| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/14/2011 10:21:58 PM · #376 |
Originally posted by FireBird:
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. |
It's a VERY well-funded minority. NRA spends a LOT of money buying senators and congresspeople. Hard stranglehold to break.
R. |
|
|
|
01/15/2011 06:52:12 AM · #377 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by FireBird:
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. |
It's a VERY well-funded minority. NRA spends a LOT of money buying senators and congresspeople. Hard stranglehold to break.
R. |
So anti-gun groups are not allowed to purchase senators and congresspeople? Or is it called lobbying when the goal is something you agree with? |
|
|
|
01/15/2011 08:52:58 AM · #378 |
| I live in the west, I grew up with guns, I no longer have any, but thatâs my choice right now. I think the majority of gun owners would rather keep guns away form the idiots that give them a bad name. The fear is the give a inch take a mile mentality this country seems to run on. Itâs pretty much the same for us photographers, hell I hate the thought of some pervert wandering around taking pictures of little children to âget offâ, but where are you willing to give that one inch.. |
|
|
|
01/15/2011 09:22:16 AM · #379 |
|
|
|
01/15/2011 09:25:04 AM · #380 |
|
|
|
01/15/2011 10:10:12 AM · #381 |
Originally posted by FireBird:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by FireBird:
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. |
It's a VERY well-funded minority. NRA spends a LOT of money buying senators and congresspeople. Hard stranglehold to break.
R. |
So anti-gun groups are not allowed to purchase senators and congresspeople? Or is it called lobbying when the goal is something you agree with? |
No, I'm against "lobbying" in general, at least in the form into which it has evolved. The great scandal of modern American democracy is that it has become responsive, not to the voice of the people directly through their representatives, but rather to the voices of whatever interests spend the most money influencing the representatives. As of 2005 there were 535 legislators being hectored by 34,000+ registered lobbyists in Washington DC. I'm not sure what the current figures are, but you get the idea... It's ridiculous.
R. |
|
|
|
01/15/2011 10:52:11 AM · #382 |
Like the Bearman said, where is democracy if your vote can be bought?
|
|
|
|
01/15/2011 11:45:55 PM · #383 |
| Had a shooting here today! We saw all the police/sheriff vehicles, etc. Had to drive by. Not once, but twice. Good thing we weren't in range, I guess, or that we didn't know if we were or not. A transient asked a couple of people for money. They declined. He shot them with a pellet gun of some kind. They called the police. Transient hid in a field. Police found him. He shot one of them in the face. The police shot him. That's all we know at the moment. Very exciting! All while we were at Home Depot, too. Right across the street. |
|
|
|
01/17/2011 12:46:42 PM · #384 |
A very rational take on the issue, I think:
Mindless Technology
No rational person would deny that human volition and responsibility play a significant part in the fatal outcomes of any human-technology interaction, whether it is taking heroin or driving a car recklessly or pointing a nail gun at one's head. But likewise no rational person would deny that technology plays a part as well. We require prescriptions for drugs with potentially harmful side-effects; we make it a crime to buy and use heroin; we certainly require many inanimate but nonetheless potentially hazardous items to be kept from children. We have made a reasonable social decision, I think, that the benefits of the automobile outweigh its harm; yet that has not prevented us from honestly acknowledging its harm and the perfectly plain fact that how roads and cars are designed and regulated have an enormous impact on death and injury, completely apart from human volition. (Per capita auto-related fatalities are today half what they were in 1950; deaths per vehicle-mile have dropped sixfold, almost entirely through technological modifications.)
Yet only when it comes to guns do people attempt, usually furiously, to deny that anything but individual responsibility matters, as I mentioned the other day. If we are ever to have a real discussion on this topic, we need to begin with the simple admission that guns â like drugs, medicines, cars, power tools, ski helmets, and every other piece of technology in the universe â can be built and employed in ways that are inherently safer or ways that are less safe.
I would not deny that one can construct a plausible argument for benefits of even widespread gun ownership. But that there may be benefits does not mean that the costs magically vanish, nor that the same practical-mindedness that has brought us speed limits, guard rails, and steering wheels that do not plunge through the driver's chest somehow must cease to operate in the case of the single technology of firearms, a technology whose fundamental technological purpose after all is the efficient infliction of fatal injury. |
|
|
|
01/17/2011 04:51:28 PM · #385 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
A very rational take on the issue, I think:
Mindless Technology
No rational person would deny that human volition and responsibility play a significant part in the fatal outcomes of any human-technology interaction, whether it is taking heroin or driving a car recklessly or pointing a nail gun at one's head. But likewise no rational person would deny that technology plays a part as well. We require prescriptions for drugs with potentially harmful side-effects; we make it a crime to buy and use heroin; we certainly require many inanimate but nonetheless potentially hazardous items to be kept from children. We have made a reasonable social decision, I think, that the benefits of the automobile outweigh its harm; yet that has not prevented us from honestly acknowledging its harm and the perfectly plain fact that how roads and cars are designed and regulated have an enormous impact on death and injury, completely apart from human volition. (Per capita auto-related fatalities are today half what they were in 1950; deaths per vehicle-mile have dropped sixfold, almost entirely through technological modifications.)
