Go Back   CyclingNews Forum > Cafe > General

General Grab a short black and come join in the non-cycling discussion. Favourite books, movies, holiday destinations, other sports - chat about it all in the cafe.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #5761  
Old 12-19-12, 22:53
BroDeal's Avatar
BroDeal BroDeal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Above 5000 feet
Posts: 12,855
Default

Uh-oh. All that talk of banning guns is having an effect. I talked to my brother, who was at a gun store today. He says there was absolutely no parking, the place was packed, and he had to stand in line behind about fifty people, who were buying everything from assault rifles to waterproof ammo boxes. He said he has never seen anything like it.

Expect a huge sales surge this weekend. News reports on this any day now.
__________________
"Listen, my son. Trust no one! You can count on no one but yourself. Improve your skills, son. Harden your body. Become a number one man. Do not ever let anyone beat you!" -- Gekitotsu! Satsujin ken
Reply With Quote
  #5762  
Old 12-19-12, 23:08
patricknd's Avatar
patricknd patricknd is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: houston texas
Posts: 1,612
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Merckx index View Post
1) Ban assault type weapons, guns that can fire off multiple rounds in a short time.

2) Ban any and all other types of guns in public, except by police officers and others officially permitted to use weapons by the nature of their job. Certain types of guns may be allowed in the privacy of your home and property, but are not allowed to be carried in any public place. Certainly not in urban areas, where there is no question of hunting. Criminals and others with possible intent to murder may walk around on the streets carrying concealed weaponsóno way that can feasibly be prevented--but if they attempt to enter any large public building they will be checked, and if found to carry a gun, it will be confiscated, they will be issued a ticket, and denied entry.

3) Schools would be included in the public places where guards check everyone entering for weapons. This is done now in government buildings in the U.S., and in some countries it is done in virtually all public places, e.g., shopping malls, movie theaters, etc. Iím familiar with the way itís done in one such country. Itís very quick, it doesnít involve metal detectors or all the other hassle that airport security involves now, and it would be much easier to implement, and be much safer, than arming teachers, most of whom might not even know how to use a gun.

Granted, a psycho may kill the guard. All right, if that is a serious concern, have a backup guard, inside the building, who is watching the guard outside at all times. Itís also possible that if this is successful, the perps will try to find some other destructive weapon that avoids simple detection, e.g., a disguised bomb. This could eventually escalate to the point where we are faced with having to have airport-like security systems at schools. But I would cross that bridge when we come to it. A simple check should be very effective right now. I am sure there are security experts who can work out the details.
are you really that afraid that you suggest all of this? i have to agree with brodeal. it's a huge overeaction.
Reply With Quote
  #5763  
Old 12-19-12, 23:32
BroDeal's Avatar
BroDeal BroDeal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Above 5000 feet
Posts: 12,855
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Merckx index View Post
You're right, BroDeal, and you must be very surprised. You were the one who said that mass shootings are so rare that it's over-reacting to ban guns in response to them. But that argument cuts both ways. If mass shootings are so rare, then surely no one needs a gun to protect himself against an event no more likely than getting struck by lightning?
I'm not surprised. This happens every time the libs start talking about banning guns. There has been a large increase in sales the last few years.

The facts are indisputable. The chance of being killed in a mass shooting is remote, very remote, very very remote, like you might might as well worry about being anally probed by aliens.

People buy guns for lots of reasons. Some people shoot for fun. Halfway up a small canyon I like to ride, there is a clearing on one side where people shoot toward the mountainside. Sometimes when cresting the incline before the clearing, it sounds like the Hatfields vesus the McCoys. A couple of weeks ago there was an nine or ten year old girl toting what looked like an AR-15, although when I think about it it was probably one of those polymer .22s that are modelled to look like AR-15s and use a 25 round magazine. She and her family were probably having a lot of fun.
__________________
"Listen, my son. Trust no one! You can count on no one but yourself. Improve your skills, son. Harden your body. Become a number one man. Do not ever let anyone beat you!" -- Gekitotsu! Satsujin ken
Reply With Quote
  #5764  
Old 12-19-12, 23:33
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 3,471
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Merckx index View Post
1) Ban assault type weapons, guns that can fire off multiple rounds in a short time.

