[H_KARLUK]

Gerben42, on Mar 17 2009, 09:59 AM, said:

Quote

But sorry, it's a world that even lost attorney collects his fee.

Is this wrong? He did his job too, you know... Around here at least, sometimes you lose a case because the other side was right, not because they had the better attorney.

Quote

I suggest "employment" and "good education" versus cruel things.

The kid in Germany went to a school with a rather good name. What apparently is a big problem, is that kids can go nuts without anyone noticing.

1- "th gucci" slogan Quality is remembered long after the price is forgotten.
2- Inexperienceds easily believe th 1st thing they saw, but the sensible wiser brains focus where they must put their feet. So th solution is not only looking ordinarily. It's just to have th ability to see th depth.
I hope you do not underestimate th value of any good education. It becomes different to learn obligatory or with pleasure. Sometimes family pressure forces kids to obtain a pretty famous diplome that in fact his/her feelings dislike. So it turns out "any boring job".
What you learn with love you can't forget!
What's yr idea abt "employment"? To me it brings money to live, sometimes comfortably. However it's a matter of how to use money well. Itz an "fine art".

I think a nimble wit and employment at least prevents such stupid major depression.

[RichMor]

kenberg, on Mar 14 2009, 12:40 PM, said:

I have only a moment, maybe more later. I agree that practicality rules. BUt that does not necessarily mean statistically average practicality. Even if banning guns would make people in some statistical sense safer it does not follow that it would make a really level headed guy like me ???? safer.

I think there is a serious argument in there somewhere and I'll try to get back to it.

Ken,

Look at it this way, a simple comparison.

Use of seat belts does not guarantee absolute safety on the road.
Gun control does not guarantee absolute safety in our homes.

Those are both true facts.

Is it sensible to:
not wear a seat belt because it's not perfect ?
not control gun ownership because it's not perfect ?

I answer No and No.

You ?

RichM

[Lobowolf]

RichMor, on Mar 17 2009, 10:03 AM, said:

Look at it this way, a simple comparison.

Use of seat belts does not guarantee absolute safety on the road.
Gun control does not guarantee absolute safety in our homes.

Those are both true facts.

Is it sensible to:
not wear a seat belt because it's not perfect ?
not control gun ownership because it's not perfect ?

I answer No and No.

You ?

RichM

I answer that it's a poor analogy. You're comparing the personal choice to wear or not wear a seat belt with government coercion in the second case. Now, you might have compared gun control to government coercion forcing seat belt use, which is I am opposed to (although I agree that one should wear a seat belt; some people, however, die because they wore a seat belt).

[H_KARLUK]

Precautions are correct things. In elementary school we are taught that interesting Arab proverb :
"Fasten your camel to a firm stake, then pray to th God that they couldn't steal your camel". (Without riding a camel in a hell heat desert it should not be a nice travel. So better to care for things to go well.)
I think it means "try to do your best, then pray to th good lord not to occur something bad for you."

[RichMor]

Lobowolf, on Mar 17 2009, 11:03 AM, said:

RichMor, on Mar 17 2009, 10:03 AM, said:

Look at it this way, a simple comparison.

Use of seat belts does not guarantee absolute safety on the road.
Gun control does not guarantee absolute safety in our homes.

Those are both true facts.

Is it sensible to:
not wear a seat belt because it's not perfect ?
not control gun ownership because it's not perfect ?

I answer No and No.

You ?

RichM

I answer that it's a poor analogy. You're comparing the personal choice to wear or not wear a seat belt with government coercion in the second case. Now, you might have compared gun control to government coercion forcing seat belt use, which is I am opposed to (although I agree that one should wear a seat belt; some people, however, die because they wore a seat belt).

Where I live it is 'the law' to wear a seat belt. But that's not the point.

The point I am trying to phrase is something like this.

Some folks seem to imply that gun control - or wearing a seat belt - is not worthwhile because it can't be perfect. I think that is weak reasoning.

I believe that waiting periods, criminal history checks, mandatory firearm safety training, and other stuff will reduce gun deaths. Not eliminate, but reduce.

I also believe that wearing a seat belt, mandatory airbags, vision and road tests before issuing a license, and other stuff will reduce vehicle accident deaths. Not eliminate, but reduce.

RichM

[Lobowolf]

RichMor, on Mar 17 2009, 03:20 PM, said:

Where I live it is 'the law' to wear a seat belt. But that's not the point.

The point I am trying to phrase is something like this.

Some folks seem to imply that gun control - or wearing a seat belt - is not worthwhile because it can't be perfect. I think that is weak reasoning.

It's not the point you were making, but it's a point, and I believe one very relevant to the discussion. Not all "good ideas" should be imposed on society via the legal system.

I didn't see anyone suggesting that it it's not worthwhile because it can't be perfect. If the pro-ownership posts have a common thread, it's a completely different one -- outlawing gun ownership (i.e. strict possession laws) won't help.

I certainly favor reasonable regulation, and I would include mandatory background checks and safety testing/training, and probably a (brief) waiting period, also.