|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Fucking Guns
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
For one thing, if you fuck up enough to lose your car insurance, you better believe you start driving like a geriatic nun. Before they confiscate your car, that is.
And I think "massive mitigation"'is our goal. What country anywhere has achieved " zero gun violence"?
[ 11. October 2015, 16:37: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
There's a pastor in Florida who is arguing that being pro-gun is incompatible with being pro-life, and with Christianity. Walt Disney's niece made a movie about him: Move.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanlion
editorial comment
# 10325
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
For one thing, if you fuck up enough to lose your car insurance, you better believe you start driving like a geriatic nun. Before they confiscate your car, that is.
This may be true for people inclined to try and obey the laws, but there is no shortage of people operating cars every day with no license, no insurance, and some percentage of those are most certainly drunk.
Much the same as I would guess that a large percentage of gun crime in urban areas with the worst rates is committed by people who couldn't care less about a background check or licensing requirement. All the reasonable gun control measures in the world won't change the street level reality in Detroit or Chicago one iota.
[ 11. October 2015, 16:46: Message edited by: romanlion ]
--------------------
"You can't get rich in politics unless you're a crook" - Harry S. Truman
Posts: 1486 | From: White Rose City | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
there is no shortage of people operating cars every day with no license, no insurance, and some percentage of those are most certainly drunk.
I don't know about you, but over here, we call those people criminals. They get prosecuted, fined, gaoled, and their cars crushed. They don't have to have had any accidents or run anyone over. They just get pulled, and then arrested and charged and processed through the courts.
I kind of assumed that also happened in the USA, but clearly not.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Of course they do. I have no idea what romanlion is trying to prove. That car insurance mandates are useless?
[ 11. October 2015, 17:13: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Much the same as I would guess that a large percentage of gun crime in urban areas with the worst rates is committed by people who couldn't care less about a background check or licensing requirement.
I would say this argues very eloquently for making guns rare and hard to obtain. You can't get a gun illegally if you can't get a gun.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
They don't have to have had any accidents or run anyone over. They just get pulled, and then arrested and charged and processed through the courts.
This bit, especially.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Eventually, taking guns out of circulation and arresting those involved in gun crime, over in the UK, firearms offences in 2012/2013 were 0.2% of the total crimes reported, there were 30 fatalities resulting from offences with firearms, and 8,135 offences with firearms - both last figures down 15% on the previous year.
That's 16 years after Dunblane in 1996 and the subsequent amendments to the Firearms Act (1997). Nobody said it was an immediate effect.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanlion
editorial comment
# 10325
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Much the same as I would guess that a large percentage of gun crime in urban areas with the worst rates is committed by people who couldn't care less about a background check or licensing requirement.
I would say this argues very eloquently for making guns rare and hard to obtain. You can't get a gun illegally if you can't get a gun.
You and I both know that this is not about to happen. Guns are ubiquitous and easy to obtain. Perhaps only slightly less so than cocaine and heroin, which are both completely prohibited everywhere at all times.
Something that could work almost immediately would be a little enforcement of existing laws.
--------------------
"You can't get rich in politics unless you're a crook" - Harry S. Truman
Posts: 1486 | From: White Rose City | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Much the same as I would guess that a large percentage of gun crime in urban areas with the worst rates is committed by people who couldn't care less about a background check or licensing requirement.[/QB]
Actually I'm not too sure of the premise, a fairly sizable percentage probably are 'law abiding' until something goes wrong.
A sizable higher percentage will have a sensible desire to minimize crimes/profit. And as such although they may nominally 'not give a toss'. It may well shift the balance.
And the others, the facilitators, the enablers, the fifth column, who can at the moment, even afterwards, say 'I did nothing wrong, how was I to know he'd...', they probably will give a stuff. And that probably covers a sufficient majority.
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Sandy Hook was almost three years ago. And, there have been too many mass shootings since then. Surely the people are demanding something be done? It shouldn't matter what the congresscritters think. I thought the aim was government of the people, by the people, for the people. Not, government of a small elite, by a small elite, for the small elite. If the people demand that their representatives get off their backsides and enact meaningful gun control legislation surely the task of Congress is then to determine the details.
