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

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Is this hypocrisy?
Pages:   ...
Showing posts 101 - 125 of 1154, (reverse)
AuthorThread
01/03/2013 04:27:12 PM · #101
Originally posted by robs:

Originally posted by Cory:

Wanna talk about straw man arguments? Let's start with the use of 'need'.. I don't need guns, of any sort... you don't need a car, especially one that can exceed 75mph. Need really isn't what's important.

There is no public transportation that goes where I "need" to go and it's too far to walk/pedal.... Without a car how would I get there. If your job involved using a gun for say killing animals for food, then I have no issue you having one (with certain checks and licencing and restrictions on use).

There is a speed LIMIT on cars that is enforced - that's a restriction on my use of a car for public safety.... ring a bell at all??


Driving is a privilege granted citizens by the state, not a right guaranteed to the citizens. The requirements for placing restrictions on privileges are much lower than for restricting rights. That's the difference.

01/03/2013 04:40:02 PM · #102
Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

why anyone gives a sh*t what "celebrities" think is just another symptom of what is wrong with our society. I value what they say far less than the opinions posted here (even Shannon's!) ;-)

Exactly. The opinions of celebrities means squat to me. But there are people who look up to them and make decisions based on what their favorite actor thinks. As silly as that sounds. And they are highly visible and can get an opinion heard. It got us talking about it, right?

I'd rather hear more talk about fixing THAT, than gun bans.


But the solution to that *is* to ban guns. Do that and gun violence goes away and with that 98% of all Hollywood scripts. No more actors. No more celebrity fans. Problem solved.


Ban motor vehicles and highways deaths go away. Ban alcohol and tobacco and those deaths go away too. We could ban fast/junk food, sugary snacks/sodas and take out diabetes, heart disease and a host of other modern health problems...and since people would be walking more, the obesity rates would drop and general public health would increase drastically too. That probably doesn't go far enough we could mandate that the whole world be foam padded...

Message edited by author 2013-01-03 16:40:21.
01/03/2013 04:42:20 PM · #103
Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by robs:

Originally posted by Cory:

Wanna talk about straw man arguments? Let's start with the use of 'need'.. I don't need guns, of any sort... you don't need a car, especially one that can exceed 75mph. Need really isn't what's important.

There is no public transportation that goes where I "need" to go and it's too far to walk/pedal.... Without a car how would I get there. If your job involved using a gun for say killing animals for food, then I have no issue you having one (with certain checks and licencing and restrictions on use).

There is a speed LIMIT on cars that is enforced - that's a restriction on my use of a car for public safety.... ring a bell at all??


Driving is a privilege granted citizens by the state, not a right guaranteed to the citizens. The requirements for placing restrictions on privileges are much lower than for restricting rights. That's the difference.


Agreed, and yet, guns and cars have a similar level of restrictions on ownership (actually, more -as a felon can own a car and have a drivers license, as can the mentally insane).. Yet, for some strange reason, which honestly baffles me, people seem to deeply believe that a few more gun laws will solve the issues we face. Honestly just bewilders the shit out of me. These same people who are loud and proud in their support of anti-gun legislation would be screaming to high heaven if the legislation was seeking to limit the top speed of all cars, or to place tracking devices on all vehicles that reported location and speed to the authorities.... Despite the fact that both of those measures would be certain to save FAR more lives than any gun legislation (including a full ban) ever will.

*shrug*
01/03/2013 04:43:10 PM · #104
Originally posted by Spork99:

Driving is a privilege granted citizens by the state, not a right guaranteed to the citizens. The requirements for placing restrictions on privileges are much lower than for restricting rights. That's the difference.

Rather curious that driving is a privilege that can be revoked, but being able to carry a lethal weapon in public is a right.
01/03/2013 04:43:52 PM · #105
Again, a point worth repeating:

I value freedom and liberty far more than I value a (real or false) sense of security.

01/03/2013 04:47:39 PM · #106
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:

Originally posted by Spork99:

Driving is a privilege granted citizens by the state, not a right guaranteed to the citizens. The requirements for placing restrictions on privileges are much lower than for restricting rights. That's the difference.

Rather curious that driving is a privilege that can be revoked, but being able to carry a lethal weapon in public is a right.


Is it really a right anymore? I mean, it's not a right for a LARGE swath of the population. (felons, drug addicts, mentally ill, <18 yrs old or <21 yrs old, etc)... Seems to me that this has already been regulated to the point that it's more of a privilege than a right.

