1. To properly capture this, you should have required FKers to click through a series of “More” links within this grill before being able to read the actual link.
"Kraut will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no kraut."
\"Weren\'t you already aware the Kay is already writing everyone\'s story? We\'re all just characters who believe we are real. Things make more sense now, don\'t they. Be honest.\"- DMOAS
\"Weren\'t you already aware the Kay is already writing everyone\'s story? We\'re all just characters who believe we are real. Things make more sense now, don\'t they. Be honest.\"- DMOAS
I voted for PE, Rush and Kraftwerk. If I’d pick a fourth one it’d have been Purple. But the whole thing is a clown show anyway without King Crimson in there…. putting Rush or Genesis in before KC is like putting Willie Mays in before Jackie Robinson in baseball. Both deserving to the power of deserving, but you keep it in the proper order or procession.
Never suck on a Blow Pop with the microphone open.
\"Weren\'t you already aware the Kay is already writing everyone\'s story? We\'re all just characters who believe we are real. Things make more sense now, don\'t they. Be honest.\"- DMOAS
the less we torture ourselves by going to that place, the better.
\"Weren\'t you already aware the Kay is already writing everyone\'s story? We\'re all just characters who believe we are real. Things make more sense now, don\'t they. Be honest.\"- DMOAS
I got used to it after a bit. I found that some sites still had content I wanted to read. I hate how fanposts have been buried but… oh well. It’s not like member contributions ever really mattered!
I don’t want to go over there, but isn’t the Verducci Effect pretty much bunk anyways? Pitchers get injured, regardless of whether they are young or old, increased their innings or didn’t. What’s the latest study on it?
It has been heavily disputed, and rightly so. However, that doesn’t make it right to say that Parker doesn’t fall under it, because he only pitched in minors last year.
Actually I wrote debunked, then my spell-checker underlined it with red and I changed it. Funnily, it doesn’t underline it anymore, so I’ll chalk that one up to my pre-6AM typing prowess, or the lack of it.
Jock-sniffers and camp-followers kinda make me sick to my stomach. It’s a pathetic life to prostrate oneself at the feet of those who give not shit one about you, especially under the guise of “legitimate journalism”
\"Weren\'t you already aware the Kay is already writing everyone\'s story? We\'re all just characters who believe we are real. Things make more sense now, don\'t they. Be honest.\"- DMOAS
Nah. All the money is at corporate HQ. Which reminds me that Yahoo’s stock is higher than it’s been in several years and the new CEO over there might be looking to make a strategic acquisition or two. At some point the Vox Media investors are going to sell out and move on to the next project.
I could refer you to my dad – I’m not sure if he’s willing to take on any general accounting type – he pretty much sticks to taxes these days. As far as good/affordable, I’m guessing he’s pretty flexible depending on your situation. I don’t know if his South Bay location is a problem. Contact here. If he can’t help you, he might be able to refer you to someone who can.
A soliloquy of fresh-sounding ideas which would probably be disastrous.
I actually am really only looking for the tax part. The day to day accounting is covered, it’s just the end of year taxes that I need outside help with. My former accountant has seemingly disappeared, so I need someone new. Ideally they would be located closer to Berkeley. I like to meet with the person at least once a year as I find it much easier to run through the numbers in person. Sunnyvale is a bit farther than I’d hope for. If you think he might know someone, I could send him an email, perhaps?
As his website says, he will drive to your place, but I don’t know if east Bay(?) is out of his range, although if he can combine it with something else that he’s doing that day in EB, it’s not out of the question. Go ahead and e-mail him and let him know that you are acquaintances with his son. If you want, CC me: adborok at comcast dot net.
A soliloquy of fresh-sounding ideas which would probably be disastrous.
Yeah, I think I tried to give him some other ideas when he got it, but he went with that. No idea how many referrals he’s gotten from random web searches vs. word of mouth vs. clients that he’s dated at some point. Probably mostly the latter two categories.
A soliloquy of fresh-sounding ideas which would probably be disastrous.
\"Weren\'t you already aware the Kay is already writing everyone\'s story? We\'re all just characters who believe we are real. Things make more sense now, don\'t they. Be honest.\"- DMOAS
Hey PDX–thank you again for the referral. As it happens, I subsequently was given the name of someone located much closer to Berkeley. I arranged a short meeting with them and they turned out to be just what I was looking for. Thank you again though, that was kind of you to ask your dad re: Berkeley.
So the Angels see set on their rotation. Interesting.
The Angels, clearly under budget constraints and unwilling to surpass $20 million a year in a deal for Greinke, filled out their rotation by signing Joe Blanton to a two-year, $15-million contract and acquiring Tommy Hanson, who will make about $4 million next season, from Atlanta.
I am all for Angel mediocrity. Third place seems like a fine rut for them to get stuck in.
\"Weren\'t you already aware the Kay is already writing everyone\'s story? We\'re all just characters who believe we are real. Things make more sense now, don\'t they. Be honest.\"- DMOAS
I’m thinking Pujols has a better year now that he’s adjusted to the AL (even though he puttered out in Sept/Oct), and Trout cools off a bit unless he’s indeed Superman.
I could also see Weaver having a better year but I don’t think it makes up for the loss of Grienke and Haren in any way.
I’m reluctantly coming to the conclusion that, since guns aren’t going away, arming more of the “good” people might not be such a bad idea. Granted, that’s going to result in those “good” people using their firearms at times when it’s not absolutely necessary.
Presently I carry one of these a fair amount of the time for some basic personal defense, but a Ruger might be the perfect gift for a certain Soaker on your list (hint hint).
Well, if you think that’s a viable solution, I guess one of two things has to be true. Either there would be a noticeable deterrence effect on people who are already crazy and probably willing to die in their effort, or an armed teacher is regularly going to be able to take down a committed crazy in the act of a shooting spree. I don’t think either of those is likely, and I think the result will instead be a whole lot more accidental shootings of innocents. Personally, I would feel less safe sending my kid to a school that has a gun in the classroom than one that doesn’t.
Those are my logical reasons for rejecting this idea. My moral/philosophical one is that once we’ve gone down that road, we have accepted the fact that our society is irrevocably FKed, and that we now basically live in Deadwood.
And exactly how often has that actually happened? We need to remember that only 6% of gunshot victims die as a result of the shooting. Protection shouldn’t be something we individuals should be afraid of.
And how many times has a gun shot someone without someone pulling the trigger? Look, I agree that the gun was used. HOWEVER there are very specific steps necessary before a gun can hurt someone. It must be loaded. It must be aimed. It must be fired. ALL of these CONSCIOUS actions must be completed before the victim is shot.
We need to remember that 100% of the 6% of people who were shot wouldn’t have died had they not been shot. The reality is guns have no purpose other than to kill. It’s a tool. It’s a death device.
This is probably because schools are a large group of people, with little expectation of a need for protection. Of course, if the gunman had survived, he would be in need of gentle care and understanding…
Nah, just a little sarcasm aimed at those who tend to blame his behavior on others, rather than the a$$hole pulling the trigger. The gun didn’t kill those folks, HE did.
I understand you don’t like guns. This I find irrelevant to the action of killing other people. Lizzy Borden used an axe. Jeffrey Dalmer didn’t use an “assault” rifle.
Listen, Tutu, I like you and share some of your libertarian philosophies. But last time you left because you didn’t like the tenor of certain discussions. Given that, you might want to think twice before staking out a position which is so extreme, not just relative to FK folks, but to the vast majority of Americans. Especially today.
"Kraut will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no kraut."
Because I don’t agree that I am in the minority. I will, however, drop this discussion. Sorry to all I have offended, and I will forgive those who have offended me.
Unfortunately, my aunt is already dead. But had I known, I could have arranged a visit for you to test your running skills while she was still alive, and both demented and in possession of an ax under her bed.