Aye, there's the rub:
quote:
“Eye-popping majorities of Democratic, Republican, and independent voters back . . . boilerplate measures,” Noah Rothman recorded yesterday in Commentary. “But when asked if voters prefer stricter gun control measures, only a majority of Democrats agreed. Just one-third of independent voters and less than one-quarter of GOP survey respondents welcomed new gun control measures.” If the polls are to be believed, this reluctance is in part the product of a lack of trust in the federal government; in part the result of a belief that gun laws don’t actually work; and in part the result of harsh demarcation lines that have been draw in the broader culture wars.
If you can convince our ADD immediate-gratification oriented culture that gun control measures would have an effect in the long term, you're a better man than I.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanlion
editorial comment
# 10325
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Much the same as I would guess that a large percentage of gun crime in urban areas with the worst rates is committed by people who couldn't care less about a background check or licensing requirement.
Actually I'm not too sure of the premise, a fairly sizable percentage probably are 'law abiding' until something goes wrong.
Not likely.
In many of these places mere possession of the gun is a felony. That eliminates "law abiding" before anything even has a chance to go wrong.
--------------------
"You can't get rich in politics unless you're a crook" - Harry S. Truman
Posts: 1486 | From: White Rose City | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Where the &^%$ were these polls taken? And by whom? The same people that claim Trumpmania is sweeping the nation?
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Agreed. Like I said, if your primary motivator is compassion and solidarity, it's really not coming across.
*reads sign above board*
Ahem. You'll find compassion and solidarity down the corridor in All Saints.
Seriously? You expect me to give you all a comforting group hug down here? No, here is where I rant against the sheer obstinate stupidity of it all.
As for YOUR culture, again, I can't fucking help it that the English language chose some centuries back to forego the ability to easily distinguish between second person singular and plural, and there's no fucking way I'm going to keep finding awkward ways of describing American culture as not being connected to an American.
But it's complete nonsense to think that I am treating you as "generic national representatives". Do you really think I expect you to represent anything other than yourself? I think you're Americans. I don't think you're America.
[ 11. October 2015, 22:06: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
From the herpderp files: Facebook comment:
If the early Christians had had guns, Christ would still be alive today.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Of course they do. I have no idea what romanlion is trying to prove. That car insurance mandates are useless?
We carry uninsured and underinsured coverage.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, your conclusion is that this particular story doesn't support the premise that people should be armed to protect themselves and others.
I don't draw any conclusions from the story, and I don't seek to support any premise.
Yes, I know that particular story wasn't raised in support of your premise. But, you're still supporting a premise. Namely, you responded to orfeo quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
This stuff about a good guy with a gun being able to stop a massacre is such bullshit.
With an example of a "good guy with a gun" stopping a serious crime, saysay provided another example. Your premise appears to be the opposite of orfeo - specifically you are claiming that "a good guy with a gun being able to stop a massacre is not bullshit". Or at least that's how it appears to me. That is certainly the premise of those in the NRA and elsewhere who have repeatedly said that the solution to gun violence is for more good guys to be armed.
Now, I think orfeo overstated his case. As both you and saysay pointed out, the claim that "a good guy with a gun being able to stop a massacre is such bullshit" can be countered by a single example of that happening.
But, IMO the question is much deeper than that and my premise is different from orfeo - although I think we'll both reach the same conclusion on what needs to be done to reduce the rate of deaths from guns in the US. First, I note that there are very few examples of a "good guy with a gun" having any impact on the course of a crime - someone earlier linked to an article in (I think) the Washington Post listing such instances, and there were a few dozen at most over almost 20 years (sorry, I couldn't actually find that post again - it's also possible it was a friend on FB who posted it). Of course, the argument can be made that the more people with concealed (or open) carried weapons then the more chance of an intervention and so that number of incidents of a "good guy with a gun" saving the day would be higher.
My second point would be that that benefit of a "good guy with a gun" saving the day comes at a considerable cost. And, that cost is mostly from two places.
