasional mass murder/ slaughter of the innocents is only the outrage that allows the public to examine the question of gun ownership. IMHO there are real benefits and real costs to our nation's gun policy, but guns are a public health issue at this point. Health professionals are suggesting that the country attack the firearms problem in a manner similar to that used in previous decades for the public-health problems of smoking and auto deaths.

Cigarettes are still legal, but I smoke a filtered cigarette and pay taxes that are meant to discourage me and defray the cost of my behavior to the public at large. I still drive, but my truck has seat belts, air bags and crumple zones. If sensible laws are passed on guns, I fully expect to still be able to shoot skeet, go down to the range and blow holes in things and carry a revolver into the woods in boar country.

We will never stop gun deaths, but we can certainly make them rarer, as we did with smoking deaths and auto fatalities.


Message edited by author 2013-01-15 16:31:44.
01/15/2013 04:45:34 PM · #587
Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Originally posted by cowboy221977:

and it has begun..........I am glad that I went ahead and purchased my assault rifle...I think I am going to go ahead and buy a die for the 5.56 round so I can reload my ammo


I think it probably would be wise to be prepared to make your own ammo for assault weapons as those are the most likely rounds to be hit by bans and higher taxes/fees. Frankly the notion of someone like you (that is a trained and careful person who is probably very conscientious about gun safety) making their own rounds does not scare me, and if that is the price of keeping those rounds out of the hands of people who are less familiar with weapons, I am sorry you have to be put to that extra effort, but I see it as better for the country to make those rounds hard to get.

Originally posted by Cory:

Wait... Is this about preventing school shootings and mass murders, or outlawing all guns?


The occasional mass murder/ slaughter of the innocents is only the outrage that allows the public to examine the question of gun ownership. IMHO there are real benefits and real costs to our nation's gun policy, but guns are a public health issue at this point. Health professionals are suggesting that the country attack the firearms problem in a manner similar to that used in previous decades for the public-health problems of smoking and auto deaths.

Cigarettes are still legal, but I smoke a filtered cigarette and pay taxes that are meant to discourage me and defray the cost of my behavior to the public at large. I still drive, but my truck has seat belts, air bags and crumple zones. If sensible laws are passed on guns, I fully expect to still be able to shoot skeet, go down to the range and blow holes in things and carry a revolver into the woods in boar country.

We will never stop gun deaths, but we can certainly make them rarer, as we did with smoking deaths and auto fatalities.


Those rounds are certainly not exclusive to so-called "assault" rifles. The .223 Remington /5.56 NATO rounds (there is a difference, but it's subtle) are very popular in bolt action hunting and target rifles because the ammo is plentiful, inexpensive, has low recoil, a relatively flat trajectory and in the right rifle in the right hands, very accurate. That somehow driving up the cost of ammo will discourage a nutjob from going on a rampage is ridiculous.

People in the US still die from smoking, or get ill from 2nd hand smoke. Drunks, and other people who should not drive still do drive and they still injure and kill people. Far more people than were shot with "assault" rifles.

Message edited by author 2013-01-15 17:00:31.
01/15/2013 04:59:28 PM · #588
Originally posted by Spork99:

Yet people in the US still die from smoking, or get ill from 2nd hand smoke. Drunks, and other people who should not drive still do drive and they still injure and kill people. Far more people than were shot with "assault" rifles.


I have noticed quite a few changes in how drunk driving is enforced and punished in the last 40 years. As a result it is far less common and fewer people die (per capita) than they used to. We will never stop drunk driving and the deaths that occur as a result, but because the drunk drivers do not have a strong lobby, laws have toughened up on the enforcement and no one gets off with a warning anymore. Just because you will never eliminate a problem does not mean you should not take prudent action to reduce how often the problem occurs.

The same sort of legislation has made second hand smoke much less of a problem, smoking in public has been banned from almost every public place, while 40 years ago there were a few non smoking rows on an airplane with communal air. Again a rational limitation of risky behavior.

See a trend? I drink, I drive, I smoke, I shoot. I have no problem with laws that make those behaviors less risky to others, even though they may send me outdoors for a cigarette.
01/15/2013 05:25:56 PM · #589
Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Originally posted by Spork99:

Yet people in the US still die from smoking, or get ill from 2nd hand smoke. Drunks, and other people who should not drive still do drive and they still injure and kill people. Far more people than were shot with "assault" rifles.


I have noticed quite a few changes in how drunk driving is enforced and punished in the last 40 years. As a result it is far less common and fewer people die (per capita) than they used to. We will never stop drunk driving and the deaths that occur as a result, but because the drunk drivers do not have a strong lobby, laws have toughened up on the enforcement and no one gets off with a warning anymore. Just because you will never eliminate a problem does not mean you should not take prudent action to reduce how often the problem occurs.

The same sort of legislation has made second hand smoke much less of a problem, smoking in public has been banned from almost every public place, while 40 years ago there were a few non smoking rows on an airplane with communal air. Again a rational limitation of risky behavior.