Really? You can’t tell the difference between the usefulness of a car and the usefulness of a gun? Name one purpose a gun has other than kill people. Just one. I can name a number of useful things a car can do.
Sorry, but it’s tuu early for this kind of discussion. Yes, he was the one pulling the trigger. And while what he did was absolutely horrific and that he should’ve gone to jail had he not taken his life, it is my sincere belief that we don’t rush to judge him, his parents, or any of the umpteen outside forces that are sometimes blamed for this violence until we know more. It is also my belief that people aren’t born to be assholes, murderers, or thieves. And therefore, it is contingent that, even as we don’t condone the attacks, we learn what we can from it:
We don’t know who he was outside of his name.
We don’t know the conditions that he grew up in or that caused him to come to the conclusion that this was his only way out.
We don’t know how he got a gun and a bullet-proof vest.
We don’t know his employment status.
We don’t know…
I don’t have enough information at my disposal (or at least in my brain) to know that more lax gun control laws would have prevented this. I don’t have enough information to know that more stringent gun control laws would have prevented this.
I do have a duty to learn more about him, about his family, about what led to these events. I do have a duty to listen carefully to others, to ask questions if I don’t understand something or if something doesn’t make sense.
A soliloquy of fresh-sounding ideas which would probably be disastrous.
The reason it’s not too early for the discussion is that it’s a continuation of the dialogue that’s been going on at least since some teenage girl said she didn’t like Mondays, over 30 years ago. This crap keeps happening, there’s a lot of hand-wringing in the immediate aftermath and then we go back to same old, same old in politics.
I’m hardly an NRA member or supporter, but I’m realistic enough to know that guns aren’t going to disappear in my lifetime, and we need to look for solutions within that framework.
I understand that. At the same time, kneejerk reactions in immediate response to an incident are typically ill-fated. Wait until we have more details about what happened before we rush to judgment.
A soliloquy of fresh-sounding ideas which would probably be disastrous.
There is almost no one in the main stream of American politics that is advocating for that. However, it wouldn’t be that difficult to ensure that crazy people don’t have access to guns as easily as they have it now.
I think there are a few posters on FK (which is not in the “main stream of American politics”, thank goodness) who would advocate for that. I’m not going to beat my head against that wall, would rather look for realistic solutions. I would not want federal or state legislation ordering the San Francisco School District to issue guns to all teachers. OTOH, if Tutu’s local school district in Gold Country thinks it’s a good idea to issue the guns I’m good with that too. There’s a huge divide on this issue, much of which is urban vs. rural, and I’m inclined to allow for the local differences. San Francisco and Berkeley can go ahead and unilaterally disarm if they so choose.
Right, that’s what I was trying to say. I would interpret the Second Amendment to allow LGBT to serve without restriction in the national military, and say everything else regarding guns falls under the Tenth Amendment.
I am sorry that my comments have been misinterpreted. In no way am I advocating arming of teachers in the classrooms. In no way am I advocating selling firearms to mentally ill persons. As a matter of fact, neither does the NRA. What i am against, is law-abiding citizens being denied their constitutional right to keep and bear arms, especially under the guise that it will stop violence in our society. Many talk about reducing the number of gun-related deaths. I agree, however those same people tend to ignore the statistics. According to the US study, Drug-induced deaths number 40,000+, Alcohol-induced deaths number 26,000, and Gun-induced number 32,000. Drug and alcohol combine for twice the deaths that guns do. However, of the gun deaths over 19,000 were suicides, and 11,000 were homicides. This means that drug and alcohol deaths are over six times the number of homicides through gun use. I didn’t even try to include the number of deaths equated to tobacco use. I hear many proclaiming the “justice” in legalizing drug use, on top of the current legality is alcohol use. This is hypocrisy. Don’t penalize law-abiding citizens. I don’t advocate killing through any means, but it is unfair to ignore the difference between shooting someone while defending yourself, and that of aggressively murdering someone.
1. Those alcohol and drug related deaths kill the person who decides to take drugs or alcohol, while firearm deaths kill somebody else
2. Firearms are exclusively design to kill and harm people, alcohol is not
But we are talking about saving unnecessary deaths. And you didn’t address the 59% of gun deaths that are related to the person killing themselves(just like the drug/alcohol user). Shouldn’t we keep guns legal so that they can complete their wish? People who commit suicide need help, not an easy way to kill themselves. How about the drunk who dies in a car crash, and not only kills himself, but also the innocent family in the other vehicle. If people are serious about saving deaths, then the numbers don’t support legalizing drugs. You mentioned the “design” of the item. We haven’t outlawed tobacco use, which, if used as designed, GUARANTEES death! Of course, the governments make lots of money collecting taxes on alcohol and tobacco. You don’t think that drug use is effects others? You don’t think the gang killings are all about guns, do you? Aren’t drugs designed to be addictive, so that the user becomes dependent upon them? I’m sure the dealer selling the drugs doesn’t care if they kill themselves, but I’m sure the families and friends do.
My point has always been that it is the ABUSE of the item that is to be blamed for this. The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed in the US Constitution, and upheld by our Supreme Court. I find it interesting that when abortion was upheld by the SC, more liberal citizens proclaimed it “settled law”, but when it comes to the Second Amendment, it becomes, “the right-wing zealots must be stopped!”
As for drug/alcohol only affecting the user, that is just not true. I am dealing directly with the aftermath of drug/alcohol use and how it hurts children. Children are born every day addicted to drugs. Their brains never develop due to alcohol use.
@nevermore
The real shame, is how much pressure this puts on the rest of our society. The educational stress, the stress on the health industry, etc. We talk about what a “rounder” Babe Ruth was, yet he shows all the physical and behavioral traits of a FAS child. Given that his father ran a bar, and drank too much, I would bet money, marbles, or chalk that Fetal Alcohol was a major contributor to his problems.
Some fair points, but you can’t say that using tobacco as designed guarantees death. Also, if it does kill, it kills as a side effect, meaning that people don’t smoke to kill or kill themselves, but because they like consuming tobacco. Whereas guns are designed to kill people, period. You may say that guns are primarily designed to avoid conflict as showing them to an attacker is going to make her or him go away. If that is so, why would you need ammunition?
The fact is, the moment you decide to carry a loaded weapon, you have made a decision that you will, under circumstances that you deem justifiable, escalate the conflict to the point of firing said weapon. You seem to see mainly the advantages of that (standing up to thugs, standing up to tyrannic government) whereas I see mainly disadvantages (increase chance of violent death(s)).
Also, guns are not for defense. Guns are attacking items. Swords are attacking items. Intercontinental missiles are attacking items. Defensive items are bullet-proof vests, armors, and missile defense shields.
I agree that having a gun can indirectly work as a defensive mechanism, because it is a threat of an attack, but guns are not for defense. They are for attacking other people.
Tutu, if you feel like it, I would like you to explain to me what would be your ideal scenario regarding gun control. If you feel like I’m piling up or you just don’t feel like discussing it any further, just say so, please.
But if you do, answers to these questions are highly appreciated:
1. Are you in favor of everyone being able to carry a weapon on him/her all the time (with certain limitation, such es ex-cons, mentally ill and similar being excluded)?
2. Should there be any limitations on the kind of weapon citizens should be allow to posses? Automatic weapons, hand grenade launchers, stuff like that
3. If you are in conflict (say shoving, threatening, perhaps some punches thrown) with someone you see is armed, do you feel that your life might be in danger?
4. If your life is in danger do you feel it is OK to shoot your opponent down?
Well, I don’t think my writing skills can do justice to the way I feel, EC, but I will try.
I found this interesting:
Intercontinental missiles are attacking items. Defensive items are bullet-proof vests, armors, and missile defense shields.