1. "Good guys" aren't so good. They may mean well, but they're only human, not some Hollywood creation. Their aim will not be perfect, if they discharge their weapon there is a high chance they will miss and hit someone else. Given that the chances of them being around just ahead of a mass shooting is very low, the chances are that they will be intervening in a lesser crime - a street mugging, robbery or something where any firearms carried by the criminals would probably not be fired (or, if fired done so for dramatic effect, into the ceiling for example) and so any injuries caused by the "good guy" will be in excess of any the bad guys would have caused. And, added to that the "good guy with a gun" far too often has a lousy sense of judgement. I could link to dozens of examples of someone using their gun on an "intruder" at home, only to find they've shot a family member using the bathroom, teenage daughter sneaking back in late at night, someone ringing their doorbell because their car broke down at the end of their drive ... you should get the point.
The question this part of the cost-benefit analysis is does allowing ordinary "good guys" arm themselves reduce the number of people killed, or increase the number? The evidence is that for every time a "good guy with a gun" intervenes against a criminal another "good guy with a gun" will shoot someone not committing a crime (or, at the very least, not committing a crime liable to cause death or injury to someone else). And, that's even without considering the times a "good guy" flips out and uses that gun for criminal acts or when someone else gets hold of the gun and causes injury accidentally.
2. I said there were two main areas of cost. Here's the second. Letting more "good guys" have guns increases the supply of guns to criminals. The vast majority of guns used by criminals were, at some point, sold legally to someone. The criminals got them through a variety of routes, the most significant being fraudulent purchase from retailers and theft from private owners. If you're going to increase the number of private citizens carrying guns then that will result in it being easier for criminals to obtain guns using fake ids etc. And, it will increase the number of homes where a burglar will find guns they can take. The only sure way to reduce the number of guns used by criminals is to make it harder for them to get guns, which means reducing the number of guns in circulation. Increasing the number of guns in circulation just makes it easier for criminals to get guns.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Do you really think I expect you to represent anything other than yourself? I think you're Americans. I don't think you're America.
Not. Coming. Across.
See? I can pull the one line out of what you said in disregard to everything else you said, too.
I don't expect cuddles in Hell-- I have been a member for 13 years, as I said. But you specifically expressed puzzlement as to why your understanding that we were in agreement didn't read. The answer was the bombastic, accusatory and (in some cases)somewhat vengeful tone you were taking. If you don't want to take that feedback onboard, fine, but understand nobody is going to read your mind and translate your rage dumps exactly the way you want them to. Cutting people slack for shooting off their mouths indiscriminately is DEFINITELY not required in Hell.
[ 12. October 2015, 03:21: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Of course they do. I have no idea what romanlion is trying to prove. That car insurance mandates are useless?
We carry uninsured and underinsured coverage.
OK, In CA it is mandated. You drive without insurance, you get a fix-it ticket, and if it is not fixed in due time, they come for your license. I think that is the kind of system the meme generator was suggesting for guns.
My point above (geriatric nuns) is that financial constraint can be a powerful motivator-- sadly, even when other tactics don't work. So, someone who might gleefully run stop signs if insurance was not a mandate would chill their jets, because if they got pulled over they wouldn't just get the traffic ticket, they might lose the whole car.
Again, if your goal is complete ceasefire-- not much help. But it might be a start at reduction.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Okay, then!
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
See? I can pull the one line out of what you said in disregard to everything else you said, too.
Which is totally cool with me, as the bit you pulled out seems totally consistent with everything else I said.
Also, it saves on scrolling. We don't all need to pull an Ingo with every post.
The purpose of selective quoting is to focus on the bit one is directly replying to. Which is what I'm doing now. If you choose to read that as "he's therefore ignored everything else he hasn't quoted", that's your funeral.
I certainly don't write things expecting people to respond point-by-point to everything I said. It's not actually helpful to do so and makes discussions unmanageable: I had a client a couple of years ago who felt they needed to say they were happy with each and every provision, and towards the end of the project I had to beg them to stop because it was so hard to find the 2 or 3 provisions they weren't happy with (the ones I actually had to do further work on) in between the pages and pages of ones that were okay.
[ 12. October 2015, 07:09: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Okay, then!
I suppose someone has to say it. Keeping guns away from schools will always be a good thing. But, it doesn't actually address the problem. Which is the next guy who wants his celebrity status and decides to gun down some kids isn't going to worry about breaking the law that says he can't take a gun to within 1000ft of a school.
It still doesn't address the main problem, which is simply too many guns.
