[kenberg]

billw55, on 2013-May-13, 06:32, said:

The fact that some people drive recklessly should not, and indeed does not, constrain my right to drive or to own a vehicle.

It does, or at least it leads to some oversight. I grew up in a more relaxed era, I bought my own car a little after my fifteenth birthday, but still I had to prove that I knew something about the relevant laws and that I was capable of driving it.

I don't expect perfection in general, and I certainly don't expect it from the government. But some regulation is desirable.. To continue the analogy with transportation, I suppose that when the Constitution was written there was no need to have regulations over who was allowed to ride a horse. If a clueless someone got on a horse, the problem would soon take care of itself. With cars and guns, this is not so. Getting a car moving is not hard, pulling a trigger is even easier.

Added: One could argue that to some extent, the problem with guns is like the problem with horses. It takes care of itself. I think the quote "We only shoot each other" is usually attributed to Bugsy Moran. It's true that with or without gun reform, the chance that I will ever being involved in gun violence is extremely remote. Even if I had one I would not go to the door and open it with a gun in my hand. Last resort only. And I don't have that gun anyway. I can very reasonably expect to never need it. If I want to live longer, I need to forget the .45 and watch the calories.

[barmar]

kenberg, on 2013-May-11, 14:58, said:

Still, I don't like statistical arguments. I'm me, not a randomly selected individual.

It would be nice if we could have laws that dealt with each person as a unique individual. But in a society as large as we now have, it's simply not feasible. We need general rules that apply to everyone, and statistics is one of the ways to decide which are appropriate. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, as Spock once said (or will say in a couple hundred years). And if most of the few just have desires, rather than genuine needs, that's even more true.

[kenberg]

I perhaps maybe sort of agree. My thoughts:
a. There is absolutely no point in trying to work out an agreement with the NRA. There intentions are as clear as they are implacable.
b. Others can be worked with. Many, including many gun owners, support background checks. Why on Earth not, except that it would reduce sales? OK, they will find a different reason. Ignore them. Many, I expect, would favor some sort of licensing standards that go toward ensuring the owners of weapons have some sort of knowledge of their legal responsibilities.
c. Some thoroughly responsible people wish to have guns for reasons such as hunting, target shooting, collecting, and so on.
d. Some people in some settings need a weapon for self-defense. If responsibility is demonstrated along the lines of b., then those of us who are not in his/her shoes should, at least somewhat, defer to his/her judgment on this. I don't have a gun. This is partly my judgment, partly my situation. I can't really imagine needing one.

I expect reasonable people will come to a reasonable solution on this. Sooner or later. Sooner would be much better. Besides being lethal, our current situation is embarrassing.

So maybe this is not really agreeing. But I think many people think along the lines I am saying, and we need to get it, or something like it, done.

[blackshoe]

We tried that experiment already, bill. It failed.

[billw55]

kenberg, on 2013-May-13, 10:49, said:

I perhaps maybe sort of agree. My thoughts:
a. There is absolutely no point in trying to work out an agreement with the NRA. There intentions are as clear as they are implacable.
Very true. So to get anything done, we must pry some republicans off the NRA wagon. Not easy, but not impossible.
b. Others can be worked with. Many, including many gun owners, support background checks. Why on Earth not, except that it would reduce sales? OK, they will find a different reason. Ignore them. Many, I expect, would favor some sort of licensing standards that go toward ensuring the owners of weapons have some sort of knowledge of their legal responsibilities.
Universal background checks make sense. One effect would be to completely eliminate the gun show industry - checks take time, so no sales at the show. No sales, no revenue, no show. Some think this would be good news, others not.
c. Some thoroughly responsible people wish to have guns for reasons such as hunting, target shooting, collecting, and so on.
d. Some people in some settings need a weapon for self-defense. If responsibility is demonstrated along the lines of b., then those of us who are not in his/her shoes should, at least somewhat, defer to his/her judgment on this. I don't have a gun. This is partly my judgment, partly my situation. I can't really imagine needing one.
Agree, it should be up to me to decide if I own a gun or not.

I expect reasonable people will come to a reasonable solution on this. Sooner or later. Sooner would be much better. Besides being lethal, our current situation is embarrassing.
So far there seem to be too few reasonable people.

So maybe this is not really agreeing. But I think many people think along the lines I am saying, and we need to get it, or something like it, done.

blackshoe, on 2013-May-13, 11:55, said:

We tried that experiment already, bill. It failed.

Assuming you mean prohibition? That was similar in effect but different in principle. They tried to ban alcohol for moral reasons. I was discussing banning alcohol to prevent drunk driving. In practice this difference probably doesn't matter, it still wouldn't work.

