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

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Is this hypocrisy?
Pages:   ...
Showing posts 126 - 150 of 1154, (reverse)
AuthorThread
01/03/2013 07:34:01 PM · #126
I somewhat agree, but does it not take a responsible parent to make sure the child is in a seat belt? The law is not making that happen, each individual following the law makes that happen.
As in Sandy Hook, was it not the mother's responsibility to keep her mentally ill child from getting access to weapons? Assault rifles or other, does not really matter. She was the only one that could have prevented this tragedy from happening, not any gun law... By the way, I believe that would have just been common sense, that does not even require a law!

Originally posted by scalvert:

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.


Message edited by author 2013-01-03 19:40:12.
01/03/2013 07:39:28 PM · #127
Originally posted by antje1777:

does it not take a responsible parent to make sure the child is in a seat belt? The law is not making that happen, each individual following the law makes that happen.

If that were true (or effective), then car seat laws would not have been necessary. Each individual cannot follow a law until it exists.
01/03/2013 07:43:06 PM · #128
Scalvert, I have children and I made them put a seat belt on before there even was a law, because I love them and their safety has always been of utmost importance to me. I did not need the government to tell me that I should keep my children safe.

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by antje1777:

does it not take a responsible parent to make sure the child is in a seat belt? The law is not making that happen, each individual following the law makes that happen.

If that were true (or effective), then car seat laws would not have been necessary. Each individual cannot follow a law until it exists.
01/03/2013 07:44:17 PM · #129
Originally posted by scalvert:

.......... People also purposely and willfully put babies in cars without child seats until there was a law against it.


Yep, that solved that problem didn't it?
01/03/2013 07:45:25 PM · #130
Originally posted by scalvert:

If that were true (or effective), then car seat laws would not have been necessary. Each individual cannot follow a law until it exists.


They might try using their head and some common sense.
01/03/2013 07:49:11 PM · #131
Originally posted by David Ey:

Originally posted by scalvert:

.......... People also purposely and willfully put babies in cars without child seats until there was a law against it.

Yep, that solved that problem didn't it?

Yes, and dramatically so.
01/03/2013 07:49:29 PM · #132
Originally posted by scalvert:

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.


Re-read what I said.

They enforce food safety laws a hell of a lot better than gun laws.
01/03/2013 07:50:51 PM · #133
Dang, I thought it was still happening.
01/03/2013 07:50:59 PM · #134
Originally posted by scalvert:

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.


BUT, BUT, BUT!!!

Shannon - he broke 41 laws that day, do you seriously think 1, 5, or even 1000 more would have stopped him?

01/03/2013 07:52:43 PM · #135
Originally posted by David Ey:

Originally posted by scalvert:

If that were true (or effective), then car seat laws would not have been necessary. Each individual cannot follow a law until it exists.

They might try using their head and some common sense.

Common sense has never proven to be as effective as legal requirement.
01/03/2013 07:54:39 PM · #136
I wasn't trying to make a legal argument Albert.
01/03/2013 07:57:44 PM · #137
Originally posted by Cory:

Shannon - he broke 41 laws that day, do you seriously think 1, 5, or even 1000 more would have stopped him?

None of those laws would have required HIS compliance to be effective. If the gun owner, who apparently DID follow the law, could not have bought an assault rifle or extended magazines, had installed trigger locks and had the guns secured in a way that he couldn't access them, then whether or not the lunatic follows the law is irrelevant.
01/03/2013 07:58:18 PM · #138
Originally posted by David Ey:

I wasn't trying to make a legal argument Albert.

I'd settle for coherent one.
01/03/2013 07:59:16 PM · #139
Look face it people.... Liberals have one of two solutions for every problem...Raise taxes or ban it....There is never a push to fix the problem or enforce the current laws
01/03/2013 08:00:18 PM · #140
Originally posted by Cory:

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?

They enforce food safety laws a hell of a lot better than gun laws.

Therefore existing gun laws, including enforcement requirements, could be more effective. Check.
01/03/2013 08:00:39 PM · #141
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by David Ey:

Originally posted by scalvert:

.......... People also purposely and willfully put babies in cars without child seats until there was a law against it.

Yep, that solved that problem didn't it?