Yet only when it comes to guns do people attempt, usually furiously, to deny that anything but individual responsibility matters, as I mentioned the other day. If we are ever to have a real discussion on this topic, we need to begin with the simple admission that guns â like drugs, medicines, cars, power tools, ski helmets, and every other piece of technology in the universe â can be built and employed in ways that are inherently safer or ways that are less safe.
I would not deny that one can construct a plausible argument for benefits of even widespread gun ownership. But that there may be benefits does not mean that the costs magically vanish, nor that the same practical-mindedness that has brought us speed limits, guard rails, and steering wheels that do not plunge through the driver's chest somehow must cease to operate in the case of the single technology of firearms, a technology whose fundamental technological purpose after all is the efficient infliction of fatal injury. |
As I see it, the problem is that while steering wheels might have once not had a break joint to keep it from slamming through your body, that's a mechanical issue, one that has a solution, guard rails, again mechanical issue... Etc..
Guns actually VERY rarely malfunction and injure the user, they are built to a very good standard of safety (for example, my 1911 mk IV has no less than six safety mechanisms built in, grip safety, sear disconnect, slide stop, half cock position, firing pin block, and manual safety..) and as such, there is very little mechanical, or engineered improvement to be made..
Argue it as you wish, but guns are typically built fine, quite as safe as something can be while still being usable - especially considering that the design is actually meant to cause a controlled explosion in your hand, and thereby send lead flying through the air at high rates of speed.. Indeed, the reason this argument always turns to personal responsibility is because that's where the failure usually lies, not in the engineering...
I guess that I could just boil this down Slippy style into "Engineers can't fix people"...
Message edited by author 2011-01-17 16:52:07. |
|
|
|
01/18/2011 09:57:00 AM · #386 |
The idea is that guns can be "built and employed in ways that are inherently safer or ways that are less safe." You are focusing on the safety engineering of the product itself (guns/cars/etc.), there may still be innovations to made in that respect, but the firearm equivalent of speed limits and guard rails would be things like waiting periods, registration, elimination of non-licensed sales, and perhaps even certain legal reforms that clarify liability when firearms are used inappropriately.
These things do not impinge on a responsible citizen's ability to own a gun, but simply impose certain safeguards meant to introduce some offsets for the societal costs that arise from our decision to support the individual right to own a gun.
Originally posted by coryboehne:
As I see it, the problem is that while steering wheels might have once not had a break joint to keep it from slamming through your body, that's a mechanical issue, one that has a solution, guard rails, again mechanical issue... Etc..
Guns actually VERY rarely malfunction and injure the user, they are built to a very good standard of safety (for example, my 1911 mk IV has no less than six safety mechanisms built in, grip safety, sear disconnect, slide stop, half cock position, firing pin block, and manual safety..) and as such, there is very little mechanical, or engineered improvement to be made..
Argue it as you wish, but guns are typically built fine, quite as safe as something can be while still being usable - especially considering that the design is actually meant to cause a controlled explosion in your hand, and thereby send lead flying through the air at high rates of speed.. Indeed, the reason this argument always turns to personal responsibility is because that's where the failure usually lies, not in the engineering...
I guess that I could just boil this down Slippy style into "Engineers can't fix people"... |
Message edited by author 2011-01-18 09:57:39. |
|
|
|
01/18/2011 10:02:29 AM · #387 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
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 |
BTW - just saw this on the local news site this morning. link He spent time in jail just for having a gun in NJ while passing through. |
|
|
|
02/03/2011 10:07:19 AM · #388 |
Brief resurrection... gun laws in NJ can be on the tough side, but this is taking things a bit too far... 7 year old arrested for toy gun
Message edited by author 2011-02-03 10:07:30. |
|
|
|
02/03/2011 10:32:25 AM · #389 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Brief resurrection... gun laws in NJ can be on the tough side, but this is taking things a bit too far... 7 year old arrested for toy gun |
That little gangbanger was probably going to hold someone up for their lollipop! |
|
|
|
02/03/2011 11:33:40 AM · #390 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Brief resurrection... gun laws in NJ can be on the tough side, but this is taking things a bit too far... 7 year old arrested for toy gun |
Oh, wonderful, yeah, put a lifelong blight on a kid for playing with a toy.
What scum. |
|
|
|
02/03/2011 11:40:08 AM · #391 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Brief resurrection... gun laws in NJ can be on the tough side, but this is taking things a bit too far... 7 year old arrested for toy gun |
Oh, wonderful, yeah, put a lifelong blight on a kid for playing with a toy. |
"Lifelong blight"?
