|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: How can this be even vaguely justified?
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
I can't decide whether I should might make it my goal to get busted for tubular vermicelli or spelling syrup wrong).
Are you arguing that there shouldn't be laws governing food labelling? 'Cause there are a whole bunch of laws that seem stupidly detailed, but are actually there for a reason.
Including the one about something called "vermicelli" having to have the correct dimensions, "giblets" having to consist of roughly equal parts of all the constituents (you can't just remove all the livers, and sell what's left as "giblets").
These laws are what makes those words useful.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The basic premise behind such actions is that the militants will not leave the facility until their demands are met (which is true in this case)
And which has been true at any number of Occupy and Black Lives Matter demonstrations, take-overs of city hall, etc.
quote:
and will resist any attempts to remove them.
Where the hell do you get that? Do you not understand that this country has a long history of civil disobedience in which protesters refused to leave a space they were occupying until the police (frequently, but not always, peacefully) removed them? Do you not realize that it's more likely to be the police than the protesters who initiate the violence? You're just making stuff up to justify your hatred of certain people.
quote:
Given the means at their disposal include firearms, a key feature of the militants' plan, it does not seem unreasonable to assume resistance includes a potential armed confrontation with law enforcement.
Except for the multiple times that everyone involved has said that they will not fire unless or until they are fired upon.
This is the exact kind of logic that has led to police killing more than 1,000 people this year, many of them unarmed. And it's why we can't hold them accountable. Because as long as the officer felt in fear for his life, murder by state agents is A-OK.
quote:
(For anyone who doesn't think arson of public lands is a serious issue in the American west, I refer you to last year's wildfires.)
OMG! There were lots of wildfires! Which frequently happen in the wilderness anyway because the land is dry and lightening strikes (which is something people sometimes try to prevent with controlled burns). And they might be even more likely to happen after an extended drought! But this is somehow proof that a bunch of humans committed a bunch of crimes!
quote:
Militias trying to enforce their will at gunpoint isn't democracy, it's a form of warlordism. And in what sense does a militant group from Nevada "live in the communities [i.e. Harney County, Oregon] where the effects of their decisions will be felt"?
No one is pointing any guns. There is no 'at gunpoint.'
Apart from that, your deliberate misrepresentation of others' views is exactly why I don't usually even attempt to engage with you. It's dishonest and not the way to win friends and influence people. Which I suppose doesn't matter to someone who spends most of his time arguing for either an oligarchy or a dictatorship enforced with state violence. No need to persuade others that your view is correct when that's the case.
--------------------
"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
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Are you arguing that there shouldn't be laws governing food labelling? 'Cause there are a whole bunch of laws that seem stupidly detailed, but are actually there for a reason.
No, I wasn't arguing that there shouldn't be any laws governing food labeling. I was trying to make something of a light-hearted comment about what I think is a serious issue and an increasing threat to free speech in the US (the serious argument part being summarized by the first link).
My imagined conversation between two prisoners (what are you in for? Murder, you? Oh, I let my niece make some labels for some syrup I sold at the farmer's market and she spelled syrup wrong but I sold it anyway) strikes me as funny.
quote:
These laws are what makes those words useful.
If you're a large corporation doing business in multiple states and/or internationally, that may be the case.
If you're a small local business following applicable food labeling laws in your state, the federal laws are worse than useless.
--------------------
"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 saysay:
If you're a large corporation doing business in multiple states and/or internationally, that may be the case.
If you're a small local business following applicable food labeling laws in your state, the federal laws are worse than useless.
Can you convince me that having the same food labelling laws in Mississippi and Maryland is a bad idea?
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by saysay:
Can you convince me that having the same food labelling laws in Mississippi and Maryland is a bad idea?
No. If Maryland and Mississippi want to get together and say people's lives would somehow be better if they had the same food labeling laws, more power to them.
I know, in theory, that's what the federal government does (it allows for representatives of different states to come together and create precisely those sorts of laws).
In practice, the federal government consists of a small group of elites in Washington who are dependent on the money coming from huge corporations imposing laws the people don't (and sometimes can't) understand on an increasingly unwilling populace.
Having the same food labeling laws in Maryland and Mississippi doesn't do most people much good, since we can't understand a damn thing the label is trying to tell us anyway. It does, however, create yet another opportunity for prosecutorial abuse of power in an unbelievably broken criminal justice system.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Dave W.--
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Re worse stuff:
Note I did say "allegedly". There've been various links. This one, admittedly from a hard-core conservative site, gave me pause.
None of this has anything at all to do with the 2014 DHS report. However sympathetic you may be to claims posted on right-wing websites, it certainly isn't the case that "even Homeland Security had previously warned that the BLM's rough treatment of ranchers could lead to serious trouble."
Errr...did you miss my post, just after the one where you asked for a source?
quote:
Dave W.--
Apologies. I had it part right, and misheard the rest. I should've double-checked before posting.