Missiles are missiles. Are you trying to say that a defense missle CANNOT be used for killing people? They are all for killing. This is the same as your opinion of guns.
#1: Yes, but as I have commented here, there are restrictions including locations.
#2: Automatic weapons are already outlawed in the US. I hear people talk about the use of “fully-automatic AK-47s” without doing the research to realize the ALL AKs legally imported into the US MUST be permanently modified to NOT be fully automatic. Do you know what the federal assault gun ban defined as a assault weapon? You may wish to read this. I find it very telling as to the intent of the supporters, in that they included firearms that “look” like assault weapons. WOW, so a folding stock and pistol grip was illegal? This was an attempt to outlaw GUNS, not just assault weapons! As for your strawman of a grenade launcher, that isn’t a firearm and you know it. Did you know that a WWII relic of a German machine gun was recently found in an attic, and was almost destroyed, even though the finder wanted to donate it to a museum? A special exemption had to be arranged to allow the donation to be completed. That gun was no threat to anyone, and was actually a reminder of the horrors of that time. That was as insane as the federal government arresting the owner who tried to sell of two indian arrows from Custer’s last stand( that he had inherited), because the feathers on them were from an eagle. You can’t own eagle feathers in the US, what a threat.
#3: This is again a strawman, as each and every situation is different. The key word is “might”, and, yes, anytime someone attacks you, your life can be in danger.
#4. I feel that if my life is in danger, I have every right, and duty, to take whatever action is appropriate to save my life.
The US has over 20,000 gun restriction laws on the books right now. None of these have stopped criminals from obtaining, nor using them in illegal fashion. So, my questions for you are:
1: Under what circumstances do you feel a person has the right to defend themselves, and others, even if it means the death of their attacker?
2: Do you feel that bystanders have a duty to help others in distress, or those being attacked?
3: If the government is incapable of helping you or others who are under attack, do you feel your action of defending yourself from the threat of death should be limited, thus giving the attacker the advantage of NOT being under those same restrictions?
4: If you kill your attacker while using whatever defense method you deem appropriate( or that is available at the time), is it murder?
I don’t really appreciate the “strawman” comments.
First of all, I don’t know what exactly the word firearms means. My opinion was that it is any and all weapon that “fire” and that one can hold in their “arm”. As you mention AK-47, one can simply make a hand grenade launcher out of it.
Also, asking you to define whether you consider certain situation life-threatening or not, can by no definition be a straw man argument. Me implying that you would opine in one way or not, perhaps could, but I asked. So, please refrain from such insults in the future.
Further on, my second question was a very simple one. I didn’t ask you what the laws were, but what laws people like you would like to have if you had free hands to design them. So, the lecture on everything that is in your opinion comically wrong with current rules did nothing to answer that question.
If you feel like answering them fine, if not, please don’t do what you just did.
As for your questions:
1. If their life is in danger
2. Moral duty? Legal duty? I think legally they don’t have to help if they feel they would endanger their life by doing so. Morally, I think that’s for everyone to decide for themselves.
3. You frame that question as if it is only previously active criminals killing non-criminals with weapons. Is there any statistic out there what percentage of violent firearm deaths are committed by non-first time serious offenders against people with clean record?
4. It depends whether your actions were done to prevent your life. Again, I am no expert in US legal terms, so I am not 100% sure what definition of murder is.
See, the background of my questions are the following. You want law-obiding citizens to not have weaponry disadvantage to criminals (and sometimes to government, IIRC). But criminals can easily obtain fully automatic weapons. Having a semi-automatic weapon against fully automatic one IS a clear disadvantage.
Second, what I am worried about if everybody carries a gun on them all the time, is that conflicts between non-criminals that now end up with bruises and broken noses, will end up with deaths, not only of those directly involved. And, that no one will go to jail, ever, because once there is such a conflict, the shooter can always, pretty rightfully so, claim that her or his own life was in danger, because the opponent was armed.
I apologize for my very poor choice of words, EC. In no way did I mean to degrade you.
Fully automatic firearms and grenade launchers are illegal in the US, as they should be.
#1: What means do you agree are acceptable to use?
#2: I agree. I also feel that most people would consider the use of firearms only as the last resort.
#3: This question was simply formed as to what you feel the limits to you defending yourself should be.
#4: Well, I did say in “defense” of yourself. I’m not sure how that is ambiguous.
We should all realize that there are only 6 million conceal carry permits active in the US, which has a population of over 300 million. That’s less than 2%. Or, HALF the number of illegal aliens within our borders. Its not like everyone is packing “heat”.
How about we leave it at that? I think neither one stands even a remote chance of convincing the other of the correctness of his views and we are about to start at least the second round of circular arguments.
Japan’s ultra-strict gun laws, and its police powers to enforce them, require substantial sacrifices in an area that American political culture, and indeed American culture, consider sacrosanct: individual liberty. That U.S. firearm law developed to protect gun rights first and public safety second, whereas Japan privileged public safety, is both telling and reflects feelings and priorities that go much deeper than just this one issue.
If we had a public defender here, I bet he could go on at length about the effects of increased police powers.
but seriously, there is a compelling government interest in not having its citizens killed.
having to jump through more hoops to get a gun should not be controversial.
Want a gun? fine. get a license. that includes gun safety classes, mental health check, and limited period that the licence is valid. then you can reapply for the licence.
I would go further and say you need to register every gun. and every time you move you have to re register with local law enforcement that you are there and have the legally registered guns.
Because gun laws aren’t universal throughout the 50 states, and gun registration is also the first step towards confiscation. If you remember our history, the reason the British marched to Lexington and Concord, was to confiscate the black powder, to “keep the citizens safe”. Of course, if they had accomplished that goal, we wouldn’t have been able to protect ourselves, and we would still be British subjects.
The MAIN reason, is that, according to the US Supreme Court, it is unconstitutional.
I think the gun control vs anti-registration battle is the same as the “I trust the government, the concept of government, and the citizens, for the most part” vs “I do not trust the government, the concept of government, or the citizens, for the most part” battle.
\"Weren\'t you already aware the Kay is already writing everyone\'s story? We\'re all just characters who believe we are real. Things make more sense now, don\'t they. Be honest.\"- DMOAS
As far as history goes, the US Gov’t will not be able to move to confiscate guns from gun owners by going door to door.
It becomes easier when governments pass laws, as California tried, outlawing the sale of ammunition from out of state. That law would have required fingerprinting/registration as well as a limit to the amount bought. You don’t think that makes confiscation easier?
What does it matter if it might make it easier when it couldn’t legally actually happen? Going to sleep might make it easier for Freddy Kruger to kill me, but I don’t fear going to sleep just because that might be easier.
we are talking about the United states as currently constituted.
There is no way the gov’t can begin to take people’s guns in a systematic effective way that will not be noticed by those who oppose the gov’t.
Also, if it is detected, a guy with 300 handguns is not going to Red Dawn his way back america as usual. Like you said the gov’t is more likely going to go after the Supply at lexington and Concord, where ever that warehouse of private arms is. (and be sure that is a know place to authorities). Thye are going to go after that private supplier with actual weapons, not hand guns or assault rifles.
so again, why not license gun owners and give them a test like drivers.
Background checks are required before purchase. Concealed Carry laws also required you to take and pass field and academic tests. Most states require gun owners to take both field and academic tests just to hunt legally. The problem is finding a fair way to protect society from wackos without infringing upon the constitutional rights of others. Since history has proven that the wackos don’t go away, I prefer we don’t stick with the constitutional rights of the individual.
One of the things about the tuscon mass shooting that went under reported was that there was at least one concealed carry person there. He made the decision to not shoot because he did not a) want to be thought of as a second shooter and b) Did not know if the person with the gun was a victim or a shooter.
Tutu, I am really enjoying the conversation. Sorry if I made intemerate comments in any of my posts. (I am thinking of the tine foil hat thing, that was unnecessary.)
