Printable View
Here's one in this past month, I left out. A ten year old was shot in the chest. He was riding in the car next to his father who was killed, by shooter just walking up to the car at a traffic light. What kind of person will he grow up to be?Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
I think if you connect the dots between the apparent inability of the Democrats to effectively limit the number of guns, the flagrant politicalization of the NRA, and the lack of regulation of violent kid's video games, you might ask yourself if it's possible the U. S. Government actually wants a shotgun in every house. Maybe they know things we don't.
Americans and guns, I've never understood their obsession but more bizarre is their inability to recognize that there is a problem in America. Other countries that don't have guns have less crime especially less murder and murder sprees are rare, in America there's like what? Several mass shootings a year by a psycho and gun nut but apparently there's still some justification for having less gun control? America needs gun control. That much is obvious.
I'm just glad I live in a country where I would really get to defend myself. Here in England, even though there are those who illegal acquire firearms still, gun crimes are far rarer and the worst you'd get is someone pulling a knife on you and with that I know how to defend myself.
Someone pulls a gun out on you though and even if you've got a gun yourself, you're dead. All it takes is one bullet and unlike with a knife, you have no chance to dodge or even react to defend yourself unless the shooter is hesitant to shoot you and you're standing right next to them to disarm them.
Two more shootings happened recently in Houston and Arizona and I'm like...
Attachment 882810
I'm not a numbers guy, I'm bewildered by all the stats, but if I had to guess I would say gun statistics are tied into the American notion that anybody can buy a lottery ticket and win 50 million, or step up to a slot machine in Vegas and beat all the odds. Truth is, the House always wins and THE ONE PERCENT have the game fixed.
I don't event know what it means that the I% own half of everything, or half the possessions, or what, I really don't know, but I think it means they own everything that's up for grabs, and the 50% of wealth that the 99% "others" own are just SLAVE ACCESORIES like a roof over your head, a car to drive to work, food, clothes, and a week at the beach so you don't revolt.
In America guns mean FREEDOM, even if 99 out of 100 people are prisoners of their damn job. You don't see gun violence with people that have fruitful careers and happy families, you see gun violence in trailer parks and ghettoes. Statistically these are the same people that drink and smoke and buy lottery tickets. Dreamers.
Woman fires gun at shoplifter fleeing a home depot. The shooter hung around and cooperated with the police apparently, which I think is irrelevant. She should be in jail.
http://www.freep.com/story/news/loca...epot/73468588/
Some people are just too stupid to have guns.
This is the truth and a truth about people generally. If people were universally smart and responsible and sensible and cool-headed, our current gun laws would make perfect sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by hippifried
Well... Not really.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
If that were the case, why would anyone feel a need to be armed in the first place?
Target shooting. Hunting. As antiques commemorating a more violent time. I dunno, but there would be no reason to restrict their ownership, except to protect children. Typically the status quo is that something is allowed unless there is a reason for restrictions. The reasons we have are based on people being difficult to trust with devices that kill.Quote:
Originally Posted by hippifried
If people were universally smart, responsible, sensible, & cool headed, I have to wonder if instruments of violence would have ever been invented.
http://news.yahoo.com/man-shoots-wif...210000920.html Anyone can make a mistake. Why are people always so skeptical?
Just the Facts, M'aam.
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlGWzAaR03Q
Joe tells us the number of people killed in car accidents was about 55 000 that year. That puts the date of the show circa 1973. The population of the U.S. was just over 200 000 000. Now we have over 300 000 000 people and the number of car deaths is down to 33 000. Thank the law for safety belts. The world's not perfect. According to Joe, people aren't perfect. Joe's point is that's why we have laws, and police who enforce them. Joe tells of the long lines of men who during the Great Depression to queued to apply for a single job. For that reason it's difficult to understand why someone would've labeled this episode "Joe Friday schools Occupy Wall Street." Relating it to this thread: one would have to say, Joe's speech ultimately supports the regulation of firearms and the three "hippies" are more the laissez faire, let everyone have them types.
All in all, a fine piece of propaganda...even though I agree with it.
The problem with the facts is both sides can use them to make their point. This being a Liberal hangout, people's minds are made up already, the most fascinating thing to me is that gun control is a 50/50 issue, which makes it a fantastic debate.
Methinks the more ye speaks on the issue, the more you speak about yourself than the issue, you get tired and worn down, that's a plus for the status quo, the gun nuts.
I think giving the conservatives guns, and the liberals abortion is a pretty good deal.
Before I get jumped on, let me remind all you guys that being involved with a "tranny porn site" is probably a major thorn in the sides of the thousands and thousands of open or closeted people who are transitioned or transitioning and DON'T want to be looked at as a porn star or prostitute. Do you? Trying to get through this crappy life with just a shred of dignity is a liberal ideal, in my mind, and you'll have to admit the majority of dudes on this site consider transsexuals "shemale sex objects" with tits up in the air and meaty schlongs hanging down twixt creamy thighs. That's not real good for the transsexual applying for a job at some company in her small town.