See a trend? I drink, I drive, I smoke, I shoot. I have no problem with laws that make those behaviors less risky to others, even though they may send me outdoors for a cigarette.


Exactly. Gun laws will not prevent someone determined to commit a crime. Anymore than drunk driving laws will prevent some drunk with their car keys who is determined to drive themselves home. Banning certain cars won't reduce the carnage wrought by drunks, nor will banning "scary" looking guns reduce the carnage in a mass shooting. The latter just makes the politicians look like they're doing something useful.
01/15/2013 05:41:49 PM · #590
Fair example but the laws on drunk driving DO NOT require the LAW ABIDING driver to stop doing anything. The examples listed for the new gun laws PUNISH the law abiding gun owner -- restricting types of guns, taxing ammo..etc...without doing ANYTHING to stop another mass shooting...

....much different than the laws made that lessened people getting hurt from drunk drivers.

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Originally posted by Spork99:

Yet people in the US still die from smoking, or get ill from 2nd hand smoke. Drunks, and other people who should not drive still do drive and they still injure and kill people. Far more people than were shot with "assault" rifles.


I have noticed quite a few changes in how drunk driving is enforced and punished in the last 40 years. As a result it is far less common and fewer people die (per capita) than they used to. We will never stop drunk driving and the deaths that occur as a result, but because the drunk drivers do not have a strong lobby, laws have toughened up on the enforcement and no one gets off with a warning anymore. Just because you will never eliminate a problem does not mean you should not take prudent action to reduce how often the problem occurs.

The same sort of legislation has made second hand smoke much less of a problem, smoking in public has been banned from almost every public place, while 40 years ago there were a few non smoking rows on an airplane with communal air. Again a rational limitation of risky behavior.

See a trend? I drink, I drive, I smoke, I shoot. I have no problem with laws that make those behaviors less risky to others, even though they may send me outdoors for a cigarette.
01/15/2013 05:52:00 PM · #591
Originally posted by GeneralE:

You keep making it out that this is an all-or-nothing proposition.

We will never get rid of every gun, we will never prevent every gunshot death.

We can more effectively regulate firearms and address the conditions which make their illegitimate use so prevalent, and thus (hopefully) reduce gunshot deaths.


No, I keep asking you why the heck we're taking action... It's nice to go for a Sunday cruise without a destination in mind - but I figure legislation should have some real goals in mind.

I wonder, given that you'll argue that most of the homicides are not mass-shootings, and that we should really worry about those, but yet you're up in arms about preventing mass shootings like Sandy Hook, talking about new legislation.

I think you have a problem in your logic - basically first you're arguing against assault rifles and the mass shootings, and then the next thing you're talking about preventing the majority of gun crimes - which would clearly require banning the majority of guns. (rare is rare, common is common - these are fundamental truths)..

So, what is your goal here? Where should this Sunday cruise be headed to?
01/15/2013 06:04:36 PM · #592
Originally posted by Spork99:



People in the US still die from smoking, or get ill from 2nd hand smoke. Drunks, and other people who should not drive still do drive and they still injure and kill people. Far more people than were shot with "assault" rifles.


Perhaps the issue that I have with the reasoning proffered to date is that it seems to be an "all or nothing" approach to the problem by both sides involved in the discussion.

Surely there has to be room for some semblance of compromise, such as mandatory registration for all guns, background checks, mental disorder data bases, safer storage regulations and other similar forms of checks and balances.

Regarding the driving scenario...I have no idea as to what happens in the USA, but where I live, if convicted one has to undergo courses and then at your expense, they equip your vehicle with a piece of equipment that one has to blow into and which will neutralize your car if you are impaired.... so things can be done to provide some semblance of control.

As for second hand smoke, you really have to work at that where I live since one cannot smoke in restaurants, workplaces, publicly owned beaches, golf course and a bevy of other locations.

Ray
01/15/2013 07:20:37 PM · #593
Well. Well. Well.

Newtown Massacre: New information - Only handguns used.

Ban those evil assault rifles to save the children.

(anyone feel silly yet?)
01/15/2013 07:30:30 PM · #594
Dude. I haven't even finished watching this yet, but I have to say that there are some interesting questions posed by this guy.

ETA: The conclusions are wack-job, but they do have a few interesting points. Do you think it was all just stress making the people screw up? Possible, and understandable - but what about the websites that are dated pre-shooting? The Facebook page? So much strangeness, don't know what exactly why things are adding up so poorly, but the math doesn't seem right.

Easy for me to believe that it's all gun control agenda, but I just don't think conspiracy theories are worth much, you know, given how effective the government usually is at doing stuff...

Message edited by author 2013-01-15 19:55:20.
01/15/2013 08:16:31 PM · #595
Please, please don't tell me you think this was a whole-town conspiracy, where people agreed to sacrifice 6-7 year olds to support some government agenda? Really? This is what you think of the people who live in the US? Who serve in government positions (police, firefighters, first responders, TEACHERS?) The parents??