[Hot and Hormonal]
I do appreciate that you recognize you were at least partly wrong in your original post, but I'm not sure what you think you "had part right", or why you think right-wing fulminations about federal land use have anything to do with the notion that the DHS is urging the BLM to do "*worse* stuff".
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Having the same food labeling laws in Maryland and Mississippi doesn't do most people much good, since we can't understand a damn thing the label is trying to tell us anyway.
Yes, God only knows what "calories from fat" means. It's not like they can, I dunno, measure grams of fat and then multiply them by the number of calories in a gram of fat. I mean, who can follow THAT logic? Sheesh, they expect you to be a fucking genius just to eat your canned chili.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Yes, God only knows what "calories from fat" means. It's not like they can, I dunno, measure grams of fat and then multiply them by the number of calories in a gram of fat. I mean, who can follow THAT logic? Sheesh, they expect you to be a fucking genius just to eat your canned chili.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
So you have two units of measurement in the metric system (which hasn't been accepted by much of America and which isn't taught in many schools) that people are supposed to multiply in order to determine some arbitrary number (calories from fat), which means what exactly to people who neither have access to decent health education nor health care? Particularly to people who are don't know these things but are trying to sell their pickles (made from their grandmother's recipe) to their neighbors? And who don't have a chem lab in their basement?
I think I'll pop some low-fat popcorn (healthy, I've been told, as long as one doesn't add butter or salt). The coming Trump presidency and civil war will likely be at least somewhat entertaining as long as one thinks of it as a movie rather than something that harms real people.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Yes, God only knows what "calories from fat" means. It's not like they can, I dunno, measure grams of fat and then multiply them by the number of calories in a gram of fat. I mean, who can follow THAT logic? Sheesh, they expect you to be a fucking genius just to eat your canned chili.
So you have two units of measurement in the metric system (which hasn't been accepted by much of America and which isn't taught in many schools) that people are supposed to multiply in order to determine some arbitrary number (calories from fat), which means what exactly to people who neither have access to decent health education nor health care? Particularly to people who are don't know these things but are trying to sell their pickles (made from their grandmother's recipe) to their neighbors? And who don't have a chem lab in their basement?
If your pickles have fat in them, you may have bigger problems than the metric system.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
I know, in theory, that's what the federal government does (it allows for representatives of different states to come together and create precisely those sorts of laws).
In practice, the federal government consists of a small group of elites in Washington who are dependent on the money coming from huge corporations imposing laws the people don't (and sometimes can't) understand on an increasingly unwilling populace.
So you think that state governments would be less susceptible to corruption? Where do you think these corporations reside? And you think they would not also influence where they sell?
The problem with states deciding so much, is that almost nothing remains withing their own borders. Pollution doesn't, food doesn't, finished goods do not.
All moving authority to states does is hide the problems and make them more difficult to solve. It focuses local interest at the expense of the national interests.
Are there problems with the American Federal government? Obviously. But shifting them to the state levels will not solve any of them. It will make them worse.
--------------------
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
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
So you have two units of measurement in the metric system (which hasn't been accepted by much of America and which isn't taught in many schools) that people are supposed to multiply in order to determine some arbitrary number (calories from fat), which means what exactly to people who neither have access to decent health education nor health care?
The Calorie is not usefully "in the metric system." It's not the SI unit for energy - that would be the Joule (and you'll find that the European version of the label you claim not to
understand quotes energy content in both Calories and kiloJoules.
Would you prefer a nutrition label that quoted the calorific content of your chocolate bar in BTU? Or perhaps in foot-pounds? (If it helps, there's nearly 4 BTU to the Calorie, or more than 3000 foot-pounds. Is that suitably un-metric for you?)
Nevertheless, the Calorie is the standard unit for the energy content of food in the US, and has been for generations.
quote:
Particularly to people who are don't know these things but are trying to sell their pickles (made from their grandmother's recipe) to their neighbors? And who don't have a chem lab in their basement?
If you can follow a recipe, and scale it for different quantities, then you have all the skills required to generate a nutrition label. Chem lab not required.
Unless you have an entire pickle factory in your basement, you're exempt from nutrition labelling. If you have annual sales of less than half a million dollars, you don't even have to file an exemption notice with the FDA.
I'd imagine the regulations about having a clean kitchen, separate sinks for food prep and handwashing and so on would still apply to you, though.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The basic premise behind such actions is that the militants will not leave the facility until their demands are met (which is true in this case) and will resist any attempts to remove them.
Where the hell do you get that? Do you not understand that this country has a long history of civil disobedience in which protesters refused to leave a space they were occupying until the police (frequently, but not always, peacefully) removed them?
Because that's the whole purpose of staging such occupations. If protesters meekly leave when asked it kind of defeats the purpose. Resistance can take the form of simply going limp and forcing authorities to carry you out bodily (a tough proposition if you can get enough people together) or chaining yourself to some immovable object. In the case of an armed group the means of resistance at their disposal includes deadly force.