I think my point to the LIBS here, is that it's better to err on the side of self expression and learning, the hard way, if that's what it takes. How can you claim to champion the rights of transsexuals when you yourself view them on porno sites? The majority of women look at guys who look at porn as jerk-offs. Education of conservatives starts with education of liberals. In deed as well as word.
I guess my point is before you trash some dude for his "unnatural" love of a machine gun, check out your "unnatural" sexual preoccupation of chicks with dicks. Glands are funny. If you ask some guy to give up his gun you might have to give up your porn. For the kids!!!
Conservative already have guns and liberals, at present, already have abortion. Nobody wants to take away the right to own firearms (that fear is being spread by the gun lobby and has no basis in reality). Conservative DO want to take away a woman's right to abortion (that fear is very real). I think a pretty good deal is for both sides to agree to both and pass reasonable regulations on both. Maybe if birth control regulations were less constrictive, there'd be fewer unwanted pregnancies.Quote:
I think giving the conservatives guns, and the liberals abortion is a pretty good deal.
Amy Schumer has a nice video-> http://www.scarymommy.com/amy-schume...ontrol-sketch/
In the entire various runs of Jack Webb's Dragnet franchise (1949 - 2004), I don't believe Joe Friday ever fired or even drew his weapon.
If you want to keep abortion legal, keep a Democratic President and lock up the Supreme Court for a few decades.
I just threw that Joe Friday thing in for a laugh. I'm not sure he went near gun control or abortion, he had to keep his audience.
That's the exact reason you don't want to put your dress and 6 inch heels on and scream against insane macho gun laws in your shrillest highest voice.
Because you want to choose your battles and keep the president a Democrat. And a Supreme Court Liberal. Which it ain't now.
Let the Republicans scream abortion and lock up the Women's vote.
In the case of these boards, shrill has definitely been in the ear of the beholder.
If Joe Friday never pulled his gun in 30 years, why do cops carry guns? Intimidation? To be in control of the situation?
I was just wondering where I could make most progress in using rational argument to get people to think in an open way. Is it gun-control, abortion, religion or the Republican Party?
Suggestions please!
You want to teach the greatest number of closed minded people to question their preconceptions and think rationally? You’re a fucking “wayist.”Quote:
Originally Posted by martin48
Getting to your question: You could drop your engineering career, become a professor and attempt to teach classroom after classroom of young minds how to look at, think about and approach problems in different ways: how to invent solutions and how those proposed solutions are dependent upon the assumptions that one makes about the problem. Have them list their assumptions, question them, revise and work out new solutions incorporating the various sets of tweaked assumptions. Get them to see how the feedbacks between thought, action, belief, doubt, observation and conversation with others with different approaches empowers them, frees their creativity, hones their analytical and observational skills and opens them to the ideas of others. It may even increase their empathy toward others.
Naw! Just kidding. You probably stand a better chance selling a Republican, using reason alone, a compact hybrid vehicle.
Very comprehensive. I am a professor, professor of engineering. So there!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Just because something's insignificant doesn't mean it shouldn't be googled...:)
I had to know if Joe Friday ever shot anyone. Turns out he did : http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0565689/
On the way to get some cigarettes, Joe see's a man trying jimmy coins out of a machine in a laundermat. He identifies himself, the man shoots at him...and Sgt. Friday returns fire, apparently hitting the man. The man runs out bleeding and flees with his girlfriend. Joe has to go before a "Shooting Board" (which is the name of the episode) because they didn't find a spent bullet and the thief is found dead from the shooting - with the girlfriend claiming Joe murdered him.
I stand corrected. Is that the only time?
Are you saying that only those the right side of the political spectrum are closed minded and that the left aren't closed minded too? Because I've found the left to be exactly the same if not worst.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
(For the reference, I would put myself into the centre for politics, I find the right and left to be equally stupid in some of their ideas)
Thing is, America's fucked itself up. With all the gun trade (legal and illegal), even an utter ban on guns in America would not stop them from appearing on the streets and would just make it harder for law-abiding citizens to acquire one but they aren't the problem. It's keeping guns away from criminals and the insane that's the hard bit.
Gee, am I? Where in that post did you get that idea? I think the post said that you stand as good a chance at selling a Republican a hybrid car as you stand at teaching university students engineering. Anything negative you took from that about Republicrats or university students is on you.Quote:
Are you saying that only those the right side of the political spectrum are closed minded and that the left aren't closed minded too?
Over the past two decades in the U.S. the center has moved measurably to the right. Now the center is stupid.Quote:
(For the reference, I would put myself into the centre for politics, I find the right and left to be equally stupid in some of their ideas)
Keeping them away from children seems to be pretty difficult too. Glad you got it all under control over there. I really am. Kudos. Thumbs up. Good show. I mean it. Really.Quote:
It's keeping guns away from criminals and the insane that's the hard bit.