Funny enough, my own mother is a convicted felon who owns guns, and the cops are aware, and do not seem to care. What say you about this point? Effectively until we start actually enforcing the laws that exist, new laws won't do shit but allow the cops another opportunity to label people as "criminals" and providing new inmates for the prison industry.

Good business for sure, but a shit idea from the standpoint of liberty/freedom.
01/03/2013 04:50:33 PM · #107
Originally posted by Spork99:

Ban motor vehicles and highways deaths go away. Ban alcohol and tobacco and those deaths go away too. We could ban fast/junk food, sugary snacks/sodas and take out diabetes, heart disease and a host of other modern health problems...and since people would be walking more, the obesity rates would drop and general public health would increase drastically too. That probably doesn't go far enough we could mandate that the whole world be foam padded...


YEAH I have always wanted to live in a foam padded world...Bouncing off walls...jumping out of windows into the foam....It would be like a huge foam party...We could prob learn from the bars in Ibiza Spain on how to accomplish this.....Ban all the clothes too...seeing how everyone will be healthy and in shape from banning everything.
01/03/2013 04:50:54 PM · #108
Originally posted by Spork99:

Driving is a privilege granted citizens by the state, not a right guaranteed to the citizens. The requirements for placing restrictions on privileges are much lower than for restricting rights.

Actually, the non-specific right to travel that courts have interpreted from the liberty and due process sections of the 5th amendment is just as applicable to driving a particular vehicle as the non-specific right to bear arms is to owning a particular gun. You have no more guaranteed right to possess assault weapons and high capacity magazines than you do to drive a tank on public roads. Your gun permit may be revoked as assuredly as your driver's license.

Message edited by author 2013-01-03 16:52:47.
01/03/2013 05:11:37 PM · #109

Originally posted by scalvert:

Mandatory trigger locks, a national gun registry that can be cross referenced against violent felons and mental patients, safe storage requirements, licenses and a minimum standard of safety training like we have for car owners, shunning all recognition of perpetrators, help for the mentally ill (the polar opposite of cutting social services), rewards for reporting illegal firearms, licensed sales only, ban assault rifles and high capacity magazines, journalistic integrity standards for broadcast to reduce hatred and paranoia (intentionally lies can be expressed, but cannot be labeled news)... There are no shortage of ideas that can make a difference while preserving the right to gun ownership, only a shortage of the political courage to make it happen.


I'm just going to beat on you for fun here.

Mandatory Trigger locks
- Already mandatory - can't buy a gun without it.
National Gun Registry - Already in place in many areas (see the recent gun owner map)
Licences - Again, already in place in some areas (and has proven ineffective, as these are often the highest gun crime areas as previously pointed out)
Minimum standard for safety - What do you mean exactly by Minimum - I think we're already beyond minimum, and well within moderate
Shunning perps - GREAT Idea (no beating here)
Help for mentally ill - We fail here hardcore today, also a grand idea - but probably somewhat impossible to implement.
Rewards for illegal firearms - Already in place - see Crimestoppers.
Licenced Sales only - Criminals won't care - but then again, neither do I - this would be acceptable to me, even if it is extremely unlikely to make any difference..
Ban Assault Rifles and HiCap Mags - I really think this is the height of ignorance - first, define "assault rifle" in such a way that it won't affect a huge number of guns that are by all means intended for enjoyment, not assault. Secondly, explain to me what difference you really feel this will make. It takes me about 1-2 seconds to reload a new mag, so how is an additional 3-6 seconds going to matter in an incident that lasts minutes or hours?
Journalistic Integrity - this ship sailed a LONG time ago. Journalists are more powerful than politicians, for you to expect impartiality is the nadir of insanity.

In the end, here is my best argument:

My mother is a convicted felon who is a known drug addict and mentally ill. Yet the police know she owns firearms, and fail to do anything about it (even going so far as to question my Father about returning a shotgun to her that she pawned to him a year or two ago.)

Now, given that this particular woman owns firearms, why, oh, why should I even consider supporting new laws that would further restrict the ownership of firearms, given that the laws which are already in place are clearly ignored by both criminals and law enforcement?

Answer that, and you'll be a lot closer to convincing me of the legitimacy of your proposal.
01/03/2013 05:15:51 PM · #110
Ha! Check this out. I was logged off of DP on my phone and before logging in I noticed this ad at the top of the page. That's a nice code that targets ads to the topic!