At the risk of getting meta, I’ll point out that it was a big debate about gun control after the Aurura shooting that led to tutu’s absence from FK for a long while. I like having him around, so hopefully we can keep it at a level that is interesting for all.
With all respect, if this discussion has offended him in a way that causes him not to want to post here again, it’s his own fault. He’s the one who charged in with a totally inappropriate sarcastic comment and then spouted a bunch of NRA talking points against outlawing guns, when no one had advocated outlawing guns. This is apparently a topic that he takes very personally, but if he wants to come in here and pick a fight about that topic just hours after 20 first graders were gunned down in their classrooms then feelings might get hurt.
I’ll add that I would be very interested in hearing about his (or anyone else’s) perspectives as to why gun ownership is so important to him, whether there are any gun safety/access restrictions that he would accept, whether he views the occasional mass shooting as an unfortunate but acceptable tradeoff for individual rights to easy access to high-powered weapons, etc. There are lots of avenues for an edifying discussion here. “Why not also outlaw cars since those can kill people too” is not one of them.
I’m basically on your side in this argument, but I think I have learned some things from this discussion and the last one — about the actual issues involved and also about how to convince other people. It sounds like Ed has found it useful too.
While I agree that the car analogy is a bad argument, tutu has some legit points, like the importance of the mental health issues and also that we need to respect the Constitution (though its interpretation changes), for better or worse, because that’s part of living in a lawful society.
It hasn’t offended me GM. I just fail to see any difference between murders based upon the method used. That was why I used the example of the car. Yes, guns are designed to kill. In the hands of sane people, they aren’t intended to murder, they are intended to defend. Same with the other methods. I AM horrified that this man shot all those innocent persons. I am horrified that the US government encouraged guns sales to persons KNOWN to be purchasing them unlawfully. They deliberately told the stores to complete the sales. Of course this came at the same time that there was an outcry from the Secretary of State that US gun stores were selling weapons to Mexican drug cartels. So, yes, I don’t trust most governments to have our best interest at heart.
The following list of prohibited persons[5] are ineligible to own firearms under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.[6]
Those convicted of felonies and certain misdemeanors except where state law reinstates rights, or removes disability.
Fugitives from justice
Unlawful users of certain depressant, narcotic, or stimulant drugs
Those adjudicated as mental defectives or incompetents or those committed to any mental institution and currently containing a dangerous mental illness.
Non-US citizens, unless permanently immigrating into the U.S. or in possession of a hunting license legally issued in the U.S.
Illegal Aliens
Those who have renounced U.S. citizenship
Minors defined as under the age of eighteen for long guns and the age of twenty-one for handguns, with the exception of Vermont, eligible at age sixteen.
Persons convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (an addition)
Persons under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year are ineligible to receive, transport, or ship any firearm or ammunition
Those who already own firearms would normally be required to relinquish them upon conviction.
There are many safety laws as well, including restrictions on possessing firearms on school grounds. I have no problems with any of these restrictions. However, I find Illinois and DC to be in violation of the second amendment, in that they have NO conditions allowing the carrying of firearms. During the Katrina disaster, guns were confiscated from law-abiding citizens. So, yes the governments do wish to control and confiscate firearms.
Considering you can now produce fully automatic weapons w/ a 3D printer, albeit it only lasted under 10 rounds, it will be nearly impossible to control or regulate them as long as the tech exists, which is only going to get better.
The difference is that killing with a gun is way way easier. Which means when someone decides to kill using a gun (particularly multiple people) they’re likely to succeed.
And, although the recent spree killers seem to be shooting themselves, there’s no structural reason that mass murder involving a gun requires dying yourself. It’s hard to imagine using a car to kill a bunch of people without hurting yourself too.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want"
I’d disagree that in the hands of sane people they’re designed to defend. Or at least argue that’s incomplete. They’re designed to defend *by killing*. In the greater context, mass murder by any means should be deterred if the means exist. I don’t recall the last time someone intentionally drove into a crowd with the intent of murder. And odds are they’re more likely to seriously injure than to kill. But for the sake of argument, if it were prevalent I’d probably looking for ways to reduce their impact as well. Example, I believe we need much firmer penalties for distracted/under the influence driving.
Sorry Pat, Ronald Reagan decided in his infinite wisdom that the mentally ill are just freeloaders, faking it so “they won’t have to work.” So he decided to turn out the state-supported mentally ill population into the streets in the early 1980s. Because he was such a great president, and an even better doctor apparently. I think we should put him on Mt. Rushmore!!!!
Never suck on a Blow Pop with the microphone open.
I am actively avoiding coverage. what I see here is the most I know.
Heard about it after getting to work late because I was at Theo’s winter singing presentation. Was all excited to tell my co-workers about the cute k through 2nd grade students I just watched dance and sing in Spanish.
I have trouble fathoming why anybody would have kids in a world where such things happen with regularity. I understand it intellectually, but my soul does not compute it.
\"Weren\'t you already aware the Kay is already writing everyone\'s story? We\'re all just characters who believe we are real. Things make more sense now, don\'t they. Be honest.\"- DMOAS
It can happen anywhere. It’s kinda naive to think it can’t.
\"Weren\'t you already aware the Kay is already writing everyone\'s story? We\'re all just characters who believe we are real. Things make more sense now, don\'t they. Be honest.\"- DMOAS
sure it can. but it doesn’t happen in big cities. big cities have other gun problems for sure, but they seem more isolated. I can only think of 101 california as a mass shooting in a big city
Its probably just noise. but, the mass random stranger killings always seem to me to happen in places that the residents appear dumbfounded by the event, as if it only happens in big cities.
I suspect they happen as often in big cities, but because of the prevalence of gun violence in big cities it goes under reported in comparison. It’s just more shocking when it happens in smaller locales.
*Actually, just the one that everyone on the internet pounced on. It was still a big shit show in Hoboken a couple of hours ago by the time I got home.
At least now I know what my daughters will be doing to prepare for the Solstice Party.
1. To properly capture this, you should have required FKers to click through a series of “More” links within this grill before being able to read the actual link.
Needs moar slideshow
Awesome piece of satire, though.
Boobs du jour, Zito version.
Zito kind of looks like George Clooney in “O Brother, Where Art Thou”.
But is he bona fide?
Mrs Zito’s boobs appear to be.
So he’s actually boner fide?
What a surprise, Mrs. Zito is hot. And, after extensive scientific examination of her pictures, much better looking as dark-haired.
I can’t say I’m impressed. I thought the Z man might go for someone a little more natural looking.
I’m sure she is naturally pretty on the inside
I won a pair of tickets to the Three Michaels last night. A very entertaining trio, and very Berkeley.
I wasn’t aware of this and it is FKin’ cool
https://youtube.com/watch?v=LNo9x7KQ4ZI%3Frel%3D0” frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen>
Very cool
3. Calcaterra compares Hall Of Fame Inductees
I’m a small hall guy. Public Enemy, Donna Summer, and Albert King are the only ones who’d get my vote. Sorry, salb.
Are (the) Pixies in yet?
I’d vote for Heart.
I voted for PE, Rush and Kraftwerk. If I’d pick a fourth one it’d have been Purple. But the whole thing is a clown show anyway without King Crimson in there…. putting Rush or Genesis in before KC is like putting Willie Mays in before Jackie Robinson in baseball. Both deserving to the power of deserving, but you keep it in the proper order or procession.
i voted fort hart
Fuck that. Rush is fucking Robin Yount and I won’t hear a word otherwise.
Rush is Alan Trammell.
OK, I’ll buy that.
If Rush is Alan Trammell, then King Crimson is Bert Campaneris.
Today on OC Mailbag. Let’s take a question from a reader who understands The Verducci effect and answer it by an OC expert who doesn’t.