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
(For anyone who doesn't think arson of public lands is a serious issue in the American west, I refer you to last year's wildfires.)
OMG! There were lots of wildfires! Which frequently happen in the wilderness anyway because the land is dry and lightening strikes (which is something people sometimes try to prevent with controlled burns). And they might be even more likely to happen after an extended drought! But this is somehow proof that a bunch of humans committed a bunch of crimes!
Yeah, most people would consider the fact that the American west is prone to burn as a fairly convincing reason why setting fires willy-nilly is a bad idea and should be discouraged by law. You, on the other hand, seem to be taking the position that since it's all going to burn anyway there shouldn't be any laws covering arson. That is indeed some outside the box thinking!
Seriously though, the Hammond firebugs illustrate pretty much all the reasons arson laws in the American west are not (and should not be) the trivial matter you make them out to be. These guys set fires twice that burned out of control and beyond their property, once during a burn ban instituted to allow another fire to be contained.
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Are you arguing that there shouldn't be laws governing food labelling? 'Cause there are a whole bunch of laws that seem stupidly detailed, but are actually there for a reason.
No, I wasn't arguing that there shouldn't be any laws governing food labeling. I was trying to make something of a light-hearted comment about what I think is a serious issue and an increasing threat to free speech in the US (the serious argument part being summarized by the first link).
My imagined conversation between two prisoners (what are you in for? Murder, you? Oh, I [labeled rat feces as 'peanut butter', killing 9 and sickening hundreds]) strikes me as funny.
Food safety and sales fraud don't really strike me as free speech issues. Claiming a rat turd is a peanut is not a mere difference of opinion, or harmless.
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
So you have two units of measurement in the metric system (which hasn't been accepted by much of America and which isn't taught in many schools) that people are supposed to multiply in order to determine some arbitrary number (calories from fat), which means what exactly to people who neither have access to decent health education nor health care?
The Calorie is not usefully "in the metric system." It's not the SI unit for energy - that would be the Joule (and you'll find that the European version of the label you claim not to
understand quotes energy content in both Calories and kiloJoules.
Would you prefer a nutrition label that quoted the calorific content of your chocolate bar in BTU? Or perhaps in foot-pounds? (If it helps, there's nearly 4 BTU to the Calorie, or more than 3000 foot-pounds. Is that suitably un-metric for you?)
Next step, getting light bulbs rated in horsepower instead of traitorously metric and confusing Watts!
Though I will say that claiming that the fat content of foods is an "arbitrary" value, rather than something which can be measured, does fit in with saysay's earlier contention that food labeling is a form of "free speech" not bound by any standards of accuracy.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I've asked this before on other threads. Is it possible to have a concept of peaceful protest if both the public and the police are free to carry guns? Or does the protest remain 'peaceful' until a protester does the police the favour of drawing a gun on someone?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I've asked this before on other threads. Is it possible to have a concept of peaceful protest if both the public and the police are free to carry guns?
I don't see why not. We have the concept of a peaceful protest when both the public and the police are free to carry fists. It becomes non-peaceful if those fists are used to punch people, or to threaten to punch people.
I suppose it's a question of whether you think the mere presence of a gun is threatening.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I don't see why not. We have the concept of a peaceful protest when both the public and the police are free to carry fists. It becomes non-peaceful if those fists are used to punch people, or to threaten to punch people.
I suppose it's a question of whether you think the mere presence of a gun is threatening.
No, I think it is the attitude - which effectively is saying "I'm peaceful.. as long as everyone else is peaceful. As soon as anyone else isn't, I'm not either."
If you are carrying a gun, you're only potentially peaceful and there is a high likelihood that others will also be carrying guns on the (remote or otherwise) situation whereby someone decides to use one. If you are not carrying a gun, you can legitimately claim to be peaceful even if everyone else is carrying. Because without a gun you've quite a lot less options for becoming violent and fists don't tend to be much of a response to bullets.
Hand are by their nature a different kind of thing to guns. Guns just are threatening, that is one of the purposes of them. Hands are not necessarily because they can be used in a range of ways - threatening and otherwise.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
Also, to state the obvious: while both fists and guns can be violent, fists are far less likely to be deadly. Sure, in the heat of the moment fists may fly, someone gets punched, perhaps a nose gets broken or an eye blackened. That's bad-- potentially felonious, even. But the consequences are quite a bit different than firing a gun in the heat of the moment.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Hand are by their nature a different kind of thing to guns. Guns just are threatening, that is one of the purposes of them.
Are guns intrinsically threatening, or are they only threatening because we're not used to seeing them around?
If everybody routinely carried a gun, I don't think we'd find the sight of someone with a gun threatening. If you go hunting with a group of people, probably everyone is carrying a gun. If you go to a shooting range, everyone has guns. Would you be threatened by that? I'd suggest not, because those guns aren't being threatening. Those guns are tools being used.
Similarly, if you lived in a place where everyone routinely carried a pistol on his or her hip, I think you'd consider the presence of the guns as normal, and not threatening.