Is there any reason no one has suggested a voluntary buy-back? No added legislation or licensing (though ultimately I can't see any way forward without those), but a simple "if you own a gun you don't actually need, we'll buy it from you and see that it's destroyed". It could be funded from several sources - Federal, State, city government, set up as community initiatives (in which case it may be just a hand over without money paid).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Okay, then!
I suppose someone has to say it. Keeping guns away from schools will always be a good thing. But, it doesn't actually address the problem. Which is the next guy who wants his celebrity status and decides to gun down some kids isn't going to worry about breaking the law that says he can't take a gun to within 1000ft of a school.
It still doesn't address the main problem, which is simply too many guns.
I have to disagree. The problem is that some guns are owned by people who should not have guns, for the greater good of the whole. There are about 300 million guns in the USA which is practically one per man, woman and child, although I'd suggest that most men, women and children are unarmed and the remainder have a number of guns for different purposes.
quote:
Is there any reason no one has suggested a voluntary buy-back? No added legislation or licensing (though ultimately I can't see any way forward without those), but a simple "if you own a gun you don't actually need, we'll buy it from you and see that it's destroyed". It could be funded from several sources - Federal, State, city government, set up as community initiatives (in which case it may be just a hand over without money paid).
I'm sure that the very people who should be disarmed whould be the last to hand over their firearms.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The problem is that some guns are owned by people who should not have guns, for the greater good of the whole.
Yes, and the problem is that you, I and just about everyone else here will have different lists of who should not have guns, and different lists of reasons. Of course, this only accounts for those who are legally allowed to hold a gun, when there are 300 million guns in the country it's very easy to have one illegally - which is where reducing that number substantially helps to make it much harder to illegally have a gun.
quote:
I'm sure that the very people who should be disarmed would be the last to hand over their firearms.
I'm sure that's true as well. But, it would still make a dent in that 300 million guns figure, which is still a step in the right direction.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Is there any reason no one has suggested a voluntary buy-back? No added legislation or licensing (though ultimately I can't see any way forward without those), but a simple "if you own a gun you don't actually need, we'll buy it from you and see that it's destroyed". It could be funded from several sources - Federal, State, city government, set up as community initiatives (in which case it may be just a hand over without money paid).
Here in Arizona: quote:
Cities that conduct buyback programs to get guns off the street will now be required to re-sell those weapons, according to a new law signed by the governor.
Also, there is nothing to keep those who sell their guns in a buyback program from using that money towards bigger and better guns.
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
What about a campaign along the lines of "Real Men don't shoot unarmed kids."
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
From the article Pigwidgeon linked:
quote:
Opponents argued that it sent the wrong message and that the state needed to focus on the broader issue of gun control."
This law is about gun control. It is about nothing else.
The United States of America
A wholly owned subsidiary of the National Rifle Association.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
What about a campaign along the lines of "Real Men don't shoot unarmed kids."
Would it be fair to point out that bringing back legalised duelling might actually save lives?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
What about a campaign along the lines of "Real Men don't shoot unarmed kids."
Would it be fair to point out that bringing back legalised duelling might actually save lives?
Compulsory legalised duelling could have some merit.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Okay, then!
I suppose someone has to say it. Keeping guns away from schools will always be a good thing. But, it doesn't actually address the problem. Which is the next guy who wants his celebrity status and decides to gun down some kids isn't going to worry about breaking the law that says he can't take a gun to within 1000ft of a school.
It still doesn't address the main problem, which is simply too many guns.
Is there any reason no one has suggested a voluntary buy-back? No added legislation or licensing (though ultimately I can't see any way forward without those), but a simple "if you own a gun you don't actually need, we'll buy it from you and see that it's destroyed". It could be funded from several sources - Federal, State, city government, set up as community initiatives (in which case it may be just a hand over without money paid).
I guess I assumed a buyback program would be voluntary. I brought up the general idea a few pages back, and saysay had a bunch of problem scenarios in response.
Personally I am at the "just try Something" stage. It's just like trying to introduce new actvities at a lesson planning meeting-- there is always 100 reasons not to try something. At some point you just have to pick a course of action and invest in it.
So, if I had excecutive fiat- buyback and mandated liability insurance. Then see what happens from there.
ETA: Arizona seems to be competing with Texas as far as fuck- you laws, sometimes.