Yep...you can watch it on Hulu (kind of amusing actually)...he's held a weapon some rare occasions, but that's about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by hippifried
While England and Germany and China and Japan have cultures that go back thousands of years, America's goes back 15 minutes. Even Canada is basically England and France and some Indian. The USA is as mixed a bag as you can get. And Iran is not the most dangerous Nation on the Planet, nor North Korea. The USA is. Nobody tells us what to do. We're badass, and don't you forgit it.
Eventually that loser with a rap sheet who gets his buddy to buy him a roscoe with the three day check.....he'll end up in jail or stuck in some meaningless garbageman job. Justice prevails.
Cue the "Dragnet" theme music.
Accidents will happen
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...t-dead-brother
Anyway, it's not the guns it's the people
If the three-year-old had a gun too, this wouldn't have happened.
Attachment 886100
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protec...ce_in_Arms_Act
Trish's post brings up an issue I think I discussed a while back. Guns are treated differently from just about every other item of commerce and gun manufacturers are given special immunity from suit. I am not saying that under normal principles of tort law and strict liability gun manufacturers would be found liable every time there is a massacre. But why should they not be subject to suit like every other manufacturer and defend the design of their products against claims they could be made more safely? When a manufacturer is liable for the harm its product causes, it is forced to internalize the damage it does and encouraged to make safer, less dangerous products.
In the absence of this law, states would have jurisdiction over the tort liability of gun manufacturers. So why do Republicans, who are generally states' rights advocates want to prevent that? The 2nd amendment does not even come close to mandating that manufacturers of guns cannot be sued without a special shield of protection.
And I realize there is something different about guns in that the harm they do is often part of the design. But under strict liability, a jury can consider whether a particular design has any utility. It would not prevent gun manufacturers from making weapons that are absolute perfect tools of mass murder, but a jury would be able to decide whether that particular design, for instance spraying a million bullets per second, creates a risk to the public that a gun manufacturer should have to compensate victims for. Or whether a gun should have better safety features to prevent the user from accidental harm. In the latter case, it's a bit easier than holding them liable for something the gun was designed to do.
Anyway, whether they would be held liable or not there is no reason to provide them a layer of immunity nobody else has when it forestalls the normal development of designs that are more compatible for their intended use.
I disagree on this point though. Gun manufacturers are liable for defective weapons...and are also liable for illegal sales they are directly responsible for (at least according to the wiki page). Making them liable beyond that seems like another end run around a legislative body for not creating a law some people want. Refrigerators are safer now because the gov't passed a law stating they should be.
...perhaps I should have used the word 'regulation' instead instead of 'law' in that last sentence.
I don't remember strict liability law that well so I might be wrong but this is my best recollection. It used to be that there was a caveat in strict liability law stating that a product was only be defective if it did not do what is was intended to do, not because of inherent problems with the type of product. Then I believe design defect began to be defined by balancing the risk and utility of a particular design and considering whether there was a feasible alternative design. This method does not rule out the possibility that a product did not malfunction but was still legally defective because it was so dangerous that its harm far exceeded its potential utility. This definition sort of reflects strict liability's origins as a means of requiring companies to pay for the damage wrought by their products regardless of fault. This only has the effect of outlawing a particular design if in the long run it causes significantly more harm than good, in which case the company is bankrupted.
A gun that is fired at another human being has one lawful purpose which is self-defense. Most of the time the difference between a gun fired at an innocent person and one fired at an assailant is human intention. But what if a gun is designed that is better at waging war against humanity than for defense? The gun manufacturer can still operate and stay in business if the illegal use of its product is relatively rare. But if the product proves in the long-run to be more viable for criminal ventures than lawful activity, the company is bankrupted. Strict liability provides gun companies with an incentive to design guns that people will not choose for shooting sprees.
But I understand and agree with your critique to a large extent. It does seem like an end-run around the legislature as you say, but the system provides an economic testing ground for product design.
..but weapons like that already exist...that's why we should regulate them (such as an assault weapons type ban), because they're clearly created for warfare...it's just that we can't get the government to do that on a federal level.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
...personally, though an assault weapons ban makes sense, I think it would be even better to throw some solid regulations against handguns...like how about common sense laws such as proficiency and safety courses...and prove you at least have a gun safe in the house, etc.
Hmm, perhaps smart triggers at some point. Don't know if that's really feasible...or desirable - if it goes wrong - you could wind up dead, in which case your family can sue, but still...Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
Actually we should have smart triggers by now...hell, I can open my phone with a print. They say the only reason we don't have them is because the NRA will intimidate stores not to carry them because that will activate New Jersey's 'child proof gun law'.