It's the fact that it's uncommon to carry a gun that makes you look at a person with a gun and think "why does he have that? What's he going to do? Is he going to shoot me?"
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Similarly, if you lived in a place where everyone routinely carried a pistol on his or her hip, I think you'd consider the presence of the guns as normal, and not threatening.
Nope. I know myself quite well and I can identify people who are threatening. Sometimes people who are not carrying weapons are threatening, but people carrying guns are always threatening to me.
For example: I'm pretty unlikely to be worried about a small child or an old person - even if they're boisterous or loud or being racist etc. If that person is visible carrying a knife or gun, then I'm going to be worried.
For one thing, a small child or an old person can easily set off a gun by accident. Which, of course, happens all the time in places where guns are widely available.
quote:
It's the fact that it's uncommon to carry a gun that makes you look at a person with a gun and think "why does he have that? What's he going to do? Is he going to shoot me?"
Nope, its the fact that guns kill people. That's what they're for.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I agree that a person out shooting duck or rabbits with a gun isn't threatening. But a person demonstrating, waving placards about and shouting or doing anything else potentially aggressive, who is also carrying a gun, is.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
people carrying guns are always threatening to me.
That. Here in Arizona we see them all the time. I saw a father with his young daughter (probably 6 or 7) in a restaurant the other day -- daddy had a gun. I gave them as wide a berth as I could.
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I agree that a person out shooting duck or rabbits with a gun isn't threatening. But a person demonstrating, waving placards about and shouting or doing anything else potentially aggressive, who is also carrying a gun, is.
Yes. It's all about context-- we use context to make certain assumptions about someone's intent and purposes. You see someone swinging a machete-- if you're in the middle of a field of sugar cane, you think nothing of it. If you're in the middle of a preschool classroom, you're going to be concerned.
That doesn't mean our assumptions are always right, of course. But it does mean there are reasons to be concerned and to take extra precautions/ watch carefully when someone is brandishing a deadly weapon in a situation where such weaponry is not really called for.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
cliffdweller: You see someone swinging a machete-- if you're in the middle of a field of sugar cane, you think nothing of it. If you're in the middle of a preschool classroom, you're going to be concerned.
But in both cases, you keep your distance.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
But in both cases, you keep your distance.
Sure, but they're quite different cases. You keep a cautious distance from someone with a machete in a field of sugar cane, because you quiet sensibly want to avoid the potential of an accident. Similarly, you look both ways before you cross a road, and wear safety glasses when using machine tools.
You're not afraid of the farmer with the machete any more than you're afraid of the traffic or the lathe.
Now consider the angry man waving a machete around in a classroom. You are probably scared that he will attack you, or attack someone else (maybe a child).
Now suppose the man with a machete in a classroom wasn't waving it around angrily, but was showing the class examples of farming implements. Now you're not scared. A little concerned about sharp pointy objects in amongst the children, maybe, but not scared.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But it does mean there are reasons to be concerned and to take extra precautions/ watch carefully when someone is brandishing a deadly weapon in a situation where such weaponry is not really called for.
Yes, it's about expectations. In my counterfactual example, where "everyone" routinely carries a gun, you wouldn't think twice about it, because it would be normal behaviour. If everyone you see carries a gun at all times, then the fact that you see someone carrying a gun tells you nothing about his intentions. Very much like the way that I don't go through life assuming that people are going to hit me because they have fists.
I see people with guns all the time, and I don't find them threatening. That's because these people have their guns holstered, are wearing uniforms, and I'm a white man with privilege spilling out of my ears.
Rather more unnerving are the UK police patrolling outside the US embassy, at airports and the like with MP5s held at the ready. They don't merely possess the guns, but are holding them in a way that threatens their immediate use.
To me, that's the difference. Gun in holster: not scary. Rifle slung on back: not scary. Gun held at the ready? Scary.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Holstered, unholstered makes no difference. In the UK we have accidental gun deaths (and without going into detail, my family lived with a tragic gun death) and shootings by police.
But because guns are not widely available, they don't happen very often. Because people don't habitually wander around with weapons in holsters, shootings are mercifully rare. Because British police do not usually walk around with guns (holstered or not) - even acknowledging that they are sometimes visibly armed in some sensitive places - they rarely fire shots and rarely get shot.
If you are asking me whether I'd rather live in a country where guns can be bought and worn without restriction or one where they're rare, checked and used by police in a handful of situations, then the latter, obviously.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I still don't see how one can have a peaceful demonstration if the people demonstrating either might have firearms conceded on them, or are visibly carrying them.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I still don't see how one can have a peaceful demonstration if the people demonstrating either might have firearms conceded on them, or are visibly carrying them.
How about defying the law by feeding the homeless while (legally) armed?
quote:
“We’ve already had to speak to the police, they’ve already come and delivered code to us,” said Short, explaining what happened when the code enforcers showed up. “But, after shaking hands with them, they realized we’re all armed – and we’re gonna do what we’re gonna do because it’s not an immoral thing that we are doing.”
