Oh the Irony gun show injuries
#2
Posted 2013-January-21, 13:51
#3
Posted 2013-January-21, 15:14
http://articles.wash...ton-monument-dc
Quote
Yep, that's the way I remember it.
Maybe they could hold Gun Appreciation Day and Human Kindness Day at the same time and the same place. I will arrange to be elsewhere.
#4
Posted 2013-January-21, 19:00
barmar, on 2013-January-21, 13:51, said:
Guns are not dangerous. People are dangerous.
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#5
Posted 2013-January-21, 19:13
#6
Posted 2013-January-21, 20:13
blackshoe, on 2013-January-21, 19:00, said:
Sure they are...Just the same way:
1) Knives
2) Explosives
3) even Cars
are dangerous. Just because someone won't (usually) be hurt when used correctly, does not mean the items are not "dangerous". There is potentially danger around these objects (more so than most other objects). It doesn't mean we shouldn't use them, but we should be wary when using them. And just because these objects do not have agency, does not make them not dangerous.
Never tell the same lie twice. - Elim Garek on the real moral of "The boy who cried wolf"
#7
Posted 2013-January-22, 00:11
The current and soon to come anti-gun legislation is one of two things: a knee jerk reaction that won't fix anything, or a seizure of the moment by people with an agenda. Or both.
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#8
Posted 2013-January-22, 00:39
They may be legitimate arguments against gun control. This bullshit isn't.
#9
Posted 2013-January-22, 00:45
#10
Posted 2013-January-22, 04:49
-- Bertrand Russell
#11
Posted 2013-January-22, 07:10
#12
Posted 2013-January-22, 08:03
blackshoe, on 2013-January-22, 00:11, said:
The current and soon to come anti-gun legislation is one of two things: a knee jerk reaction that won't fix anything, or a seizure of the moment by people with an agenda. Or both.
Is there *any* thing that does not have agency in this universe that you would describe as "dangerous"? If not, then we are using the word completely differently (and I suspect that one of us uses it in a way most people will not due to political reasons).
Edit: trying to reframe a view of the world by simply changing what words mean (as opposed to agreed reality) does not make me feel that the pro-gun people have the nation's best interests in heart. Like cherdano, I'm not particularly "liberal" on gun control issues, but listening to what strongly pro-gun advocates say makes me worry I should be.
Never tell the same lie twice. - Elim Garek on the real moral of "The boy who cried wolf"
#13
Posted 2013-January-22, 08:46
At some point during high school (I guess we must have been around 16), a friend of mine got injured at this thumb by another friend using his father's air gun. Not serious injury. I wasn't there, but it happened something like this: friend A had the gun in his hand, aiming at something. Friend B, making a joke or something ("Don't shoot, don't shoot!") put his hand in front of the gun. Friend A pulled the trigger, not anticipating this movement.
At the time I thought "How irresponsible by each of my friends - you don't put your hand in the way of the gun shot, even if it's just an air gun, and you don't pull the trigger unless you can be sure that no one can be in the way." Now, of course, my thoughts would start with someone else - we fairly responsible as far as 16-year old guys go, but still, which moron of a father would let his son and friends play with his gun?? Wtf?
It would be nice to be able to think of gun owners as more responsible than these 16-year olds, but I am starting to have my doubts.
#14
Posted 2013-January-22, 09:12
Traditionally, when I saw debates over gun ownership, there seemed to be a consensus that individuals wanted to carry guns in order to
1. Protect themselves against their fellow citizens
2. Hunt
Now-a-days, much of the (high profile) discussion seems to involved some presumed right that citizens have to protect themselves against the government.
This argument strikes me as
1. "Novel". I am pretty well read and I never heard any such arguments during my formative years
2. Reprehensible. Individual citizens don't get to use the threat of violence to opt out of those portions of the legal code that they dislike
I think that its possible to reach a reasonable accommodations surrounding self defense and hunting. However, I don't think its possible or desirable for a sovereign state to abandon its monopoly on violence.
#15
Posted 2013-January-22, 09:30
Roland
Sanity Check: Failure (Fluffy)
More system is not the answer...
#16
Posted 2013-January-22, 10:02
hrothgar, on 2013-January-22, 09:12, said:
Traditionally, when I saw debates over gun ownership, there seemed to be a consensus that individuals wanted to carry guns in order to
1. Protect themselves against their fellow citizens
2. Hunt
Now-a-days, much of the (high profile) discussion seems to involved some presumed right that citizens have to protect themselves against the government.
This argument strikes me as
1. "Novel". I am pretty well read and I never heard any such arguments during my formative years
2. Reprehensible. Individual citizens don't get to use the threat of violence to opt out of those portions of the legal code that they dislike
I think that its possible to reach a reasonable accommodations surrounding self defense and hunting. However, I don't think its possible or desirable for a sovereign state to abandon its monopoly on violence.
The idea that citizens may need to protect themselves against the government has been widespread in two periods in this country's history: the late 18th Century, when the country was founded, and the last fifty to sixty years. In the latter period, the idea started small, but has grown and is still growing.
I had a friend who used to predict that the country would not last another twenty five years. He died about nine years ago.
Would you argue that Jefferson was wrong when he wrote the Declaration of Independence?
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#17
Posted 2013-January-22, 10:15
blackshoe, on 2013-January-22, 10:02, said:
I had a friend who used to predict that the country would not last another twenty five years. He died about nine years ago.
Would you argue that Jefferson was wrong when he wrote the Declaration of Independence?
Traditionally, the classic examples of this line of thinking are
1. The Civil War
2. The Whiskey Rebellion
both of which would seem to have been long settled. (My high school history class spent quite a lot of time covering both of these topics)
As for Jefferson, I'm old enough to recall those heady days before 2008 when the second amendment wasn't viewed as an individual right.
I very much look forward to returning to such interpretations of the Constitution.
#18
Posted 2013-January-22, 11:06
So Blackshoe, where exactly is the line? (I am not taunting you, just genuinely curious). Fully automatic, burst fire, semi automatic, caliber limit, magazine limit ... what is the upper limit weapon you are advocating for?
-gwnn
#19
Posted 2013-January-22, 11:27
blackshoe, on 2013-January-21, 19:00, said:
All other things being equal, a person with a gun is more dangerous than a person without one.
The incidents at the gun show were all accidents. Except for car accidents, there are few other ways for humans to cause such severe accidents.
#20
Posted 2013-January-22, 11:53
barmar, on 2013-January-22, 11:27, said:
Seems a little uncreative. Several more ways spring to my mind, e.g. accidental electrocution.
-- Bertrand Russell