Yes, and dramatically so.


Dramatically so? I doubt the veracity of your claims.

//www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/child_passenger_safety/cps-factsheet.html

When you really look at all of the facts there, in context, you'll find that it's making something like a 20% difference at a maximum - without any accounting for the advances in automotive safety systems that have occurred.

Now, 20% isn't insignificant, but it's certainly not "dramatic" either. If gun control worked as well as child safety seats (a rather lofty expectation I think), then you would have prevented 1 out of 5 incidents - pick the one, but you'd still be whining that more gun laws are needed to stop the other 4. Once guns are banned entirely, then your argument would, no doubt, shift to whatever you next perceived as the problem.

My problem with this is that I feel you're simply overlooking the problem: people. They are unpredictable, violent, and capable of fantastically egregious acts. The lack of weapons might stop some of those who are acting on impulse, but chances are that many will still find a way.

The day that you decided your safety was more important than your freedom was an honest tragedy. What's even more tragic is that you'd argue to restrict freedoms (for which many died) in an ill-conceived bid to prevent violence perpetrated by the most horrible offenders mankind has to offer. (who will almost certainly ignore laws or find alternative methods)
01/03/2013 08:01:19 PM · #142
Yes!
01/03/2013 08:02:00 PM · #143
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Cory:

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?

They enforce food safety laws a hell of a lot better than gun laws.

Therefore existing gun laws, including enforcement requirements, could be more effective. Check.


Well hell. We finally have found common ground!

I agree with you wholeheartedly, and am very pleased to do so.
01/03/2013 08:02:42 PM · #144
Cory, you may as well not try to correct a f'ing clown who knows everything.
01/03/2013 08:03:43 PM · #145
Originally posted by Cory:

Dramatically so? I doubt the veracity of your claims.

Your link: "Child safety seats reduce the risk of death in passenger cars by 71% for infants, and by 54% for toddlers ages 1 to 4 years."
01/03/2013 08:15:46 PM · #146
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by antje1777:

does it not take a responsible parent to make sure the child is in a seat belt? The law is not making that happen, each individual following the law makes that happen.

If that were true (or effective), then car seat laws would not have been necessary. Each individual cannot follow a law until it exists.


Are seatbelts (not child seats) a good example though? I seem to recall reading something years ago about how seatbelts have not reduced fatalities but rather may have led to an increase in reckless driving. I forget the term it's called but a similar thing seems to happen in sports where increasing the protective gear athletes wear tend to lead to an increase in aggessiveness and physical behavior on the field.

Message edited by author 2013-01-03 20:17:31.
01/03/2013 08:25:57 PM · #147
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Cory:

Dramatically so? I doubt the veracity of your claims.

Your link: "Child safety seats reduce the risk of death in passenger cars by 71% for infants, and by 54% for toddlers ages 1 to 4 years."


Congrats... You've just proven that you either read in such a manner that you ignore the context, or you've proven that you're only interested in facts that support your conclusions.

You missed the following points:
One CDC study found that, in one year, more than 618,000 children ages 0-12 rode in vehicles without the use of a child safety seat or booster seat or a seat belt at least some of the time.

Restraint use among young children often depends upon the driverís seat belt use. Almost 40% of children riding with unbelted drivers were themselves unrestrained.

Child restraint systems are often used incorrectly. One study found that 72% of nearly 3,500 observed car and booster seats were misused in a way that could be expected to increase a childís risk of injury during a crash.

So, in context, we find that the real statement is "When used properly, child safety seats reduce the risk of death in passenger cars by 71% for infants, and by 54% for toddlers ages 1 to 4 years."

So - let's do some math-

Total % of seats used correctly: 28%
Reduction in risk of death: 50-75%
National avg % seat belt users: 85%
Chances child belted in with unbelted driver: 60%

..

Risk of death reduction = (total risk reduction - going high here 75%) - (incorrectly used seats - 72%) - (unprotected children (law breakers) 40% of 15%)

This gives us - x = 75-(75*.72)54-(75*.4*.15) = 16.5% reduction in deaths.

Now, if I were to further follow this up with automobile safety improvements, and the impact they have had, there is potentially an argument for an even lower number, but as you can see, even the HIGH number is well under the 20% I had posited as a guess previously.