If that doesn't mess with your mind, nothing will.
[ 13. January 2016, 08:58: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
So there have been a few developments at Malheur.
quote:
OPB* observed militants interacting with computers in the compound that can only be accessed with employee ID badges. The armed men also appear to have gone through materials in an office building used by federal employees.
This comes as militants rejected leaving the facility Friday, which they’ve occupied illegally since Jan. 2.
The computers are in a room of cubicles near the main compound. LaVoy Finicum, a member of the occupying group’s security team, accidentally led OPB into the area.
Finicum says the group plans to turn the office into a media center that would eventually house reporters.
There are four desks in the office, two on each side. Three of the computers were turned on, and in screen saver mode. Papers in the room were strewn about in a disorderly manner.
After Finicum realized he shouldn’t have allowed OPB to access the room, he quickly picked up lists of names and Social Security numbers by the computers, and hid government employee ID cards that were previously in plain sight.
Oops! So how did the leaders of the militants explain this?
quote:
Shortly after, one of the militant leaders, Ryan Bundy, walked into the room.
When asked about the computers, Bundy emphatically denied any of the work spaces had been touched since the occupation.
“No, we haven’t touched a single personal item. We haven’t touched any of the computers, we haven’t tried to log on — we haven’t done anything. We’re not here to hurt people,” Bundy said, “not even the people who work here.”
So it's the old "who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?" routine. Plus the apparently unprompted suspiciously specific denial about not hurting people, "not even the people who work here".
Well, I'm sure even if they did compile some kind of "enemies list" nothing would ever come of it, right?
quote:
Concerns about employee safety ratcheted up after several employees reported what were described as “uncomfortable incidences” in which unknown individuals from outside the Burns community have driven slowly past or idled in front of their homes, observing the residents and their activities.
Additionally, several employees told officials they have been confronted by self-identified militia members while the employees were grocery shopping, running errands and just trying to lead their day-to-day lives.
Some of these confrontations have occurred while employees were with their families.
“While not direct physical threats, these activities are clearly designed to intimidate,” Nagel told KOIN 6 News.
But have no fear! The militants have called in a judge and constitutional scholar who will no doubt set them straight on the outlines of the law. Well, maybe maybe not a "judge" in the strictest sense of the term:
quote:
A self-proclaimed "U.S. Superior Court judge" who has been involved in past property rights protests in other states arrived Tuesday in Burns with plans to convene an extra-legal "citizens grand jury" that he said will review evidence that public officials may have committed crimes.
Bruce Doucette, a 54-year-old owner of a computer design and repair shop in suburban Denver, told The Oregonian/OregonLive, that he made the trip at the request of Harney County residents. He said he met with the armed occupiers of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge to hear their evidence, which he called "significant," that government officials have committed crimes.
But he declined to say which officials or which crimes they discussed and said a privately appointed "grand jury" of Harney County residents, not he as a self-appointed judge, would decide whether to charge anyone with a crime.
"The grand jury will convene in private and make its decisions in private," Doucette said. "The role of a superior court judge is not very glorified. All we do is write up" what the local citizens decide, he said.
<snip>
Bundy, in a "redress of grievance" to Harney County and Oregon leaders that he posted last month, said evidence of government officials' crimes should be heard and decided in public by a hearing board of Harney residents.
Doucette, by contrast, said 25 local residents would hear testimony and make decisions in private. But both said the conclusions would be put in writing and made public.
There is no evidence to date that a legal determination by a self-styled judge associated with the sovereign citizen movement would have any effect, other than to excite people already allied with that fringe view.
If you put aside the farcical, make-believe elements of this whole thing we're left with the very concerning situation where a heavily armed group of disgruntled militants (allegedly) have a list of names of "criminals" (by virtue of working for the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service) they intend to indict/try/whatever in some kind of secret tribunal answerable to no one.
--------------------
* "OPB" stands for "Oregon Public Broadcasting".
[ 13. January 2016, 20:41: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
On some days, I am absolutely convinced that the entire population of the USA consists of descendants of people who couldn't get along with anybody in their country of origin.
I mean, really: a "citizen's grand jury"? Sounds like the politically-correct term for a lynch mob.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
On some days, I am absolutely convinced that the entire population of the USA consists of descendants of people who couldn't get along with anybody in their country of origin.
I look forward to hearing your views on other days of the entire population of France, all Muslims, etc.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I suppose it's a question of whether you think the mere presence of a gun is threatening.
It's a hell of a lot harder to draw a fist and kill someone 100 yards away than to draw a gun and kill someone 100 yards away. There really is no comparison. Or at best, a very, very stupid one.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Holstered, unholstered makes no difference.
You are equally scared by a man pointing a gun and a man with a holstered gun? I find that surprising.
quote:
If you are asking me whether I'd rather live in a country where guns can be bought and worn without restriction or one where they're rare, checked and used by police in a handful of situations, then the latter, obviously.