DPchallenge supports guns?
01/03/2013 05:20:44 PM · #111
hey ' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21.gif', '/') + 1) . ' Cory I agree with almost everything you say...Trigger locks are not mandatory everywhere. I just bought a weapon that did not come with one....I guess I could go buy one but I leave the magizine out of it with nothing in the chamber
01/03/2013 05:21:30 PM · #112
Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Mandatory trigger locks, a national gun registry that can be cross referenced against violent felons and mental patients, safe storage requirements, licenses and a minimum standard of safety training like we have for car owners, shunning all recognition of perpetrators, help for the mentally ill (the polar opposite of cutting social services), rewards for reporting illegal firearms, licensed sales only, ban assault rifles and high capacity magazines, journalistic integrity standards for broadcast to reduce hatred and paranoia (intentionally lies can be expressed, but cannot be labeled news)... There are no shortage of ideas that can make a difference while preserving the right to gun ownership, only a shortage of the political courage to make it happen.


I'm just going to beat on you for fun here.

Mandatory Trigger locks
- Already mandatory - can't buy a gun without it.
National Gun Registry - Already in place in many areas (see the recent gun owner map)
Licences - Again, already in place in some areas (and has proven ineffective, as these are often the highest gun crime areas as previously pointed out)
Minimum standard for safety - What do you mean exactly by Minimum - I think we're already beyond minimum, and well within moderate
Shunning perps - GREAT Idea (no beating here)
Help for mentally ill - We fail here hardcore today, also a grand idea - but probably somewhat impossible to implement.
Rewards for illegal firearms - Already in place - see Crimestoppers.
Licenced Sales only - Criminals won't care - but then again, neither do I - this would be acceptable to me, even if it is extremely unlikely to make any difference..
Ban Assault Rifles and HiCap Mags - I really think this is the height of ignorance - first, define "assault rifle" in such a way that it won't affect a huge number of guns that are by all means intended for enjoyment, not assault. Secondly, explain to me what difference you really feel this will make. It takes me about 1-2 seconds to reload a new mag, so how is an additional 3-6 seconds going to matter in an incident that lasts minutes or hours?
Journalistic Integrity - this ship sailed a LONG time ago. Journalists are more powerful than politicians, for you to expect impartiality is the nadir of insanity.

In the end, here is my best argument:

My mother is a convicted felon who is a known drug addict and mentally ill. Yet the police know she owns firearms, and fail to do anything about it (even going so far as to question my Father about returning a shotgun to her that she pawned to him a year or two ago.)

Now, given that this particular woman owns firearms, why, oh, why should I even consider supporting new laws that would further restrict the ownership of firearms, given that the laws which are already in place are clearly ignored by both criminals and law enforcement?

Answer that, and you'll be a lot closer to convincing me of the legitimacy of your proposal.


although you have myriad anecdotal evidence regarding your own perceived "need for a gun" -which may in fact be valid, most if not the large majority would benefit from there being less guns on the street, as long as it may take, and certainly the Sandy Hook individuals would have benefited from a world with less "blowing some steam off" target shooters.
01/03/2013 05:38:48 PM · #113
Originally posted by blindjustice:


...most if not the large majority would benefit from there being less guns on the street, as long as it may take, and certainly the Sandy Hook individuals would have benefited from a world with less "blowing some steam off" target shooters.


I don't know that you are correct. I don't know that you're incorrect either - but it seems a poor bargain to pay a fee (giving up rights), for the chance at improvement.

You have a confidence in the system that I lack.

Given, as I have said, that my mother owns firearms, and is in no less than three of the disqualifying categories, how would being in violation of a fourth law really change anything?
01/03/2013 05:50:44 PM · #114
The other link didn't work. But here is a better AD that I saw on DP.

CONCEALED CARRY.

Originally posted by kenskid:

Ha! Check this out. I was logged off of DP on my phone and before logging in I noticed this ad at the top of the page. That's a nice code that targets ads to the topic!

DPchallenge supports guns?
01/03/2013 05:56:32 PM · #115
Originally posted by Cory:

I'm just going to beat on you for fun here.

You'll have to do better than that... perhaps with valid rebuttals?