Just don’t read it. High blood pressure is bad
agreed.
the less we torture ourselves by going to that place, the better.
I haven’t gone over there since I the last great exodus. Nothing over there that’s worth my time or energy.
Appearently staying well hydrated helps keep the blood pressure down.
Well, I just scooted over there for the first time in ages and what the fuck.
Referring to the new format or to Toonces latest attempt at writing?
the new format
I got used to it after a bit. I found that some sites still had content I wanted to read. I hate how fanposts have been buried but… oh well. It’s not like member contributions ever really mattered!
The Verducci effect: that’s what allows planes to fly, right?
No, that’s what allows planes to fly UP SIDE DOWN!!!
asvd
Don’t get me started.
I don’t want to go over there, but isn’t the Verducci Effect pretty much bunk anyways? Pitchers get injured, regardless of whether they are young or old, increased their innings or didn’t. What’s the latest study on it?
It has been heavily disputed, and rightly so. However, that doesn’t make it right to say that Parker doesn’t fall under it, because he only pitched in minors last year.
Disputed is too kind. Debunked is probably better.
Actually I wrote debunked, then my spell-checker underlined it with red and I changed it. Funnily, it doesn’t underline it anymore, so I’ll chalk that one up to my pre-6AM typing prowess, or the lack of it.
I like cup. But the mailbag thing is ridiculous.
They are not professional baseball people. Oh wait, I guess they are.
Jock-sniffers and camp-followers kinda make me sick to my stomach. It’s a pathetic life to prostrate oneself at the feet of those who give not shit one about you, especially under the guise of “legitimate journalism”
Legitimate journalism?
As in… paid?
Nah. All the money is at corporate HQ. Which reminds me that Yahoo’s stock is higher than it’s been in several years and the new CEO over there might be looking to make a strategic acquisition or two. At some point the Vox Media investors are going to sell out and move on to the next project.
SBN gets all the scoops!
Going to see The Hobbit this weekend. You can’t tell your dwarves apart without a scorecard.
Any of you Bay Area peeps have a recommendation for a good (and affordable) accountant? Preferably one with mad small businesses skillz.
I could refer you to my dad – I’m not sure if he’s willing to take on any general accounting type – he pretty much sticks to taxes these days. As far as good/affordable, I’m guessing he’s pretty flexible depending on your situation. I don’t know if his South Bay location is a problem. Contact here. If he can’t help you, he might be able to refer you to someone who can.
I actually am really only looking for the tax part. The day to day accounting is covered, it’s just the end of year taxes that I need outside help with. My former accountant has seemingly disappeared, so I need someone new. Ideally they would be located closer to Berkeley. I like to meet with the person at least once a year as I find it much easier to run through the numbers in person. Sunnyvale is a bit farther than I’d hope for. If you think he might know someone, I could send him an email, perhaps?
Timothy Geithner uses TurboTax…
probably not anymore
hehehe
As his website says, he will drive to your place, but I don’t know if east Bay(?) is out of his range, although if he can combine it with something else that he’s doing that day in EB, it’s not out of the question. Go ahead and e-mail him and let him know that you are acquaintances with his son. If you want, CC me: adborok at comcast dot net.
I just heard from him and he says he does several tax returns in the east Bay every year, so you should definitely talk to him.
very literal URL
Yeah, I think I tried to give him some other ideas when he got it, but he went with that. No idea how many referrals he’s gotten from random web searches vs. word of mouth vs. clients that he’s dated at some point. Probably mostly the latter two categories.
My Name is URL.
nice!
That’s fantastic. As soon as I have a free minute I’ll send him an email. Thanks so much!
Hey PDX–thank you again for the referral. As it happens, I subsequently was given the name of someone located much closer to Berkeley. I arranged a short meeting with them and they turned out to be just what I was looking for. Thank you again though, that was kind of you to ask your dad re: Berkeley.
Wow, I initially read that as “funeral.”
Not a problem. Glad that you found someone to help.
Uh oh.
she knows a guy.
Actually it worked out well for me. He finished our 2011 taxes, filed them, and then disappeared without sending me the bill. So win win!
Do they have to be willing to be paid in pajamas?
LOL, no when the government is involved I will pay cash money to get things done right!
So the Angels see set on their rotation. Interesting.
This is great news!
I am all for Angel mediocrity. Third place seems like a fine rut for them to get stuck in.
so they are:
Ianetta
Pujols
Kendrick
Callaspo
Aybar
Trumbo
Bourgous
Trout
Morales
Weaver
Wilson
Hansen
Blanton
Jerome Williams
Madson/Jepson/Frieri
?
I’m thinking Pujols has a better year now that he’s adjusted to the AL (even though he puttered out in Sept/Oct), and Trout cools off a bit unless he’s indeed Superman.
I could also see Weaver having a better year but I don’t think it makes up for the loss of Grienke and Haren in any way.
You forgot Wells!
Heh, I still dont understand that one…
Sean Burnett is in the bullpen, too. Luckily, he sucks in the odd years
Soria and Feliz should be ready by ASB
WTF? Between this and the shooting here at the mall this week, I’m in tears.
Yeah – that pretty much has me paralyzed this morning.
I’m reluctantly coming to the conclusion that, since guns aren’t going away, arming more of the “good” people might not be such a bad idea. Granted, that’s going to result in those “good” people using their firearms at times when it’s not absolutely necessary.
Presently I carry one of these a fair amount of the time for some basic personal defense, but a Ruger might be the perfect gift for a certain Soaker on your list (hint hint).
I don’t think I’m ready to give in and have our kindergarten teachers start packing heat just yet.
Obviously I’d much prefer to laugh that off as a crackpot right-wing idea, but schools do seem to be a popular target for the crazies.
Well, if you think that’s a viable solution, I guess one of two things has to be true. Either there would be a noticeable deterrence effect on people who are already crazy and probably willing to die in their effort, or an armed teacher is regularly going to be able to take down a committed crazy in the act of a shooting spree. I don’t think either of those is likely, and I think the result will instead be a whole lot more accidental shootings of innocents. Personally, I would feel less safe sending my kid to a school that has a gun in the classroom than one that doesn’t.
Those are my logical reasons for rejecting this idea. My moral/philosophical one is that once we’ve gone down that road, we have accepted the fact that our society is irrevocably FKed, and that we now basically live in Deadwood.
Agreed. Just as likely the teacher misses, shoots through a wall, and hits a kid in the next class over, imo.
And exactly how often has that actually happened? We need to remember that only 6% of gunshot victims die as a result of the shooting. Protection shouldn’t be something we individuals should be afraid of.
exactly how many times has someone been accidentally shot when there isn’t a gun in the room?
And how many times has a gun shot someone without someone pulling the trigger? Look, I agree that the gun was used. HOWEVER there are very specific steps necessary before a gun can hurt someone. It must be loaded. It must be aimed. It must be fired. ALL of these CONSCIOUS actions must be completed before the victim is shot.
This OR State Senator with an A+ rating from the NRA shot himself without pulling the triger
Welcome, by the way. Now that you have an approved comment, future comments should post immediately
thanks
That’s true, but if that guy doesn’t have a gun he doesn’t kill 20+ people.
This is a ludicrous line of argument, sorry.
Only form your point of view. I have a totaly different point of view.
Huh?
Almost happened in the Giffords mess.
I’m very frightened by people carrying guns for “protection”.
what do the other 94% die of?
Dissentary. Damn you Oregon Trail!!!!
We need to remember that 100% of the 6% of people who were shot wouldn’t have died had they not been shot. The reality is guns have no purpose other than to kill. It’s a tool. It’s a death device.
Much more likely a kid finds and accidentally kills someone.
This is probably because schools are a large group of people, with little expectation of a need for protection. Of course, if the gunman had survived, he would be in need of gentle care and understanding…
Are you serious?