No, that's not at all what I'm asking. I'm asking you to consider how you would feel about seeing a man with a gun on his hip if you lived in a hypothetical, counterfactual place where everyone routinely carried a gun. I'm not asking how mr cheesy, as he exists, would feel if he were magically dropped in to Guntown, but how mr cheesy would feel if he had been brought up and lived in such a place. (Assuming also that Guntown is just one small part of Gunland - everyone carries guns everywhere you go.)
PS. Crœsos: Lights are measured in lumens ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Holstered, unholstered makes no difference.
You are equally scared by a man pointing a gun and a man with a holstered gun? I find that surprising.
You are incapable of distinguishing between a man with an unholstered gun and a man pointing a gun?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I'm asking you to consider how you would feel about seeing a man with a gun on his hip if you lived in a hypothetical, counterfactual place where everyone routinely carried a gun. I'm not asking how mr cheesy, as he exists, would feel if he were magically dropped in to Guntown, but how mr cheesy would feel if he had been brought up and lived in such a place. (Assuming also that Guntown is just one small part of Gunland - everyone carries guns everywhere you go.)
If I lived in a hypothetical, counterfactual place where everyone routinely carried an umbrella, I think I'd probably expect a lot of rain.
So why exactly does everyone in Gunland carry a gun all the time?
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You are incapable of distinguishing between a man with an unholstered gun and a man pointing a gun?
The two examples I gave were a man with a gun in a holster, and a man with a gun in his hands, held at the ready. The latter, to me, demonstrates some kind of expectation that he might use the gun in the near future, and is very much closer to pointing the gun than a gun that isn't in his hand.
When I moved to the US, I was quite unnerved by seeing police officers wearing sidearms. I'd be talking to a cop, and all the time I'd be thinking "that's a gun. Why has be brought a gun here? What does he think is going to happen?"
I've been here a while now, and have got used to seeing armed cops. I'm no longer unnerved by their guns, and no longer think anything of it. The cop carrying a gun doesn't mean anything - it's as much a part of his uniform attire as his shirt or badge.
This doesn't mean that I necessarily think that armed cops are a good thing, but it means that the fact that the cop is armed conveys no information about his motives or intentions. I'm a white man - he's probably not going to shoot me.
Were I an inhabitant of counterfactual Gunland, I imagine that I'd feel the same way about all my gun-carrying neighbours. They've got guns, but they always have guns, so there's nothing special about today. And again, they're probably not going to shoot me.
And yes, guns are much more deadly than fists, and have a much longer range, but nevertheless I move into the range of people's fists a large number of times each day without the slightest fear that any of them might hit me. Because people don't, as a rule.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
You are equally scared by a man pointing a gun and a man with a holstered gun? I find that surprising.
You're easily surprised.
quote:
quote:
If you are asking me whether I'd rather live in a country where guns can be bought and worn without restriction or one where they're rare, checked and used by police in a handful of situations, then the latter, obviously.
No, that's not at all what I'm asking. I'm asking you to consider how you would feel about seeing a man with a gun on his hip if you lived in a hypothetical, counterfactual place where everyone routinely carried a gun. I'm not asking how mr cheesy, as he exists, would feel if he were magically dropped in to Guntown, but how mr cheesy would feel if he had been brought up and lived in such a place. (Assuming also that Guntown is just one small part of Gunland - everyone carries guns everywhere you go.)
I'd still think it was fucking stupid, having visited many places where the populations are terrorised by men walking around with guns holstered or unholstered. Having a weapon on the hip of random people is never normal. Ever.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
And yes, guns are much more deadly than fists, and have a much longer range, but nevertheless I move into the range of people's fists a large number of times each day without the slightest fear that any of them might hit me. Because people don't, as a rule.
Perhaps it's also partly because you also realize (at least subconsciously) that hands have a thousand and one other uses, and that leaving them safely locked up in a hand cabinet at home is rarely practical.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Having a weapon on the hip of random people is never normal. Ever.
And, never has been. Even in the Wild West, when the coyboys rode into town the first thing they did was hand their guns into the Sheriff to be collected when they left.
I don't recall any Westerns where upon entering the town and seeing the sign to hand in guns that the coyboys started to protest about the infringement of their Constitutional rights to bear arms.
--------------------
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
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
We are starting a movement here in the states, the name of which I have forgot. But, essentially, you do not stay in a business where people come in with guns. If you are in a store, you abandon your selections and leave. If you are in a restaurant, you get up and leave. Sorry about that bar bill, but the presence of guns makes it too dangerous for me.
It is within the power of the business owner to decree his business to be a gun-free site. They need to be encouraged to do that.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You are incapable of distinguishing between a man with an unholstered gun and a man pointing a gun?
The two examples I gave were a man with a gun in a holster, and a man with a gun in his hands, held at the ready.