2) Ban any and all other types of guns in public, except by police officers and others officially permitted to use weapons by the nature of their job. Certain types of guns may be allowed in the privacy of your home and property, but are not allowed to be carried in any public place. Certainly not in urban areas, where there is no question of hunting. Criminals and others with possible intent to murder may walk around on the streets carrying concealed weapons—no way that can feasibly be prevented--but if they attempt to enter any large public building they will be checked, and if found to carry a gun, it will be confiscated, they will be issued a ticket, and denied entry.

3) Schools would be included in the public places where guards check everyone entering for weapons. This is done now in government buildings in the U.S., and in some countries it is done in virtually all public places, e.g., shopping malls, movie theaters, etc. I’m familiar with the way it’s done in one such country. It’s very quick, it doesn’t involve metal detectors or all the other hassle that airport security involves now, and it would be much easier to implement, and be much safer, than arming teachers, most of whom might not even know how to use a gun.

Granted, a psycho may kill the guard. All right, if that is a serious concern, have a backup guard, inside the building, who is watching the guard outside at all times. It’s also possible that if this is successful, the perps will try to find some other destructive weapon that avoids simple detection, e.g., a disguised bomb. This could eventually escalate to the point where we are faced with having to have airport-like security systems at schools. But I would cross that bridge when we come to it. A simple check should be very effective right now. I am sure there are security experts who can work out the details.
Quote:
Ban assault type weapons, guns that can fire off multiple rounds in a short time.
What do you do with the guns that meet this description in the field now? Also, define "short time." A semi-automatic fires one round at a time as fast as you can pull the trigger. You want those banned?

Quote:
Ban any and all other types of guns in public, except by police officers and others officially permitted to use weapons by the nature of their job. Certain types of guns may be allowed in the privacy of your home and property, but are not allowed to be carried in any public place.
A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:

• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"

• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"

• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"

Source: Book: Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms (Expanded Edition). By James D. Wright and Peter D. Rossi. Aldine De Gruyter, 1986 (Expanded edition published in 1994).


* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.









* Roughly 16,272 murders were committed in the United States during 2008. Of these, about 10,886 or 67% were committed with firearms.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#[21]



To say it's complicated would not even come close to describing the gun situation. Banning guns looks like it will make the average person less safe, banning concealed carry looks certain to make the average person less safe.

I'm sure there are more sides (counter-arguments) to this. I still don't see how a law banning weapons already in circulation keeps a mentally ill individual from getting his hands on them and killing people (if that's what he's going to do).
__________________
"It makes no sense. Fire the electorate let the people speak for themselves"

Last edited by Scott SoCal; 12-19-12 at 23:36.
Reply With Quote
  #5765  
Old 12-19-12, 23:40
BroDeal's Avatar
BroDeal BroDeal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Above 5000 feet
Posts: 12,855
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Merckx index View Post
1) Ban assault type weapons, guns that can fire off multiple rounds in a short time.

2) Ban any and all other types of guns in public, except by police officers and others officially permitted to use weapons by the nature of their job. Certain types of guns may be allowed in the privacy of your home and property, but are not allowed to be carried in any public place. Certainly not in urban areas, where there is no question of hunting. Criminals and others with possible intent to murder may walk around on the streets carrying concealed weaponsóno way that can feasibly be prevented--but if they attempt to enter any large public building they will be checked, and if found to carry a gun, it will be confiscated, they will be issued a ticket, and denied entry.

3) Schools would be included in the public places where guards check everyone entering for weapons. This is done now in government buildings in the U.S., and in some countries it is done in virtually all public places, e.g., shopping malls, movie theaters, etc. Iím familiar with the way itís done in one such country. Itís very quick, it doesnít involve metal detectors or all the other hassle that airport security involves now, and it would be much easier to implement, and be much safer, than arming teachers, most of whom might not even know how to use a gun.

Granted, a psycho may kill the guard. All right, if that is a serious concern, have a backup guard, inside the building, who is watching the guard outside at all times. Itís also possible that if this is successful, the perps will try to find some other destructive weapon that avoids simple detection, e.g., a disguised bomb. This could eventually escalate to the point where we are faced with having to have airport-like security systems at schools. But I would cross that bridge when we come to it. A simple check should be very effective right now. I am sure there are security experts who can work out the details.
Jeebus! Why don't you just check yourself into prison if you want to live like that? In a free country some people will abuse their freedoms. Get used to it.