Nah, just a little sarcasm aimed at those who tend to blame his behavior on others, rather than the a$$hole pulling the trigger. The gun didn’t kill those folks, HE did.
He sure did. With a military assault rifle.
And that is somehow different than people that drive their car into a group of pedestrians? I don’t hear the clamor to outlaw cars.
If you can’t understand the difference without me explaining it, I don’t have the time it will take to make you understand.
I understand you don’t like guns. This I find irrelevant to the action of killing other people. Lizzy Borden used an axe. Jeffrey Dalmer didn’t use an “assault” rifle.
Just stop. This is embarrassing.
Then don’t bring up the anti-gun stance.
I didn’t.
Listen, Tutu, I like you and share some of your libertarian philosophies. But last time you left because you didn’t like the tenor of certain discussions. Given that, you might want to think twice before staking out a position which is so extreme, not just relative to FK folks, but to the vast majority of Americans. Especially today.
Because I don’t agree that I am in the minority. I will, however, drop this discussion. Sorry to all I have offended, and I will forgive those who have offended me.
Mass attack on school with knife? 0 dead.
Good! That’s 8 fewer than the last time!
I’d rather deal with a psycho with an Ax or knife than a gun. I can outrun or deflect those. At least it gives me a fighting chance. A gun. Nada.
Unfortunately, my aunt is already dead. But had I known, I could have arranged a visit for you to test your running skills while she was still alive, and both demented and in possession of an ax under her bed.
I’m a cripple, I’m dead in any scenario.
Really? You can’t tell the difference between the usefulness of a car and the usefulness of a gun? Name one purpose a gun has other than kill people. Just one. I can name a number of useful things a car can do.
Tell me what you envision as a military assault rifle. I just want to make sure what we are talking about.
Sorry, but it’s tuu early for this kind of discussion. Yes, he was the one pulling the trigger. And while what he did was absolutely horrific and that he should’ve gone to jail had he not taken his life, it is my sincere belief that we don’t rush to judge him, his parents, or any of the umpteen outside forces that are sometimes blamed for this violence until we know more. It is also my belief that people aren’t born to be assholes, murderers, or thieves. And therefore, it is contingent that, even as we don’t condone the attacks, we learn what we can from it:
We don’t know who he was outside of his name.
We don’t know the conditions that he grew up in or that caused him to come to the conclusion that this was his only way out.
We don’t know how he got a gun and a bullet-proof vest.
We don’t know his employment status.
We don’t know…
I don’t have enough information at my disposal (or at least in my brain) to know that more lax gun control laws would have prevented this. I don’t have enough information to know that more stringent gun control laws would have prevented this.
I do have a duty to learn more about him, about his family, about what led to these events. I do have a duty to listen carefully to others, to ask questions if I don’t understand something or if something doesn’t make sense.
The reason it’s not too early for the discussion is that it’s a continuation of the dialogue that’s been going on at least since some teenage girl said she didn’t like Mondays, over 30 years ago. This crap keeps happening, there’s a lot of hand-wringing in the immediate aftermath and then we go back to same old, same old in politics.
I’m hardly an NRA member or supporter, but I’m realistic enough to know that guns aren’t going to disappear in my lifetime, and we need to look for solutions within that framework.
I understand that. At the same time, kneejerk reactions in immediate response to an incident are typically ill-fated. Wait until we have more details about what happened before we rush to judgment.
There is almost no one in the main stream of American politics that is advocating for that. However, it wouldn’t be that difficult to ensure that crazy people don’t have access to guns as easily as they have it now.
I think there are a few posters on FK (which is not in the “main stream of American politics”, thank goodness) who would advocate for that. I’m not going to beat my head against that wall, would rather look for realistic solutions. I would not want federal or state legislation ordering the San Francisco School District to issue guns to all teachers. OTOH, if Tutu’s local school district in Gold Country thinks it’s a good idea to issue the guns I’m good with that too. There’s a huge divide on this issue, much of which is urban vs. rural, and I’m inclined to allow for the local differences. San Francisco and Berkeley can go ahead and unilaterally disarm if they so choose.
The trouble is they can’t. Whenever they – or any other urban area – tries to they get slapped down by the courts.
Right, that’s what I was trying to say. I would interpret the Second Amendment to allow LGBT to serve without restriction in the national military, and say everything else regarding guns falls under the Tenth Amendment.
I am sorry that my comments have been misinterpreted. In no way am I advocating arming of teachers in the classrooms. In no way am I advocating selling firearms to mentally ill persons. As a matter of fact, neither does the NRA. What i am against, is law-abiding citizens being denied their constitutional right to keep and bear arms, especially under the guise that it will stop violence in our society. Many talk about reducing the number of gun-related deaths. I agree, however those same people tend to ignore the statistics. According to the US study, Drug-induced deaths number 40,000+, Alcohol-induced deaths number 26,000, and Gun-induced number 32,000. Drug and alcohol combine for twice the deaths that guns do. However, of the gun deaths over 19,000 were suicides, and 11,000 were homicides. This means that drug and alcohol deaths are over six times the number of homicides through gun use. I didn’t even try to include the number of deaths equated to tobacco use. I hear many proclaiming the “justice” in legalizing drug use, on top of the current legality is alcohol use. This is hypocrisy. Don’t penalize law-abiding citizens. I don’t advocate killing through any means, but it is unfair to ignore the difference between shooting someone while defending yourself, and that of aggressively murdering someone.
There are some differences, though.
1. Those alcohol and drug related deaths kill the person who decides to take drugs or alcohol, while firearm deaths kill somebody else
2. Firearms are exclusively design to kill and harm people, alcohol is not
Would you agree?
But we are talking about saving unnecessary deaths. And you didn’t address the 59% of gun deaths that are related to the person killing themselves(just like the drug/alcohol user). Shouldn’t we keep guns legal so that they can complete their wish? People who commit suicide need help, not an easy way to kill themselves. How about the drunk who dies in a car crash, and not only kills himself, but also the innocent family in the other vehicle. If people are serious about saving deaths, then the numbers don’t support legalizing drugs. You mentioned the “design” of the item. We haven’t outlawed tobacco use, which, if used as designed, GUARANTEES death! Of course, the governments make lots of money collecting taxes on alcohol and tobacco. You don’t think that drug use is effects others? You don’t think the gang killings are all about guns, do you? Aren’t drugs designed to be addictive, so that the user becomes dependent upon them? I’m sure the dealer selling the drugs doesn’t care if they kill themselves, but I’m sure the families and friends do.
My point has always been that it is the ABUSE of the item that is to be blamed for this. The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed in the US Constitution, and upheld by our Supreme Court. I find it interesting that when abortion was upheld by the SC, more liberal citizens proclaimed it “settled law”, but when it comes to the Second Amendment, it becomes, “the right-wing zealots must be stopped!”
As for drug/alcohol only affecting the user, that is just not true. I am dealing directly with the aftermath of drug/alcohol use and how it hurts children. Children are born every day addicted to drugs. Their brains never develop due to alcohol use.
I completely agree with this comment.
@nevermore
The real shame, is how much pressure this puts on the rest of our society. The educational stress, the stress on the health industry, etc. We talk about what a “rounder” Babe Ruth was, yet he shows all the physical and behavioral traits of a FAS child. Given that his father ran a bar, and drank too much, I would bet money, marbles, or chalk that Fetal Alcohol was a major contributor to his problems.
Some fair points, but you can’t say that using tobacco as designed guarantees death. Also, if it does kill, it kills as a side effect, meaning that people don’t smoke to kill or kill themselves, but because they like consuming tobacco. Whereas guns are designed to kill people, period. You may say that guns are primarily designed to avoid conflict as showing them to an attacker is going to make her or him go away. If that is so, why would you need ammunition?