I wasn't responding to your two examples. I was responding to your response to Cheesy, who found no difference between holstered and unholstered.
Given how quick and easy it is to go from holstered to unholstered, which you didn't address, I can see why Cheesy would be equally unnerved by both.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I was mugged a couple of times. Mostly, the thief would show that he had a weapon in his waste band, not point it at me. It was still frightening.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Perhaps it's also partly because you also realize (at least subconsciously) that hands have a thousand and one other uses, and that leaving them safely locked up in a hand cabinet at home is rarely practical.
I don't think so. Like I said, I no longer pay attention to the fact that the police officer has a gun on his belt, because I've now met enough US police officers to have internalized the idea that they're unlikely to pull out their guns and shoot me.
There is certainly a case that having US police officers routinely armed is a bad thing, and causes more killings by police (poor judgement, poor targetting etc.), but that doesn't make me scared of the cop - I'm white and boring enough that the probability of the cop wanting to remove his gun from its holster is very small indeed.
There is also a (good) case that a routinely armed populace would be a bad thing, and cause an increased number of deaths (suicides, poor judgement, angry arguments, carelessly leaving the gun where a child can grab it etc.)
Nevertheless, the fact that a society with routine gun-carrying will have more gun deaths than a society with few guns wouldn't make me scared of seeing a gun in that society, because the probabilities are still so low.
PS. Alan: yes, I know such a society has never existed. Hence the word "counterfactual". It's a thought experiment at the extreme end of a range of possibilities. If I live in a place where guns are never ordinarily present (the UK, for example), then the mere sight of a gun is sufficient for me to assume malice and violent intent on the part of the person with the gun. If I live in counterfactual Gunland, where everyone carries guns all the time, then the sight of a gun carries no information at all regarding the intent of the person with the gun. Different places in the US presumably fall at different places between these two cases.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I was mugged a couple of times. Mostly, the thief would show that he had a weapon in his waste band, not point it at me. It was still frightening.
Well, sure - because he's showed you he has potentially violent intent. He has a gun, and by showing it to you in the course of a mugging is threatening to kill you if you don't hand over your stuff.
That's what all this is about - it's about what signals the gun carrier is sending regarding his intent.
And that's also the difference I find between holstered and unholstered. If I'm talking to a cop (the only people allowed to carry openly around here) and his gun is in his holster, I don't feel worried. He doesn't have any intent to use his gun.
If, on the other hand, his gun was in his hand, I'd be nervous, because he's now showing intent to use it.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I suppose it's a question of whether you think the mere presence of a gun is threatening.
It's a hell of a lot harder to draw a fist and kill someone 100 yards away than to draw a gun and kill someone 100 yards away. There really is no comparison. Or at best, a very, very stupid one.
Indeed. Has there every been a drive-by punching?
Or considering other Clue™ weapons, has there ever been a drive by candle-sticking, lead-piping or wrenching?
--------------------
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 Leorning Cniht:
And that's also the difference I find between holstered and unholstered. If I'm talking to a cop (the only people allowed to carry openly around here) and his gun is in his holster, I don't feel worried. He doesn't have any intent to use his gun.
If, on the other hand, his gun was in his hand, I'd be nervous, because he's now showing intent to use it.
My one and only run in with US law enforcement (I'm not sure if technically the men tasked with security of US national labs are cops, but it certainly felt like they were cops) the gun remained holstered. As one cop walked towards me with his hand resting on his gun, and his partner sat in the patrol car next to what looked like a shot gun, I felt extremely nervous. But, it was the first real gun I had ever seen (except behind glass in museums).
I know, I was acting very strangely taking a walk in the woods, in the early afteroon in July, by a lab in Tennessee. Aparently anyone not cooped up inside with the AC set to refrigerator levels is acting suspiciously.
--------------------
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
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I suppose it's a question of whether you think the mere presence of a gun is threatening.
It's a hell of a lot harder to draw a fist and kill someone 100 yards away than to draw a gun and kill someone 100 yards away. There really is no comparison. Or at best, a very, very stupid one.
Indeed. Has there every been a drive-by punching?
Or considering other Clue™ weapons, has there ever been a drive by candle-sticking, lead-piping or wrenching?
drive-by paper cuts
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
So why exactly does everyone in Gunland carry a gun all the time?
As far as I can tell, because it is bred into their bones, and it does indeed come out with blood, as I mangle the saying.
It's a cultural thing. While this article probably overstates and uses excessive purple prose, I think there is a point to consider.
quote:
The United States is utterly wedded to a neoliberal culture in which cruelty is viewed as virtue, while mass incarceration is treated as the chief mechanism to “institutionalize obedience.” At the same time, a shark-like mode of competition replaces any viable notion of solidarity, and a sabotaging notion of self-interest pushes society into the false lure of mass consumerism. The increasing number of mass shootings is symptomatic of a society engulfed in racism, fear, militarism, bigotry and massive inequities in wealth and power.