That's just so beyond sick, regardless of where anyone stands on any agenda other than total paranoia, that it's, well, just unthinkable.
01/15/2013 08:33:37 PM · #596
Originally posted by Melethia:

Please, please don't tell me you think this was a whole-town conspiracy, where people agreed to sacrifice 6-7 year olds to support some government agenda? Really? This is what you think of the people who live in the US? Who serve in government positions (police, firefighters, first responders, TEACHERS?) The parents??

That's just so beyond sick, regardless of where anyone stands on any agenda other than total paranoia, that it's, well, just unthinkable.


Of course not, as I said in the original post, I know how hard it is to get a team to run smooth - this would be impossible.

Still, some strange oddities in the story in the media - and the dates on those websites / Facebooks posts are just beyond bizarre.

Message edited by author 2013-01-15 20:33:54.
01/15/2013 09:05:51 PM · #597
The STRANGEST of those claims was watching the medical examiner say that all were shot by the "long gun". A reporter then asked, "wasn't the rifle found in the trunk" at which point an officer belted out, "that's not correct sir"....However, there is video of the long gun (AR) being taken from the trunk of the car. If you throw out all of the other BS, this one issue makes me wonder if they are pinning it on the AR for "special" reasons.

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by Melethia:

Please, please don't tell me you think this was a whole-town conspiracy, where people agreed to sacrifice 6-7 year olds to support some government agenda? Really? This is what you think of the people who live in the US? Who serve in government positions (police, firefighters, first responders, TEACHERS?) The parents??

That's just so beyond sick, regardless of where anyone stands on any agenda other than total paranoia, that it's, well, just unthinkable.


Of course not, as I said in the original post, I know how hard it is to get a team to run smooth - this would be impossible.

Still, some strange oddities in the story in the media - and the dates on those websites / Facebooks posts are just beyond bizarre.


Message edited by author 2013-01-15 21:06:40.
01/15/2013 09:47:34 PM · #598
Hey Paul ( GeneralE ) Did you go out shooting this weekend. You really should You might like it..

I not only purchased an ar-15 carbine...I have also purchased the dies to reload... But it will accept the .223 remington ( a pop hunting round)
01/15/2013 11:12:25 PM · #599
Originally posted by cowboy221977:

Hey Paul ( GeneralE ) Did you go out shooting this weekend. You really should You might like it...

Not yet, and to be honest I will probably be waiting for (much) better weather in the Spring ... it will take some arranging to get together with the person who has the guns -- I don't think he shoots all that often (more often golf). But I don't think I've ever said that target shooting couldn't (or shouldn't) be fun.
01/16/2013 12:56:48 AM · #600
Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by Flash:

Millions of guns are presently stored away and not hurting a single person. Millions.


Perhaps, and it could be argued that in some cases storage is nothing more than someone leaning them against the wall of a closet. Storage my friend takes all kinds of different forms, and I for one would love to see much more stringent controls in a variety of fields, including storage.

You are most certainly right about the NRA, they do have clout. Sadly, they do not seem responsive to any form of controls whatsoever and seemingly would have armed guards in every single venue... and that is also not a realistic approach to remedy the current situation.

Not unlike the current political situation in the USA, it would be nice if all concerned actually discussed this matter and tried to arrive at a conclusion that would benefit all.

Sadly, I won't hold my breath on either counts...:O(

Ray


o the point of the millions of guns in storage sentance was to illustrate that large numbers are not injuring anyone.
o The NRA is very safety oriented, I sense they have been forced to their respective corner due to some extreme talk from the opposition. Even the new NY law being touted by Cuomo had in its early revisions language of "confiscation". The final passage defines an "assault" weapon as one with a pistol grip. That is pretty ridiculous actually.
o Again - a sensible discussion would be more feasible if the language were toned down - but as long as the president is planning to issue 19 executive orders to bypass congress, as long as confiscation remains part of the dialogue, as long as the president continues to claim this is "for the children" while his campaign specifically supported a pro-choice abortion adgenda - enabling the killing of millions of babies, I can't believe the hipocracy being accepted by some here.

If people really want to address the violence then perhaps they should look at the perponderance of evidence. The evidence that blatantly shows this is primarily an inner city gang and drug related crime problem.

Look, Brennan has repeatedly stated that reducing the numbers of deaths is a goal. True enough. Others then cite suicides and lots of other data. Yet, addressing the inner city crime problem would reduce the total number (good for Brennan). Problem is - it is easier to blame the guns and pass laws restricting their availability then adrress the root causes of inner city drug crime. If this is for the children - then fix the crime problem. We all win.

Message edited by author 2013-01-16 01:53:53.
Pages:   ... ...
Current Server Time: 10/13/2025 03:47:10 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 10/13/2025 03:47:10 AM EDT.