Police charged the 7-year-old with possessing an imitation firearm in or on an education institution â a misdemeanor and a minor juvenile offense in New Jersey.
School officials described the child as "a nice kid" and "a good student." Authorities haven't commented on what specific disciplinary action or punishment the boy faces though it could involve counseling and other resources made available to the family.
Now, personally, I think this is a silly, a silly overreaction on the part of the people who make these rules, but you're overreacting too with "lifelong blight", it's just a misdemeanor and it won't mean squat.
R. |
|
|
|
02/03/2011 12:08:32 PM · #392 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Brief resurrection... gun laws in NJ can be on the tough side, but this is taking things a bit too far... 7 year old arrested for toy gun |
Oh, wonderful, yeah, put a lifelong blight on a kid for playing with a toy. |
"Lifelong blight"?
Police charged the 7-year-old with possessing an imitation firearm in or on an education institution â a misdemeanor and a minor juvenile offense in New Jersey.
School officials described the child as "a nice kid" and "a good student." Authorities haven't commented on what specific disciplinary action or punishment the boy faces though it could involve counseling and other resources made available to the family.
Now, personally, I think this is a silly, a silly overreaction on the part of the people who make these rules, but you're overreacting too with "lifelong blight", it's just a misdemeanor and it won't mean squat.
R. |
You sure about that one Robert? There are a large number of ways this can (and will) follow a person through life.
Even misdemeanors can be very costly, just look at what a few tickets can do to your insurance rates.
ETA: I'd like to believe that the fact his is a minor will eventually result in this being purged from his record, but.... I always suspect that nothing is really ever truly purged.
Message edited by author 2011-02-03 12:09:50. |
|
|
|
02/03/2011 12:46:08 PM · #393 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
I'd like to believe that the fact his is a minor will eventually result in this being purged from his record, but.... I always suspect that nothing is really ever truly purged. |
I have reasonable faith in the purging; I've certainly seen it often enough... I donno if everything gets purged, all the time, and I have *heard* rumors of supposedly purged records coming back to haunt one, but it seems to be quite rare, actually.
R. |
|
|
|
02/03/2011 01:18:12 PM · #394 |
|
|
|
02/03/2011 04:40:50 PM · #395 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
I'd like to believe that the fact his is a minor will eventually result in this being purged from his record, but.... I always suspect that nothing is really ever truly purged. |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I have reasonable faith in the purging; I've certainly seen it often enough... I donno if everything gets purged, all the time, and I have *heard* rumors of supposedly purged records coming back to haunt one, but it seems to be quite rare, actually.
R. |
Uh....no.....
From firsthand experience I can tell you that supposedly expunged records do not always disappear......including it being duly recorded when charges are dismissed.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2011 05:14:18 PM · #396 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Uh....no.....
From firsthand experience I can tell you that supposedly expunged records do not always disappear......including it being duly recorded when charges are dismissed. |
And because YOU have experienced it, it's not relatively rare? Yours was actually one of the implied examples I was using in "I have *heard*", but on the other hand I've known, personally, individuals with juvenile records who have apparently moved unscathed through their adult lives with the past squarely behind them...
Any time supposedly expunged records resurface, that is of course a Very Bad Thing, at many levels, but that doesn't mean it's the rule...
R. |
|
|
|
02/03/2011 08:23:39 PM · #397 |
| Darn it GeneralE, why you gotta always post tasteless images of guns in a gun thread? |
|
|
|
02/03/2011 08:36:03 PM · #398 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Uh....no.....
From firsthand experience I can tell you that supposedly expunged records do not always disappear......including it being duly recorded when charges are dismissed. |
And because YOU have experienced it, it's not relatively rare? Yours was actually one of the implied examples I was using in "I have *heard*", but on the other hand I've known, personally, individuals with juvenile records who have apparently moved unscathed through their adult lives with the past squarely behind them...
Any time supposedly expunged records resurface, that is of course a Very Bad Thing, at many levels, but that doesn't mean it's the rule...
R. |
I know of another one -- similar but different. When my sister was 16, she ended up with some charges against her. It never went to court, and was supposedly dropped, never to be heard from again.
When she was 22 or 23, she had an "issue" that she had to report to the FBI. The agent called her to verify some facts and then said, "Okay, Ms. V----, I see here you've had a bit of a run-in with the law as well when you were younger."
So, her's wasn't technically "expunged," and it WAS the FBI, but yeah, I doubt anything really ever goes completely away. |
|
|
|
02/03/2011 08:41:04 PM · #399 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Darn it GeneralE, why you gotta always post tasteless images of guns in a gun thread? |
Yes, I can't tell you how completely tasteless it seems to me to show off weapons during a discussion of... uhh... weapons. My delicate sensibilities have been severely bruised.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2011 09:31:07 PM · #400 |
never mind. too nasty
Message edited by author 2011-02-03 21:34:33. |
|