As for 2), things are trending in the opposite direction. More and more states have made concealed carry permits more readily available.
__________________
"Listen, my son. Trust no one! You can count on no one but yourself. Improve your skills, son. Harden your body. Become a number one man. Do not ever let anyone beat you!" -- Gekitotsu! Satsujin ken
Reply With Quote
  #5766  
Old 12-20-12, 01:06
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 3,471
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blutto View Post
...the only question I have here is why didn't you use charts that actually supported your argument....or is not connecting theory to reality just part and parcel of the wrong wing way....

Cheers

blutto

I'm curious what you think my argument actually is.

Do tell.
__________________
"It makes no sense. Fire the electorate let the people speak for themselves"
Reply With Quote
  #5767  
Old 12-20-12, 05:45
Merckx index's Avatar
Merckx index Merckx index is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,773
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroDeal View Post
Jeebus! Why don't you just check yourself into prison if you want to live like that? In a free country some people will abuse their freedoms. Get used to it.
You're equating submitting to a 5-10" check at public buildings with being in prison? Are you in prison every time you enter a government building? Are you in solitary confinement when you go to the airport?

I don't like waiting at traffic lights. That infringes on my freedom to move whenever and however I wish. I hate not being able to crap and pee wherever I want, that infringes on my freedom, too.

Intelligent, rational people realize that freedom involves constraints. It actually has since the first forms of life evolved, a billion or more years ago. Without constraints, none of the "freedoms" that we have today would be possible. Maybe there is a better solution to mass killings, but I don't think many people will accept your view that seems to be a few killings are a reasonable price for the "freedom" of people to carry guns.

Last edited by Merckx index; 12-20-12 at 07:29.
Reply With Quote
  #5768  
Old 12-20-12, 10:11
rhubroma's Avatar
rhubroma rhubroma is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,037
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aphronesis View Post
A tyrannical form of government? You mean like in ancient Rome or just in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries? That aside, would you like me to point out the contradiction in your first paragraph, or can you do it yourself?

So even though you have zero possibility of talking back to state power, you believe that somehow that vestige of individual autonomy might be preserved for our grandchildren? Interesting notion, considering it was near impossible to protest the 2004 Republican convention in New York in any meaningful sense without getting zip tied and thrown into a storage container. Never mind the more recent developments last year with OWS, etc. What was salient about those demonstrations and the unpleasantries that many experienced at the hands of the police for the first time was not merely the fact that some well educated liberals got roughed up and passed through one of the more vile intake systems in this country--but rather that they saw it for the daily reality that it is for many who have zero of your so-called "rights"--some by choice, buy many also by design. Equally, that they realized the fiction of being able to simply bring force against state power. Not on those terms.

So basically what you're proposing is a symbolic vestige of a political philosophy which has long since ceased to exist? By saying it's intrinsic to the DNA of the country. You do remember another nation that rose to power on that kind of rhetoric?

I wouldn't argue your basic terms of the first amendment, but your invocation of the second seems debatable to say the least. You show me the scenario in which an indignant populace is going to get traction against the state in those terms. Sorry, bro, the revolution in the west will not be an explosion somewhere down the road, and maybe rather than clinging to that kind of archaic principle, those who are truly concerned might do more to effect transformation for the better in the present.

Otherwise it's just facile and superficial nihilism. Arguing that the second amendment will help save us from corporate takeover is equally improbable.

Back to your examples: I've been hit (or nudged at least) by various drivers throughout my life while on a bike--all negligent to varying degrees. Some contrite, some belligerent; I've also had guns pulled on me: by police, by rural, pac-northwest rednecks, by party crashing, low-level, meth type dirtbags with attitude and by New York addicts just looking for money.

I don't see any reason to be supportive of any of those types--nor to support their cultures for whatever reasons. That's a point you seem to be missing. Lives are disposable all over the planet, but nowhere more so than under the aegis of a society that utterly devalues them as the US does--never in such a multiplicity of ways.

On your repeated remarks about foreigners and expats (along with intellectuals): way to play the regressive, isolationist card. I guess only iconoclastic (unless they're talking about the Constitution) shut-ins have a voice in national policy.

I'll see if I can remember that the next time I move back to one of the urban coasts and a good proportion of the townies in one or another of the wilderness states with a GDP of Biafra (once you subtract the federal agenda and energy interests) starts talking about what "Americans" think, believe, know, have a right to, etc.

On that score, I'd be deeply, deeply curious to see how long your foundational, revolutionary philosophy holds up and how you would react if you ever get designated anything near an enemy of the state--nothing near the level of Guantanamo of course-- because you've been exercising the mildest of your first amendment rights (while your unused second amendment rights remain in full force of course). Come back and tell me how you find that working out.