[Chas_P]

kenberg, on 2013-May-13, 10:49, said:

I perhaps maybe sort of agree. My thoughts:
a. There is absolutely no point in trying to work out an agreement with the NRA. There intentions are as clear as they are implacable.
b. Others can be worked with. Many, including many gun owners, support background checks. Why on Earth not, except that it would reduce sales? OK, they will find a different reason. Ignore them. Many, I expect, would favor some sort of licensing standards that go toward ensuring the owners of weapons have some sort of knowledge of their legal responsibilities.
c. Some thoroughly responsible people wish to have guns for reasons such as hunting, target shooting, collecting, and so on.
d. Some people in some settings need a weapon for self-defense. If responsibility is demonstrated along the lines of b., then those of us who are not in his/her shoes should, at least somewhat, defer to his/her judgment on this. I don't have a gun. This is partly my judgment, partly my situation. I can't really imagine needing one.

I expect reasonable people will come to a reasonable solution on this. Sooner or later. Sooner would be much better. Besides being lethal, our current situation is embarrassing.

So maybe this is not really agreeing. But I think many people think along the lines I am saying, and we need to get it, or something like it, done.

a. Frankly I don't see the NRA as a "bad guy". As I mentioned in a post above they promote gun education and gun safety. Yet the main stream media paints them as the culprit every time there is a mass shooting just because of their support of the 2nd amendment. I think every person on earth with a soul was heartsick upon hearing about the Newtown massacre; I know I was. However, I have serious doubts that Adam Lanza was an NRA member. I am equally doubtful about James Holmes, Seung-Hui Cho, Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, the three guys who just shot up a parade in New Orleans, etc. etc.
b. I could support background checks even though it appears to me to be nothing more than feel-good legislation. Would a background check have stopped Lanza? Doubtful since the weapons were bought by his mother who apparently was just as sane (or insane) as the Kentucky parents who prompted this thread. Licensing to ensure knowledge of legal responsibilities of gun ownership sounds like a good idea if we can accept the fact that only responsible people who already know their legal responsibilities will buy a license; the friendly neighborhood drug dealer will probably be a cold prospect.
c. I agree.
d. My 21 year-old granddaughter is working her way through vet school. She lives in a semi-remote area alone. She has a Ruger .380 pistol and a Remington 223 rifle (she likes to hunt too). Will she ever need them? I hope not. But she knows how to use them and I'm glad she has them.

We all wish for a reasonable solution to the senseless mass killings. But I don't think it's reasonable to lay 100% of the blame at the feet of the NRA and the gun manufacturers.

[mike777]

PassedOut, on 2013-May-01, 14:55, said:

5-Year-Old Kentucky Boy Shoots 2-Year-Old Sister to Death With ‘Youth’ Rifle


And I thought I had started young at ten, under the careful supervision of my dad.

However, the NRA has identified the real problem here: The 2-year-old had no firearm of her own for defense.

a sad story in a world where millions and millions get sick very sick or die from a drinking bad water or getting bit by a bug every year. Priority guys, please.

--


reminds me when I visited my ky girlfriend. I was a city boy and took several long bus rides to visit her on my college break She had a guy who was in love with her pick me up at the bus station. He drove with a shotgun in his lap and around old coal roads with a sharp deep drop off down the mountain. Welcome to KY. She lived in a place with no running water, no indoor toilet..no phone....no car...snow, freezing...you get the picture and I came to understand what to be poor really means and how much many many other americans and others feel so entitled to so much more.

[Trinidad]

mike777, on 2013-May-13, 22:25, said:

a sad story in a world where millions and millions get sick very sick or die from a drinking bad water or getting bit by a bug every year. Priority guys, please.

Sure, there are problems that are much bigger. And there are people working on solving those too.

The big difference between the problems that you describe and the gun control problem is that we want to solve drinking water problems and we want to cure diseases and people are working hard but they are technically / scientifically complex to solve. It doesn't help that we want to solve those problems. We are running into technical limitations.

The gun control problem is not a technical problem. It is a political problem. And some people don't want to solve it.

I have yet to meet someone who didn't want to see diseases cured.

If you really think that curing diseases is a matter of more effort then I am wondering why you prioritize solving problems like "finesse or drop" and "game or slam" instead of developing medical treatments.

Rik

[mike777]

Trinidad, on 2013-May-14, 01:54, said:

Sure, there are problems that are much bigger. And there are people working on solving those too.

The big difference between the problems that you describe and the gun control problem is that we want to solve drinking water problems and we want to cure diseases and people are working hard but they are technically / scientifically complex to solve. It doesn't help that we want to solve those problems. We are running into technical limitations.

The gun control problem is not a technical problem. It is a political problem. And some people don't want to solve it.

I have yet to meet someone who didn't want to see diseases cured.

If you really think that curing diseases is a matter of more effort then I am wondering why you prioritize solving problems like "finesse or drop" and "game or slam" instead of developing medical treatments.

Rik

[mike777]

ok you agree and then add nonsense

see your main point you agree

you want to stop millions from die


and then you go to nonsense.....which makes me think what do you really care about....politics or other?

clearly at this point your points are about politics....

I hope your future points are not politics but about the millions who die.....

[kenberg]

I had pretty much made up my mind to make no further responses to Mike's posts, and in a sense this is not really a response. I am finding it very difficult to believe you have any intention other than just being aggravating. If I have you wrong on this then you might want to work on your presentation a bit. I am pretty sure that you don't have to just take my word for this.