The fact is, the moment you decide to carry a loaded weapon, you have made a decision that you will, under circumstances that you deem justifiable, escalate the conflict to the point of firing said weapon. You seem to see mainly the advantages of that (standing up to thugs, standing up to tyrannic government) whereas I see mainly disadvantages (increase chance of violent death(s)).
Also, guns are not for defense. Guns are attacking items. Swords are attacking items. Intercontinental missiles are attacking items. Defensive items are bullet-proof vests, armors, and missile defense shields.
I agree that having a gun can indirectly work as a defensive mechanism, because it is a threat of an attack, but guns are not for defense. They are for attacking other people.
Tutu, if you feel like it, I would like you to explain to me what would be your ideal scenario regarding gun control. If you feel like I’m piling up or you just don’t feel like discussing it any further, just say so, please.
But if you do, answers to these questions are highly appreciated:
1. Are you in favor of everyone being able to carry a weapon on him/her all the time (with certain limitation, such es ex-cons, mentally ill and similar being excluded)?
2. Should there be any limitations on the kind of weapon citizens should be allow to posses? Automatic weapons, hand grenade launchers, stuff like that
3. If you are in conflict (say shoving, threatening, perhaps some punches thrown) with someone you see is armed, do you feel that your life might be in danger?
4. If your life is in danger do you feel it is OK to shoot your opponent down?
Well, I don’t think my writing skills can do justice to the way I feel, EC, but I will try.
I found this interesting:
Missiles are missiles. Are you trying to say that a defense missle CANNOT be used for killing people? They are all for killing. This is the same as your opinion of guns.
#1: Yes, but as I have commented here, there are restrictions including locations.
#2: Automatic weapons are already outlawed in the US. I hear people talk about the use of “fully-automatic AK-47s” without doing the research to realize the ALL AKs legally imported into the US MUST be permanently modified to NOT be fully automatic. Do you know what the federal assault gun ban defined as a assault weapon? You may wish to read this. I find it very telling as to the intent of the supporters, in that they included firearms that “look” like assault weapons. WOW, so a folding stock and pistol grip was illegal? This was an attempt to outlaw GUNS, not just assault weapons! As for your strawman of a grenade launcher, that isn’t a firearm and you know it. Did you know that a WWII relic of a German machine gun was recently found in an attic, and was almost destroyed, even though the finder wanted to donate it to a museum? A special exemption had to be arranged to allow the donation to be completed. That gun was no threat to anyone, and was actually a reminder of the horrors of that time. That was as insane as the federal government arresting the owner who tried to sell of two indian arrows from Custer’s last stand( that he had inherited), because the feathers on them were from an eagle. You can’t own eagle feathers in the US, what a threat.
#3: This is again a strawman, as each and every situation is different. The key word is “might”, and, yes, anytime someone attacks you, your life can be in danger.
#4. I feel that if my life is in danger, I have every right, and duty, to take whatever action is appropriate to save my life.
The US has over 20,000 gun restriction laws on the books right now. None of these have stopped criminals from obtaining, nor using them in illegal fashion. So, my questions for you are:
1: Under what circumstances do you feel a person has the right to defend themselves, and others, even if it means the death of their attacker?
2: Do you feel that bystanders have a duty to help others in distress, or those being attacked?
3: If the government is incapable of helping you or others who are under attack, do you feel your action of defending yourself from the threat of death should be limited, thus giving the attacker the advantage of NOT being under those same restrictions?
4: If you kill your attacker while using whatever defense method you deem appropriate( or that is available at the time), is it murder?
I don’t really appreciate the “strawman” comments.
First of all, I don’t know what exactly the word firearms means. My opinion was that it is any and all weapon that “fire” and that one can hold in their “arm”. As you mention AK-47, one can simply make a hand grenade launcher out of it.
Also, asking you to define whether you consider certain situation life-threatening or not, can by no definition be a straw man argument. Me implying that you would opine in one way or not, perhaps could, but I asked. So, please refrain from such insults in the future.
Further on, my second question was a very simple one. I didn’t ask you what the laws were, but what laws people like you would like to have if you had free hands to design them. So, the lecture on everything that is in your opinion comically wrong with current rules did nothing to answer that question.
If you feel like answering them fine, if not, please don’t do what you just did.
As for your questions:
1. If their life is in danger
2. Moral duty? Legal duty? I think legally they don’t have to help if they feel they would endanger their life by doing so. Morally, I think that’s for everyone to decide for themselves.
3. You frame that question as if it is only previously active criminals killing non-criminals with weapons. Is there any statistic out there what percentage of violent firearm deaths are committed by non-first time serious offenders against people with clean record?
4. It depends whether your actions were done to prevent your life. Again, I am no expert in US legal terms, so I am not 100% sure what definition of murder is.
See, the background of my questions are the following. You want law-obiding citizens to not have weaponry disadvantage to criminals (and sometimes to government, IIRC). But criminals can easily obtain fully automatic weapons. Having a semi-automatic weapon against fully automatic one IS a clear disadvantage.
Second, what I am worried about if everybody carries a gun on them all the time, is that conflicts between non-criminals that now end up with bruises and broken noses, will end up with deaths, not only of those directly involved. And, that no one will go to jail, ever, because once there is such a conflict, the shooter can always, pretty rightfully so, claim that her or his own life was in danger, because the opponent was armed.
I apologize for my very poor choice of words, EC. In no way did I mean to degrade you.
Fully automatic firearms and grenade launchers are illegal in the US, as they should be.
#1: What means do you agree are acceptable to use?
#2: I agree. I also feel that most people would consider the use of firearms only as the last resort.
#3: This question was simply formed as to what you feel the limits to you defending yourself should be.
#4: Well, I did say in “defense” of yourself. I’m not sure how that is ambiguous.
We should all realize that there are only 6 million conceal carry permits active in the US, which has a population of over 300 million. That’s less than 2%. Or, HALF the number of illegal aliens within our borders. Its not like everyone is packing “heat”.
How about we leave it at that? I think neither one stands even a remote chance of convincing the other of the correctness of his views and we are about to start at least the second round of circular arguments.
OK?
I agree, EC. I do want you to know how very much I respect your opinions.
Welcome.
And I just wish there was something we could do to reduce gun deaths
If we had a public defender here, I bet he could go on at length about the effects of increased police powers.
hee.
but seriously, there is a compelling government interest in not having its citizens killed.
having to jump through more hoops to get a gun should not be controversial.
Want a gun? fine. get a license. that includes gun safety classes, mental health check, and limited period that the licence is valid. then you can reapply for the licence.
I would go further and say you need to register every gun. and every time you move you have to re register with local law enforcement that you are there and have the legally registered guns.
Is that so controversial?
yes it is.
why
Because gun laws aren’t universal throughout the 50 states, and gun registration is also the first step towards confiscation. If you remember our history, the reason the British marched to Lexington and Concord, was to confiscate the black powder, to “keep the citizens safe”. Of course, if they had accomplished that goal, we wouldn’t have been able to protect ourselves, and we would still be British subjects.
The MAIN reason, is that, according to the US Supreme Court, it is unconstitutional.
I think the gun control vs anti-registration battle is the same as the “I trust the government, the concept of government, and the citizens, for the most part” vs “I do not trust the government, the concept of government, or the citizens, for the most part” battle.
@Kay hitting the nail on the head
Its not unconstitutional. the DC case explicitly said no to bans, but left open the possibility of restrictions.
As far as history goes, the US Gov’t will not be able to move to confiscate guns from gun owners by going door to door.
that is tinfoil hat territory.
Further, no militia in Michigan is gonna stop the tanks and helicopters and drones of the US military if the US military decides to stage a coup.
If we are worried about confiscation of peoples guns because they fail to abide by registration laws, I would ask why?