[ 12. October 2015, 17:05: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
And as to what the church can do, I do like the idea of declaring, from the pulpit, that Jesus would not have carried. You want to be like Christ, or not?
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
As an olive branch to orfeo-- he recently posted an article with a screen capture of the $&@&$ing NRA posting a " What Gun would Jesus Carry" status on their Facebook page. (Or was it Twitter?)
Some smartass managed the first response, which was, "A nail gun."
Shock, outrage, and account-- blocking followed. (Also the guy got something like 700 likes before he got caught.)
[ 12. October 2015, 17:25: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
It occurs to me that the national gun control efforts in the US can be compared to the international nuclear arms reduction efforts-- same problems with proliferation, same arguments about minority entities left vulneable without arms, same struggle to get people to see the value in laying down their arms.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Is there any reason no one has suggested a voluntary buy-back? No added legislation or licensing (though ultimately I can't see any way forward without those), but a simple "if you own a gun you don't actually need, we'll buy it from you and see that it's destroyed". It could be funded from several sources - Federal, State, city government, set up as community initiatives (in which case it may be just a hand over without money paid).
If you haven't deduced this from Pigwidgeon's link, we already have them. Most of the places I've lived, they're an annual affair, frequently held in the the months before Christmas. The problem of people using the cash to buy bigger and better firearms is avoided by not paying cash, but by offering a choice of gift cards to stores where people can buy Christmas presents for their loved ones.
Unfortunately it barely makes a dent in the number of guns on the ground.
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Would it be fair to point out that bringing back legalised duelling might actually save lives?
When it comes to American culture, there's way too much truth in the movie Fight Club.
Unfortunately we've been moving in the opposite of what I think is a helpful direction, with some school districts going as far as banning the game of tag as being too aggressive and too likely to lead to harm.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
And there is no desire to shoot others who might shoot back. These are unmanly and cowardly beings who are only comfortable assailing the unwary -- students, or children, or animals. Dueling -- a fair fight toe to toe -- is the very last thing they want. An opponent able and willing to shoot back would blanch them to their toes.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
(Crosspost-- to saysay's tag comment)
Yeah, if I could ban one stupid school rule, it would be the one where we tell kids not to build excellent upper body strength by climbing up slides. It's stupid and counter productive. If you don't allow reasonable opportunities for rambunctiousness into the rules, kids will find ways to be rambunctious that will take ten years off your life.
"Chase games" are an excellent opportunity to burn off free-floating energy, and to teach the difference between a tag and a punch. If you don't allow kids appropriate venues for filling their mammalian need for physical contact, they wind up snapping and jumping up in the middle of storytime to pummel their friend.
This to say-- yes, we do far too much squelching of people's aggressive energy, and not enough redirecting. But what would redirecting look like on an adult/ national scale?
(What just popped into my head was the WPA.)
[ 12. October 2015, 18:47: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
If you haven't deduced this from Pigwidgeon's link, we already have them. Most of the places I've lived, they're an annual affair, frequently held in the the months before Christmas. The problem of people using the cash to buy bigger and better firearms is avoided by not paying cash, but by offering a choice of gift cards to stores where people can buy Christmas presents for their loved ones.
Unfortunately it barely makes a dent in the number of guns on the ground.
At least hereabouts, this is partly because the amount offered for them is considerably less than what one might get for them at a pawnshop.
Or, for that matter, in an alleyway, cash in hand, no questions asked. For someone looking to sell - why take the smaller amount offered by the police, and trust them when they say they won't surreptitiously take camera footage of who's turning in what (to be used in later prosecution), when you can sell elsewhere for more money and less chance of problems?
I'm told by acquaintances who collect that they've had good luck in offering more money right outside the police station for specific firearms that interested them, though I've no independent corroboration of that.
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Arizona seems to be competing with Texas as far as fuck- you laws, sometimes.
Unfortunately, it seems as if we're winning.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Yeah, if I could ban one stupid school rule, it would be the one where we tell kids not to build excellent upper body strength by climbing up slides.
I don't know how much of that is Elf'n'Safety, and how much is insufficient climbing equipment. (The throughput of a slide is much reduced if people are climbing up.)
quote:
If you don't allow reasonable opportunities for rambunctiousness into the rules, kids will find ways to be rambunctious that will take ten years off your life.