Generally I believe in listening to people whether i agree with them or not, perhaps particularly when I don't agree. But there are exceptions.

[barmar]

Chas_P, on 2013-May-13, 21:31, said:

a. Frankly I don't see the NRA as a "bad guy". As I mentioned in a post above they promote gun education and gun safety. Yet the main stream media paints them as the culprit every time there is a mass shooting just because of their support of the 2nd amendment.

Because statements like "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" and their lobbying efforts against gun control completely overshadow whatever good they do. Wikipedia says "Members of Congress have ranked the NRA as the most powerful lobbying organization in the country several years in a row." About 10% of their annual budget is devoted to political spending.

[blackshoe]

Are you suggesting that lobbying against "gun control" is evil?

[hrothgar]

blackshoe, on 2013-May-14, 09:37, said:

Are you suggesting that lobbying against "gun control" is evil?

I don't recall anyone making this particular argument...
It's almost as if you're trying to construct a strawman.

(Well, that or alternatively your world view is even more manichean than I had thought)

[dwar0123]

Chas_P, on 2013-May-13, 21:31, said:

a. Frankly I don't see the NRA as a "bad guy". As I mentioned in a post above they promote gun education and gun safety. Yet the main stream media paints them as the culprit every time there is a mass shooting just because of their support of the 2nd amendment. I think every person on earth with a soul was heartsick upon hearing about the Newtown massacre; I know I was. However, I have serious doubts that Adam Lanza was an NRA member. I am equally doubtful about James Holmes, Seung-Hui Cho, Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, the three guys who just shot up a parade in New Orleans, etc. etc.

We do not define the 'bad guy' by the best things they do, we define it by the sum total of their contribution to society. Hamas is well known for their charity work. And it is no flimsy sham, their charity work is actually very broad and quite generous. They are still evil bastards and no doubt a cynic will point out that their charity work is mere propaganda used to sway local opinion in their favor. Nothing like the NRA and their education programs as obviously no one's opinion is being swayed by their positive work.

Quote

We all wish for a reasonable solution to the senseless mass killings. But I don't think it's reasonable to lay 100% of the blame at the feet of the NRA and the gun manufacturers.

I don't think it's reasonable for you to try to pretend that anyone is laying 100% of the blame on the NRA and gun manufacturers.

When you paint the picture with such absurd distortions you can make any position look like the better one. The problem is your mirror is warped and the image you see no longer reflects reality.

[kenberg]

Of course the NRA is allowed to lobby, as is, well, no point in making a list. Discussing whether they are or are not evil is a waste of time. If Dracula wants to suck my blood, the game is to try to stop him. Let someone else argue good and evil. The NRA represents two constituencies: Those with a strong profit motive for wanting no gun regulation and those with a strong ideological objection to gun regulation. My cold dead hands and all that. They are well funded and effective. Those of us who have different objectives must do the best we can to make things go our way.

I continue to believe that this is possible, it will just take time. I believe there are some measures that would have widespread public support. I think it is a mistake to go to extreme positions that would not have broad support, quite possibly would not have my support. In this world there will always be violence, and for the most part a reduction in violence will come about through better social arrangements. But I see an alteration of our views toward guns as one of many needs.

The NRA does not have to be demonized, just defeated.

[ArtK78]

From ESPN.com: http://espn.go.com/n...s-help-dad-says

Quote

Titus Young's father, Richard, told two Detroit newspapers on Monday that his son suffers from a mental health disorder and desperately needs help.



Young

Titus Young, 23, was was arrested Friday in California for the third time in a week for allegedly breaking into a home. He has been charged with attempted burglary, assaulting a police officer and resisting arrest for the incident Friday. Less than a week earlier, Young was arrested in Riverside County on suspicion of driving under the influence, then arrested again the same day for allegedly trying to take his car from a tow yard.

The owner of the home that Young allegedly broke into told a TV station that he was loading the shotgun he keeps under his bed when Young approached his bedroom door. When police officers arrived at the scene they found Young outside and captured him after a foot chase.

"I feel sorry for him, and I'm sure glad that he left and I didn't have to find out what's going to happen if he came in, because I'm afraid I would have shot him," Bill Palttos told KTLA-TV.

Titus Young is a wide receiver for the Detroit Lions.

[dwar0123]

ArtK78, on 2013-May-14, 13:59, said:

Titus Young was a wide receiver for the Detroit Lions.

fyp

[kenberg]

I am not sure where to go with the Titus Young story. I don't have a shotgun under my bed. I also don't have a rope ladder to escape from my bedroom in case of fire. I sometimes eat a raw carrot without scrubbing it. And I have been known to ride a bicycle without a helmet. Did it all the time when I was a kid. I'm just a wild and crazy guy. I do have smoke detectors. And I buckle my seat belt.

I'm glad the cops caught him, I hope he gets the help he needs, I imagine he came pretty close to getting shot, I can understand why that would happen. I'm still not buying a shotgun or a rope ladder.

[jeffford76]

ArtK78, on 2013-May-14, 13:59, said:

Titus Young is was a wide receiver for the Detroit Lions.

FYP. They had cut him even before this nonsense.