Is it different form a person who fails to renew his license and gets his car towed when he gets a fix it ticket?
It becomes easier when governments pass laws, as California tried, outlawing the sale of ammunition from out of state. That law would have required fingerprinting/registration as well as a limit to the amount bought. You don’t think that makes confiscation easier?
What does it matter if it might make it easier when it couldn’t legally actually happen? Going to sleep might make it easier for Freddy Kruger to kill me, but I don’t fear going to sleep just because that might be easier.
They also have over double the number of suicides(76000/36000) with a population that is 1/3 our size.
right mental health is a serious problem. it needs to be addressed. It will not be addressed by the private sector. Government needs to do it.
It benefits all of us when crazys are addressed. maybe we can raise taxes to fund it.
Registering guns does make confiscation easier.
But not easy, practicable, nor the best way to suppress those you oppose.
Most dictatorships disagree
we are talking about the United states as currently constituted.
There is no way the gov’t can begin to take people’s guns in a systematic effective way that will not be noticed by those who oppose the gov’t.
Also, if it is detected, a guy with 300 handguns is not going to Red Dawn his way back america as usual. Like you said the gov’t is more likely going to go after the Supply at lexington and Concord, where ever that warehouse of private arms is. (and be sure that is a know place to authorities). Thye are going to go after that private supplier with actual weapons, not hand guns or assault rifles.
so again, why not license gun owners and give them a test like drivers.
Background checks are required before purchase. Concealed Carry laws also required you to take and pass field and academic tests. Most states require gun owners to take both field and academic tests just to hunt legally. The problem is finding a fair way to protect society from wackos without infringing upon the constitutional rights of others. Since history has proven that the wackos don’t go away, I prefer we don’t stick with the constitutional rights of the individual.
right. just a license, thats all i ask
License, no. Training/ background checks, fine. Penalizing those who abuse our laws, definitely.
no.
One of the things about the tuscon mass shooting that went under reported was that there was at least one concealed carry person there. He made the decision to not shoot because he did not a) want to be thought of as a second shooter and b) Did not know if the person with the gun was a victim or a shooter.
Yep.
And c) would have to live with having had to kill someone. Not an easy decision when you have the time to think about it.
Food for thought
Tutu, I am really enjoying the conversation. Sorry if I made intemerate comments in any of my posts. (I am thinking of the tine foil hat thing, that was unnecessary.)
At the risk of getting meta, I’ll point out that it was a big debate about gun control after the Aurura shooting that led to tutu’s absence from FK for a long while. I like having him around, so hopefully we can keep it at a level that is interesting for all.
With all respect, if this discussion has offended him in a way that causes him not to want to post here again, it’s his own fault. He’s the one who charged in with a totally inappropriate sarcastic comment and then spouted a bunch of NRA talking points against outlawing guns, when no one had advocated outlawing guns. This is apparently a topic that he takes very personally, but if he wants to come in here and pick a fight about that topic just hours after 20 first graders were gunned down in their classrooms then feelings might get hurt.
I’ll add that I would be very interested in hearing about his (or anyone else’s) perspectives as to why gun ownership is so important to him, whether there are any gun safety/access restrictions that he would accept, whether he views the occasional mass shooting as an unfortunate but acceptable tradeoff for individual rights to easy access to high-powered weapons, etc. There are lots of avenues for an edifying discussion here. “Why not also outlaw cars since those can kill people too” is not one of them.
I’m basically on your side in this argument, but I think I have learned some things from this discussion and the last one — about the actual issues involved and also about how to convince other people. It sounds like Ed has found it useful too.
While I agree that the car analogy is a bad argument, tutu has some legit points, like the importance of the mental health issues and also that we need to respect the Constitution (though its interpretation changes), for better or worse, because that’s part of living in a lawful society.
I agree with this.
It hasn’t offended me GM. I just fail to see any difference between murders based upon the method used. That was why I used the example of the car. Yes, guns are designed to kill. In the hands of sane people, they aren’t intended to murder, they are intended to defend. Same with the other methods. I AM horrified that this man shot all those innocent persons. I am horrified that the US government encouraged guns sales to persons KNOWN to be purchasing them unlawfully. They deliberately told the stores to complete the sales. Of course this came at the same time that there was an outcry from the Secretary of State that US gun stores were selling weapons to Mexican drug cartels. So, yes, I don’t trust most governments to have our best interest at heart.
Here are some of the current access restrictions:
There are many safety laws as well, including restrictions on possessing firearms on school grounds. I have no problems with any of these restrictions. However, I find Illinois and DC to be in violation of the second amendment, in that they have NO conditions allowing the carrying of firearms. During the Katrina disaster, guns were confiscated from law-abiding citizens. So, yes the governments do wish to control and confiscate firearms.
Considering you can now produce fully automatic weapons w/ a 3D printer, albeit it only lasted under 10 rounds, it will be nearly impossible to control or regulate them as long as the tech exists, which is only going to get better.
The difference is that killing with a gun is way way easier. Which means when someone decides to kill using a gun (particularly multiple people) they’re likely to succeed.
And, although the recent spree killers seem to be shooting themselves, there’s no structural reason that mass murder involving a gun requires dying yourself. It’s hard to imagine using a car to kill a bunch of people without hurting yourself too.
I’d disagree that in the hands of sane people they’re designed to defend. Or at least argue that’s incomplete. They’re designed to defend *by killing*. In the greater context, mass murder by any means should be deterred if the means exist. I don’t recall the last time someone intentionally drove into a crowd with the intent of murder. And odds are they’re more likely to seriously injure than to kill. But for the sake of argument, if it were prevalent I’d probably looking for ways to reduce their impact as well. Example, I believe we need much firmer penalties for distracted/under the influence driving.
I have no problems here. This has been a very civil discussion, as it should be.
Ugh. So awful.
It is just so stunningly sad and disgusting.
Sorry Pat, Ronald Reagan decided in his infinite wisdom that the mentally ill are just freeloaders, faking it so “they won’t have to work.” So he decided to turn out the state-supported mentally ill population into the streets in the early 1980s. Because he was such a great president, and an even better doctor apparently. I think we should put him on Mt. Rushmore!!!!
Hours later and I am still not mentally able to process what happened, at all. I just can’t, my brain can’t even fathom the horror.
I am actively avoiding coverage. what I see here is the most I know.
Heard about it after getting to work late because I was at Theo’s winter singing presentation. Was all excited to tell my co-workers about the cute k through 2nd grade students I just watched dance and sing in Spanish.
Same. Which is not easy.
I have trouble fathoming why anybody would have kids in a world where such things happen with regularity. I understand it intellectually, but my soul does not compute it.
you know where it doesn’t happen?
Here. Big Cities.
Portland and Tuscon are the biggest cities that it has happened in, but I suspect that they have less crime in general than real big cities.
It can happen anywhere. It’s kinda naive to think it can’t.
sure it can. but it doesn’t happen in big cities. big cities have other gun problems for sure, but they seem more isolated. I can only think of 101 california as a mass shooting in a big city
I’m not sure what distinction you’re trying to draw between mass shootings and other kinds of shootings, but Chicago has a *ton* of gun violence.
Atlanta had that day-trader kill 9 in two separate shootings in 2009.
and there was one in Oakland this year.
Its probably just noise. but, the mass random stranger killings always seem to me to happen in places that the residents appear dumbfounded by the event, as if it only happens in big cities.
I suspect they happen as often in big cities, but because of the prevalence of gun violence in big cities it goes under reported in comparison. It’s just more shocking when it happens in smaller locales.
Holy shit. I’ve been listening to the police scanner over here all afternoon. Apparently, the Lanzas lived just a few blocks away from me.
*Actually, just the one that everyone on the internet pounced on. It was still a big shit show in Hoboken a couple of hours ago by the time I got home.