Mandatory Trigger locks - Already mandatory - can't buy a gun without it.
Only for the sale itself, not for use or storage.
National Gun Registry - Already in place in many areas (see the recent gun owner map)
By law, this is not computerized or cross referenced as it is for driver's licenses.
Licences - Again, already in place in some areas (and has proven ineffective, as these are often the highest gun crime areas as previously pointed out)
Only 5 states require a license to own a gun. How effective do you think driver's licenses would be if you didn't need one in surrounding states? The one license state without this issue is Hawaii... which ranks at or near the bottom for gun violence (and last for murder) despite being 12th in overall crime.
Minimum standard for safety - What do you mean exactly by Minimum - I think we're already beyond minimum, and well within moderate
Driving requires training, liability insurance and a supervised competency test. Using a tool designed to kill should require at least as much.
Help for mentally ill - We fail here hardcore today, also a grand idea - but probably somewhat impossible to implement.
Typically among the first in line for budget cuts– the natural consequence of vilifying "socialism."
Rewards for illegal firearms - Already in place - see Crimestoppers.
A non-profit funded by donations is not the same as official support.
Licenced Sales only - Criminals won't care - but then again, neither do I - this would be acceptable to me, even if it is extremely unlikely to make any difference.
Approximately 80% of gun sales are private/unlicensed, thereby circumventing any background check, trigger lock requirement, etc. File this under "Duh."
Ban Assault Rifles and HiCap Mags - I really think this is the height of ignorance - first, define "assault rifle" in such a way that it won't affect a huge number of guns that are by all means intended for enjoyment, not assault. Secondly, explain to me what difference you really feel this will make. It takes me about 1-2 seconds to reload a new mag, so how is an additional 3-6 seconds going to matter in an incident that lasts minutes or hours?
Already implemented and proven effective in other countries. The Arizona shooter was stopped because he had to reload, and the Aurora shooter was able to kill more people thanks to magazines that would have been banned under the lapsed 2004 law.
Journalistic Integrity - this ship sailed a LONG time ago. Journalists are more powerful than politicians, for you to expect impartiality is the nadir of insanity.
This will happen eventually as journalists otherwise undermine their own credibility.

In the end, here is my best argument:... why, oh, why should I even consider supporting new laws that would further restrict the ownership of firearms, given that the laws which are already in place are clearly ignored by both criminals and law enforcement?
Anecdotal. You can probably find examples of authorities failing to act against known abuse of ANY law, but that doesn't disprove the merit of a law. If I had a crazy aunt working at a restaurant and a health inspector failed to act when she didn't wash her hands, does that mean sanitation laws are completely ineffective? BTW- that would be a Class 4 felony and repeat offense for your mother if caught thanks to your now public post.

Message edited by author 2013-01-03 18:10:09.
01/03/2013 06:04:40 PM · #116
Originally posted by heavyj:

The first video is a PSA of celebs who are asking for better gun control laws. It's a serious piece:
The Serious Video

and then there's this video, which is a 'parody' of the above video showing the celebs in movies and shows where they are using guns, being violent and making fun of gun use in some cases.
The 'Parody' Video (There is some violence, so if you have kids or are at work, it may not be entirely work safe.

hypocrisy? Some are saying definitely yes...myself I say no, not at all. My opinion is that there's room for violence in creating art, comedy, action etc. Some go 'overboard' some are very creative, but I still think it all falls within the realm of fiction and that normal people know this. Now, had the parody video show actual acts of violence committed by the celebs in the video, that would've been hypocrisy. Having Steve Carell's character from The Office pull out a couple of handguns and shoot at some randomly...I don't see that as being a hypocrite.

Anybody with an opinion on these videos?


It is hypocrisy. The bottom line is...if you are going to preach a belief, then don't turn around and do things, make movies, commercials, etc. that promote what you say you are against. Its no different than a cop taking the oath to protect and to serve, then turn around and be a thief or robber, etc. Or to be real, Obamacare being passed because its good enough for the people but congress exempting themselves from it.The 2nd amendment rules!!!!!!!!!

Message edited by author 2013-01-03 18:35:06.
01/03/2013 06:13:50 PM · #117
Originally posted by scalvert:



In the end, here is my best argument:... why, oh, why should I even consider supporting new laws that would further restrict the ownership of firearms, given that the laws which are already in place are clearly ignored by both criminals and law enforcement?
Anecdotal. You can probably find examples of authorities failing to act against known abuse of ANY law, but that doesn't disprove the merit of a law. If I had a crazy aunt working at a restaurant and a health inspector failed to act when she didn't wash her hands, does that mean sanitation laws are completely ineffective?


So... Your solution, in the end, is to legislate new laws, believing that they will be effective where the existing laws are not?

How, exactly, is this superior to simply enforcing the myriad of laws that are already in force? I don't think a single one of these incidents has been carried off with legal guns, and in an otherwise lawful manner.

Your solution sounds good, until you actually look at the reality of enforcement, it seems that you have equated a law being created with that law being enforced effectively.

In reality, new laws like this are often used to stomp on the rights of your average citizen, while doing little or nothing to actually curb the problem you seek to address.