One of the tricks being how to ensure that the rambunctiousness is mutually consensual.
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
The problem of people using the cash to buy bigger and better firearms is avoided by not paying cash, but by offering a choice of gift cards to stores where people can buy Christmas presents for their loved ones.
Except money is fungible. If you give me a gift card to buy something that I would have bought anyway, it's functionally equivalent to giving me cash. If you give me a gift card that anyone in my extended family or circle of friends can use to buy something they would buy anyway, it's equivalent to cash. As a last resort, I can sell it at a discount.
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And there is no desire to shoot others who might shoot back.
Well, no. Why would anyone want that (duels and other nuttiness aside)?
People who want to shoot guns at other people fall into two categories:
1. People who are violent criminals or those who have snapped and want to go on a spree killing.
2. People who want to defend themselves.
Neither group wants a "fair fight". It may well be that the spree killers in group 1 are intending to commit suicide-by-cop, and go down in a hail of bullets and blaze of glory, but they're not interested in doing that until after they've committed their acts of carnage.
People in group 2 aren't interested in trading blow for blow with an attacker - they're interested in stopping whoever's attacking them.
[ 12. October 2015, 19:19: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Yeah, if I could ban one stupid school rule, it would be the one where we tell kids not to build excellent upper body strength by climbing up slides.
I don't know how much of that is Elf'n'Safety, and how much is insufficient climbing equipment. (The throughput of a slide is much reduced if people are climbing up.)
quote:
If you don't allow reasonable opportunities for rambunctiousness into the rules, kids will find ways to be rambunctious that will take ten years off your life.
One of the tricks being how to ensure that the rambunctiousness is mutually consensual.
To point 1. : climbing up a slide is a specific excercise. Even on elaborately crafted climbing equipment, kids do it. (And the standardized climbing structures in mynstate have a minimum of three slides-- one curly, two straight.) If they can physically do it, and if the only hassle created by it is teachers having more work to do by keeping them off, why are we forbidding an excellent large motor activity? Make a couple right of way rules and let them have at it!
To point 2. If we free teachers up from dumb rules, and if the teachers themselves don't use the playground as a venue to talk about last night's episode of "Hoarders" but as a venue to engage in conversation with the kids (I'm looking at you, Lucy V. ), we will have a chance to teach them the vocabulary (verbal and nonverbal) of consent. " Do you hear him yelling 'ow!'? Do you see her covering her face and backing away? That means they are not having fun. You: ask if he's ok, and you: tell her,' I don't want to play like that! Stop pulling my arms!'"
It's doable.I do it all day long. When I am not stuck enforcing some dumb " down only" slide regulation.
[ 12. October 2015, 19:56: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
To point 2. If we free teachers up from dumb rules, and if the teachers themselves don't use the playground as a venue to talk about last night's episode of "Hoarders" but as a venue to engage in conversation with the kids (I'm looking at you, Lucy V. ), we will have a chance to teach them the vocabulary (verbal and nonverbal) of consent. " Do you hear him yelling 'ow!'? Do you see her covering her face and backing away? That means they are not having fun. You: ask if he's ok, and you: tell her,' I don't want to play like that! Stop pulling my arms!'"
It's doable.I do it all day long. When I am not stuck enforcing some dumb " down only" slide regulation.
Exactly. When I was a kid, girls were allowed to opt out of rambunctious play when we wanted to because we were girls, whereas boys were more likely to face a social penalty (at the very least, being called sissies) for doing the same thing. As long as everyone is clear on the fact that sometimes people (of either gender) don't want to play like that and that's OK, I don't see the problem.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
If they can physically do it, and if the only hassle created by it is teachers having more work to do by keeping them off, why are we forbidding an excellent large motor activity? Make a couple right of way rules and let them have at it!
I was thinking of my own local playground (which has a couple of climbing structures with three slides each.) However, the slides are all different, and so there's often three or four children queueing to go down the preferred slide. Climbing up a slide (slow) with several children waiting to slide down it (quick) is kind of assholey.
I'd be quite happy to declare one slide the "up" slide and avoid traffic flow issues that way.