--------------------
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
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
If you are in a restaurant, you get up and leave. Sorry about that bar bill, but the presence of guns makes it too dangerous for me.
This may work in some areas.
In other areas you should probably expect a visit from someone with a gun and a uniform. As long as you're willing to live with the consequences, have your protest.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
My one and only run in with US law enforcement (I'm not sure if technically the men tasked with security of US national labs are cops, but it certainly felt like they were cops) the gun remained holstered. As one cop walked towards me with his hand resting on his gun, and his partner sat in the patrol car next to what looked like a shot gun, I felt extremely nervous. But, it was the first real gun I had ever seen (except behind glass in museums).
Given the ability of law enforcement to kill with impunity, this likely would have made me nervous as well. If you were complying with his commands, there's no particular reason (outside intimidation) for him to reach for or put his hand on a weapon. Personally I'd find that more worrying than a person who seemed to be merely walking around trying to conduct their daily business with a gun in a holster. But then I'm also more wary of someone carrying a piece of pipe at night and using one hand to bang it against the other more than I necessarily am of someone with a gun in a holster.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
So why exactly does everyone in Gunland carry a gun all the time?
Dealing with animals and deterring potential criminals.
A would be mugger or rapist is less likely to attack someone who is obviously armed than someone who is not. Yes, if they're determined to attack someone, you've likely just shifted the victim rather than prevented the crime, but there's our American individualism for you. And if it's an opportunity crime, then you may have prevented it.
There's also the culture (perhaps mostly mythical) of self-reliance and the fact that a 1989 Supreme Court decision ruled that the State does not actually have an obligation to protect people from harm from another private actor. The police's motto may be 'to serve and protect' but they have no particular legal obligation to do so.
In certain well-populated areas the police may be likely to respond to a report of a crime quickly (perhaps you've heard the phrase 'when seconds count, the police are just minutes away'). But in more rural areas, no matter how fast they try to get somewhere, it may take them a while. And a lot of the reasons people typically list for not keeping a gun don't apply, so the risk/reward ratio is different than it is for people who live in urban or suburban areas.
People who are taught from a young age that guns are a potentially very dangerous but sometimes very useful tool have much the same reaction to seeing a gun as we do a chainsaw. If someone looks like they're going to use it to break down your door, it's a problem, but it's not something that causes inherent nervousness.
--------------------
"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
|
|
irish_lord99
Shipmate
# 16250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
It's the fact that it's uncommon to carry a gun that makes you look at a person with a gun and think "why does he have that? What's he going to do? Is he going to shoot me?"
There's a lot to this, IMO.
Growing up in rural Alaska, we all carried guns. I started carrying my .44 magnum when I was 14. You go out jogging, strap the gun in a shoulder holster, go fishing, strap it on your hip. Hiking? Take a gun.
Of course, we were carrying guns because of the bears. Lots and lots of giant grizzly bears. The kind of bears you spray with mace, and they look at you like "thanks for the hot sauce, it'll make you taste even better!"
All that to say, if I saw anyone with a gun, I didn't flinch. The thought of carrying a gun for protection from a person never really occurred to me.
Nowadays, in southern Maine, if I see someone open carrying, I'm instantly alert. I'm not at all afraid, after all, if they wanted to rob the store I see them in; they'd conceal the gun, not brandy it about. But it still puts me into a heightened sense of awareness, absolutely. I'm perfectly comfortable around the gun, but I'm not so sure about the person carrying it.
It says something about a person that they think they have to be armed while they shop for groceries.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I suppose it's a question of whether you think the mere presence of a gun is threatening.
It's a hell of a lot harder to draw a fist and kill someone 100 yards away than to draw a gun and kill someone 100 yards away. There really is no comparison. Or at best, a very, very stupid one.
True, but a guy with a pocket knife actually has a better chance taking on a guy with a holstered pistol 20 feet away.
--------------------
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain
Posts: 1169 | From: Maine, US | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Perhaps it's also partly because you also realize (at least subconsciously) that hands have a thousand and one other uses, and that leaving them safely locked up in a hand cabinet at home is rarely practical.
I don't think so. Like I said, I no longer pay attention to the fact that the police officer has a gun on his belt, because I've now met enough US police officers to have internalized the idea that they're unlikely to pull out their guns and shoot me.
Which is quite different from the reason you're not worried about the fact that everyone has two hands.
And neither of these is particularly informative about what it would be like to live in a place where everyone wears a gun all the time, since you still haven't given any reason why they would do so.
What's the scenario supposed to be? "I find that I'm actually pretty relaxed about everyone wearing guns, now that the entire country has been overtaken by a massive wave of criminal violence/packs of bloodthirsty polar bears/the zombie apocalypse."?
No prophet:
I see no reason to think you have any insight into LC's peculiar hypothesis - please refrain from using my questions to him as occasions for your reflexive anti-Americanism.
saysay:
I don't believe you live in a place where everyone carries a gun all the time, any more than I believe that most American legal documents are in Latin.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