And, yes, I do think my anecdotal evidence is powerful - my own mother is disallowed from owning firearms on multiple accounts, behaves in a threatening manner, and has recently threatened everyone I love or care about, along with my property and animals just for good measure. Yet, the police won't bother with enforcing the law, despite the obvious need to do so in this situation. I ask you again, if the cops don't bother to enforce laws that are already in place, what good will new laws do?

Your rebuttal was that food safety laws are sometimes ignored - but in reality the actual enforcement there is arguably better than firearms enforcement. (I've turned in a restaurant for a huge roach infestation here in Miami, and they were indeed cited and forced to fix the operation.. As a matter of a fact, it took less than 24 hours....)

So, basically, I'm saying that creating new laws is the height of wishful thinking, whereas somehow forcing the enforcement of existing laws would probably be at least marginally successful.

How can you argue with that?
01/03/2013 06:14:48 PM · #118
Originally posted by rugman1969:

if you are going to preach a belief, then don't turn around and do things, make movies, commercials, etc. that promote what you say you are against.

Sort of like the NRA declaring a need for guns because the government can't be trusted and then calling for government security in every school...
01/03/2013 06:52:05 PM · #119
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:

Originally posted by Spork99:

Driving is a privilege granted citizens by the state, not a right guaranteed to the citizens. The requirements for placing restrictions on privileges are much lower than for restricting rights. That's the difference.

Rather curious that driving is a privilege that can be revoked, but being able to carry a lethal weapon in public is a right.


Carrying that weapon IS far more restricted than driving.
01/03/2013 06:54:58 PM · #120
Originally posted by kenskid:

Ha! Check this out. I was logged off of DP...


Was that because you were trying to logging in as ' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/31.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/31.gif', '/') + 1) . ' rugman1969? I swear you two must be joined at the hip.
01/03/2013 07:06:02 PM · #121
Originally posted by kenskid:

The other link didn't work. But here is a better AD that I saw on DP.

CONCEALED CARRY.

Originally posted by kenskid:

Ha! Check this out. I was logged off of DP on my phone and before logging in I noticed this ad at the top of the page. That's a nice code that targets ads to the topic!

DPchallenge supports guns?


those ads are target at you from your browsing history etc, ive never had one about shooting......
01/03/2013 07:11:46 PM · #122
Originally posted by Cory:

So... Your solution, in the end, is to legislate new laws, believing that they will be effective where the existing laws are not?

Yes, as you yourself conveniently acknowledged:

Originally posted by Cory:

food safety laws are sometimes ignored - but in reality the actual enforcement there is arguably better than firearms enforcement.

When existing laws are so easy to circumvent (private sales to dodge background checks, manufacture dates and meaningless style changes to dodge the former assault weapons ban, inconsistent state laws to dodge any meaningful neighbor state restrictions, etc.) enforcement becomes a moot point.
01/03/2013 07:12:12 PM · #123
I am not a fan of guns, never have been (really I wished there were no guns in the world at all), but in the case of Sandy Hook, no restrictive law
would have prevented the tragedy! There was a woman who knew how ill her child was, who legally
owned and used guns and yet she purposely and willfully allowed this mentally ill child to
use and train with a deadly weapon. All the gun control in the world could not protect us from
the ramification that this kind of parenting produced.
I think it is sad that the world is using what happened in Sandy Hook as a political platform
to get their way?!
01/03/2013 07:24:14 PM · #124
Originally posted by antje1777:

...in the case of Sandy Hook, no restrictive law would have prevented the tragedy! There was a woman who knew how ill her child was, who legally owned and used guns and yet she purposely and willfully allowed this mentally ill child to use and train with a deadly weapon.

...with an assault rifle and high-capacity magazines, improper storage, no trigger locks, unrestricted ammunition, in a household with a high risk individual... any or all of which could have been mitigated by law. People also purposely and willfully put babies in cars without child seats until there was a law against it.
01/03/2013 07:28:31 PM · #125
Originally posted by antje1777:

.... All the gun control in the world could not protect us from
the ramification that this kind of parenting produced.


Actually, the laws in Canada regarding, ownership, storage, conveyance, and magazine capacity would make this type of carnage a tad more difficult.

Originally posted by antje1777:

I think it is sad that the world is using what happened in Sandy Hook as a political platform to get their way?!


The NRA already has lobbyists... the general population can only make representation to their politicians.... where is the problem with the latter?

Ray
Pages:   ...
Current Server Time: 01/27/2021 09:50:05 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2021 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 01/27/2021 09:50:05 AM EST.