(My eldest still complains about how she was told not to climb on top of the monkey bars ![[Smile]](smile.gif) )
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
If you haven't deduced this from Pigwidgeon's link, we already have them. Most of the places I've lived, they're an annual affair, frequently held in the the months before Christmas. The problem of people using the cash to buy bigger and better firearms is avoided by not paying cash, but by offering a choice of gift cards to stores where people can buy Christmas presents for their loved ones.
Unfortunately it barely makes a dent in the number of guns on the ground.
At least hereabouts, this is partly because the amount offered for them is considerably less than what one might get for them at a pawnshop.
A pawnshop? Why would a pawnbroker part with cash for a gun? Surely they can't resell it, unless of course they're part of a licensed gun dealership. Presumably they wouldn't have access to what's needed to run background checks and ensure the buyer has a valid permit.
Or, am I just being naive and that it's perfectly legal to buy a gun no questions asked?
quote:
For someone looking to sell - why take the smaller amount offered by the police, and trust them when they say they won't surreptitiously take camera footage of who's turning in what (to be used in later prosecution), when you can sell elsewhere for more money and less chance of problems?
I wouldn't have thought of a buy-back as something for "someone looking to sell". More of a means for citizens concerned that they have dangerous items in their homes to get rid of them simply and safely - I know that if I owned guns the last thing I'd want is for them to get into the hands of criminals, and the peace of mind of handing them to the police for destruction would be an important consideration. But, that's just me.
In the UK I don't think we've had buy backs (I may be wrong about that). But, we do have regular amnesties where people can hand in illegally held weapons (guns and knives mostly, the odd sword sometimes turns up). AIUI the amnesty covers the crime of holding the weapon illegally, by handing it over you won't be prosecuted for having it in the first place. The amnesty doesn't cover any crimes that the weapon may have been used for. Although it would take a particularly dumb criminal to use a gun in a bank robbery, fire it, and then hand it into the police to check the recovered bullet to the gun. Any criminal with half a brain would surely know it's easy to match bullets to guns and if the gun was fired during a crime they'd dump the gun in the nearest body of deep water as fast as possible.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
In the UK I don't think we've had buy backs (I may be wrong about that).
There were buybacks in 1997/1998, to compensate owners of weapons that were banned post-Dunblane. This is only right and proper - if we make your legally-owned property illegal, we should compensate you for it.
I'm pretty sure there was one after Hungerford and the resulting legal changes as well.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
In the UK I don't think we've had buy backs (I may be wrong about that).
There were buybacks in 1997/1998, to compensate owners of weapons that were banned post-Dunblane. This is only right and proper - if we make your legally-owned property illegal, we should compensate you for it.
I'm pretty sure there was one after Hungerford and the resulting legal changes as well.
You're right, I should Google before posting ... though, still not finding any post-Hungerford buy-back references (but, the restrictions on the higher power rifles affected very few people as they weren't a commonly held weapon - if you're going hunting you don't want to use a gun that will spread your dinner over several hundred feet).
It is, of course, right and proper to provide some compensation when something that had been legally owned becomes illegal. I suppose the UK had it easier doing that buy-back, we would have known how many guns were coming in and therefore know the cost upfront. If you try that without a list of legally held guns there's a bit of guess work involved in working out what the cost will be.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
On a saner note from Texas #CocksNotGlocks has students doing open carry of dildos.
quote:
“You’re carrying a gun to class?”.... “Yeah well I’m carrying a HUGE DILDO. Just about as effective at protecting us from sociopathic shooters, but much safer for recreational play.”
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
You might also enjoy Gunlickers [NSFW], a series by artist Kate Kretz. It's kind of a dildo gun thing. Art...
[Hostly edit - while CocksNotGlocks should give the reader a bit of a clue, Gunlickers may not. Technically, artistic portraits of men fellating weaponry isn't porn, but could certainly be misconstrued as porn. So I'm tagging it.]
[ 13. October 2015, 08:03: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
On a saner note from Texas #CocksNotGlocks has students doing open carry of dildos.
quote:
“You’re carrying a gun to class?”.... “Yeah well I’m carrying a HUGE DILDO. Just about as effective at protecting us from sociopathic shooters, but much safer for recreational play.”
You know things are nuts when student stunts seem sensible.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) Aren't they awesome?
Like I said, some people find 500 reasons not to do something, and some people take a dildo to class.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