So, how dost thou refute such a beautifully obvious argument? If child safety seats are only 16.5% effective, then do you REALLY think something as difficult to regulate as guns (which are much more comparable to drugs than child safety seats in terms of enforcement challenges) can be regulated in such a way as to make significant differences?

I don't think your "facts" follow thorough as well as you'd like them to... The problem is that no-one can refute your argument until the damage is done (rights lost, and you can BET that no-one will be too anxious to give them back)...
01/03/2013 08:33:13 PM · #148
Originally posted by Cory:

The day that you decided your safety was more important than your freedom was an honest tragedy.

Which of my proposals would deny you the right to bear arms? Sorry dude, but your imagined "freedom" to kill with specific implements described nowhere in the Constitution does not trump society's obligation to prevent the needless deaths of innocent citizens.

The greatest threat to gun ownership (or any traditional belief) comes not from the government or "liberals" like Joe Manchin or Chuck Grassley, but from enabled monsters that provoke public demand for change. At some point, doing nothing is no longer an option, and as a society we can either choose to increase weapons (zero examples of success) or reduce weapons (many examples of success). With each heinous act, the recognition that more guns does not equal more safety becomes increasingly obvious, and laws will change accordingly. It's inevitable.
01/03/2013 08:43:01 PM · #149
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Cory:

The day that you decided your safety was more important than your freedom was an honest tragedy.

Which of my proposals would deny you the right to bear arms? Sorry dude, but your imagined "freedom" to kill with specific implements described nowhere in the Constitution does not trump society's obligation to prevent the needless deaths of innocent citizens.

The greatest threat to gun ownership (or any traditional belief) comes not from the government or "liberals" like Joe Manchin or Chuck Grassley, but from enabled monsters that provoke public demand for change. At some point, doing nothing is no longer an option, and as a society we can either choose to increase weapons (zero examples of success) or reduce weapons (many examples of success). With each heinous act, the recognition that more guns does not equal more safety becomes increasingly obvious, and laws will change accordingly. It's inevitable.


Ahh, but it's anything but inevitable.

I really do think it's sad that you'd be willing to trade my freedom for your ability to "feel" safe. (btw, the freedom is to bear arms - not the freedom to kill - obviously incendiary language, but I'll just note it here and move forward)

Have you done the math? Do you have ANY idea how unlikely you are to be the victim of a crime like this?

You would seem to want to translate the miniscule percentage of a chance that you fear into a guarantee of loss for everyone. Your argument is effectively "for the greater good", I ask you, what is honestly the greater good? Safety and life for an incredibly small number of people, or freedom and liberty for a huge number of people..

I don't know that if my ideal is in place that you would lose anything (in fact, the odds are amazingly low), but I do know that if your ideal is in place, then it's guaranteed that I will lose, perhaps only a few hundred dollars a year, and a few hours of paperwork (not insignificant even by itself)- but multiple that by every gun owned in America and all of a sudden you've just created one hell of a serious burden. Of course, that's your REAL goal anyway isn't it? Ensuring that guns are simply more of a burden to own - I don't honestly even believe that you care if it will make any difference, but rather, you value the feeling that the security theater provides you with. (ala TSA)..

We can seem to find some common ground (unacknowledged by you, but it's there), yet we seem to value fundamentally different things, and have a wildly different perception of how the world works.



Message edited by author 2013-01-03 20:46:50.
01/03/2013 08:45:08 PM · #150
Originally posted by Cory:

Congrats... You've just proven that you either read in such a manner that you ignore the context, or you've proven that you're only interested in facts that support your conclusions...
One CDC study found that, in one year, more than 618,000 children ages 0-12 rode in vehicles without the use of a child safety seat or booster seat or a seat belt at least some of the time.

So tell us, O Master of Context, how many children rode in vehicles without car seats before they were required by law and the only requirement was common sense? It's not an all-or-nothing proposition. Whether or not some children still go without car seats does not change the fact that the laws have made a dramatic difference. Same with restrictions on public smoking, motorcycle helmets, and a zillion other things even without 100% compliance.
Pages:   ...
Current Server Time: 01/27/2021 09:16:05 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 09:16:05 AM EST.