Patrick makes a valid point about the lack of outrage regarding the Chicago incidents, but arguably, at least one distinction between some of the people there and the kids in the school is that the kids had zero say in the matter. The same can be said of those who die in cars obviously, but there is the matter of intent which seems to drop out of your risk analysis. This is something that goes beyond gun control and bone literal readings of the second amendment--among other things it bears on the mental health issue that's been raised. The constitution isn't worth much when the vast majority of its citizens can no longer rise to the principles and values around which it was ostensibly constructed.
I had a similar discussion with this Canadian guy in Havana, who argued the same "defense from the government" BS as did BroDeal. Apart from the error in his reading of this historical phenomenon, which is much more connected to a "revolutionary" cause and pioneer expedient (as if a political class would wantonly encourage a means toward its own extinction), the notion that "the people" can take comfort in the possibility of armed resistance today is ridiculous. The Canadian argued that if the Germans had had such a right to defense, Hitler could have been thwarted. Well, I said, national socialism, which of course was a spurious socialism, indeed a socialist sham; had itself been built upon a popular front against the political and economic instability of Weinmar politics. The same could be said of its forebearer fascism with regard to the Italian parties, or even Bolshevism. Thus the "defense from the government" by a right to arms argument has resulted (not fortuitously) over the course of the last century in a series of disastrous conclusions, which is a strong case for its wholesale abandonment. Twentieth century history, therefore, confutes an XVIII century justification.

I also said to that Canadian guy that in light of the perverse kultur a "right to bear arms" has progressively generated in America and the potency of national defense, any empowering effects of the former have been drastically mitigated. Therefore, why is it really necessary to have this "right" any more, at least under its current administration? How is it even possible for citizens to defend themselves from the government with arms today, I asked, of course in light of all the Cuban affairs? Was he thinking of Marius and the popolares within the context of modernity, I insisted? He didn't seem to grasp the import of my inquiries, however. It was all just Greek to him. Naturally this was debated over a Cohiba and rum.

Last edited by rhubroma; 12-20-12 at 11:30.
Reply With Quote
  #5769  
Old 12-20-12, 10:29
Glenn_Wilson's Avatar
Glenn_Wilson Glenn_Wilson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Newfoundland
Posts: 2,451
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Merckx index View Post
You're equating submitting to a 5-10" check at public buildings with being in prison? Are you in prison every time you enter a government building? Are you in solitary confinement when you go to the airport?

I don't like waiting at traffic lights. That infringes on my freedom to move whenever and however I wish. I hate not being able to crap and pee wherever I want, that infringes on my freedom, too.

Intelligent, rational people realize that freedom involves constraints. It actually has since the first forms of life evolved, a billion or more years ago. Without constraints, none of the "freedoms" that we have today would be possible. Maybe there is a better solution to mass killings, but I don't think many people will accept your view that seems to be a few killings are a reasonable price for the "freedom" of people to carry guns.


There is a middle ground and the USA better find it or these mass murders will continue.

I'm not sure I agree with your suggestions to change the gun laws.
__________________
something less offensive
Reply With Quote
  #5770  
Old 12-20-12, 11:13
frenchfry's Avatar
frenchfry frenchfry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Bourgogne
Posts: 1,535
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Merckx index View Post
You're equating submitting to a 5-10" check at public buildings with being in prison? Are you in prison every time you enter a government building? Are you in solitary confinement when you go to the airport?

I don't like waiting at traffic lights. That infringes on my freedom to move whenever and however I wish. I hate not being able to crap and pee wherever I want, that infringes on my freedom, too.

Intelligent, rational people realize that freedom involves constraints. It actually has since the first forms of life evolved, a billion or more years ago. Without constraints, none of the "freedoms" that we have today would be possible. Maybe there is a better solution to mass killings, but I don't think many people will accept your view that seems to be a few killings are a reasonable price for the "freedom" of people to carry guns.
There is a proverb that says:

Quote:
La liberté des uns s'arrête là où commence celle des autres
(The freedoms of some stop where the freedoms of the others begin)

I think you could interpret this as saying that the right to carry war weapons is superceded by the right to live in a society where you don't risk getting assinated while at school or in a movie theater.
__________________
"C'est une triste chose de songer que la nature parle et que le genre humain n'ťcoute pas" - Victor Hugo

Last edited by frenchfry; 12-20-12 at 11:55.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:08.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.