Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
| Messages 1 - 287 of total 287 in this topic |
JonA
Trad climber
Flagstaff, AZ
|
|
Technically it's the bullets.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
Gun regulation?
Why?
Anyone has the right to own and shoot any kind of armament in this fine country of ours.
Right?
Anyway....here's a question for you unrestricted Gun Nutz: if you were the range instructor, and your boss had told you to go instruct a 9 year old in shooting an Uzi, would you have done it?
|
|
JonA
Trad climber
Flagstaff, AZ
|
|
I like to start the 9 year olds off with a few surface-to-airs first...as a warm up
|
|
clinker
Trad climber
Santa Cruz, California
|
|
I am a mostly happy gun owner. Lately I have been hearing voices. Prob'ly only my gun talking.
No worries.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
Since when has repetition stopped some of the ST trolls? Even though it's rong, they just don't seem to give a shite.
|
|
dindolino32
climber
san francisco
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 2, 2014 - 02:42pm PT
|
Moose, it's original because the person who shot the bullets blamed it on the gun yet usually gun fanatics like to say that "Guns don't kill people, people do."
Not the whole gun topic. I am aware that one has been and always will be beaten to death.
|
|
Bad Climber
climber
|
|
The story is tragic and so avoidable. Technically, IF the girl had been able to control the weapon, no problem. Since it was HER lack of control, not the gun itself, which was operating correctly according to its design, SHE killed the range worker. It was HER finger on the trigger. So, yeah, sadly, it's the people not the weapon, even in this case. Nice try, though.
And no, I'd never allow a 9-yr-old anywhere near such a weapon. I started out with single shot .22's under my father's very strict supervision.
BAd
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
You'd never allow a 9-yr-old anywhere near such a weapon?
Then I guess it is the person, not the weapon. The person who allowed a 9-year-old near one.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
Fact. And they did it because they thought it was appropriate to do, and there was $$ to be made off the parents.
The instructor's family gets my condolences, but the guy made a really bad choice. Of course, that little girl's life has been changed forever.
Because some parents & an instructor had really bad judgement.
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
What could possibly go wrong with a 9 year old and an Uzi?
Now the instructor gets the posthumous Darwin Award.
I have zero sympathy for the girl's parents.
The girl however has been tragically let down by all the involved adults.
Not one of them said "What just a friggin minute???"
The parents should be jailed for psychological abuse of a child.
They are manifestly unfit to be parents.
|
|
dave729
Trad climber
Western America
|
|
Hey OP! Nothing happens until a 'finger' pulls that trigger.
|
|
dave729
Trad climber
Western America
|
|
Remember the bb guns at the carnivals? They were tied down so you could not
swivel them to shoot your stupid cousin up on the ferris wheel?
If that Uzi had been leashed in such a way...
|
|
stunewberry
Trad climber
Spokane, WA
|
|
Leonard Pitts of the Miami Herald has it right (http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/08/30/4317169/leonard-pitts-jr.html);:
Sometimes you read a sentence and you think to yourself: only here, only us. Here’s one such sentence.
“A 9-year-old girl from New Jersey accidentally shot and killed her instructor with an Uzi submachine gun while he stood to her left side, trying to guide her.”
That’s from a New York Times account of the death of 39-year-old Charles Vacca, who worked for the Last Stop shooting range in White Hills, Arizona. He died Monday when his preteen student lost control of the Uzi. Apparently, the gun was in “repeat fire” mode, the recoil lifted the muzzle, the little girl couldn’t master it and Vacca was struck in the head.
The child and her family, who have not been identified, were vacationing last week in nearby Las Vegas and had signed up for a package deal offered by the gun range. It included a tour of Hoover Dam, a hamburger lunch, an optional helicopter flight over the Grand Canyon and the chance to fire a range of powerful weapons, including sniper rifles, grenade launchers and machine guns. Everything was going fine until, as the Times put it, the “adventure went horribly wrong.”
For the record, some of us would argue that “horribly wrong” began, not when the child lost control of the gun, but when “adults” first placed this powerful piece of military hardware into her small hands. That act raises questions that are as blunt and indecorous as they are necessary and unavoidable:
What kind of shooting range allows a prepubescent girl to fire an Uzi? What kind of instructor does not guard against recoil when a child is handling such a powerful weapon? What kind of parents think it’s a good idea to put a submachine gun in their 9-year-old’s hands? And what kind of idiot country does not prohibit such things by law?
It is the last question that should most concern us. There’s not much you can do about individual lack of judgment. Some people will always be idiots. Some companies will always be idiots. But a country and its laws should be an expression of a people’s collective wisdom. So for a country to be idiotic says something sweeping about national character.
And where gun laws are concerned, the United States of America is — individual dissenting voices duly noted and exempted from the following descriptive — dumber than a bag of bullets. This, after all, is the country where you can take a gun into a bar. Where you can erect a shooting range in your own backyard. Where a blind person can get a gun permit. You think it’s insane that Arizona allows a 9-year-old to shoot at a firing range? ABC News reports that one in Texas allows them to do so at age 6.
Six.
God bless America. We legislate against Sharia law in places where there are no Muslims, much less an inclination toward Sharia. We pass laws to curtail election fraud despite the fact that election fraud, as a practical matter, does not exist. Yet we endure a yearly toll of gun carnage that makes civilized people in civilized places shake their heads in wonder and our only action is inaction.
We should mourn for this little girl who will have to live the rest of her life with the memory of what she inadvertently did. But let us also mourn for a country where what she did now barely qualifies as news.
We speak often and with pride of America’s exceptionalism — by which we mean our rights, our freedoms, our values. And they are, make no mistake, among the finest in the world.
But there are days when the bullets fly and the blood flows and no one can give you a good reason why this had to happen, and it occurs to you that we are also exceptional in the sheer, stubborn stupidity of which we are all too often capable. Last week brought another such day. A man was killed by a 9-year-old wielding a submachine gun.
Only here, only us."
Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/08/30/4317169/leonard-pitts-jr.html#storylink=cpy
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
Only here, only us. Americun Exceptionalism
In the case of gun ownership we are indeed exceptional.
Possibly outdone by villages in rural Afghanistan and some cities in Mexico and Colombia.
|
|
Salamanizer
Trad climber
The land of Fruits & Nuts!
|
|
The fault lies in pure negligence, start to finish. It always does. Everyone always wants to blame something or someone else.
They need a scape goat. It's human nature.
Nobody dares to ever blame the victim.
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
Nobody dares to ever blame the victim. which victim?
the "trainer" or whatever he called himself?
What lapse of intelligence (or original lack thereof) caused him to let this happen?
He was guilty of gross negligence. He has paid the price.
As were the poor girl's parents. They will pay the price the rest of their lives.
or the child? she's certainly the most tragic victim. What horrors will that innocent child have to live with?
I guess I'm out of line here. Doesn't every 9 year old have a Constitutional right to an Uzi to defend herself?
Don't bother that she won't be licensed to drive for another 7 years at least.
Where was the Good Guy With A Gun? He could have stopped this.............
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
Where are all the usual GunNutz® in this thread?
Interesting how they all go *crickets* every time there's another unbelievably tragic gun disaster that might well have been averted with some simple, reasonable gun restrictions (i.e. age requirements for using Uzis)
|
|
rlf
Trad climber
Josh, CA
|
|
This whole argument is nothing more than circular logic. Nobody wins, nobody loses.
It's completely pointless.
|
|
fear
Ice climber
hartford, ct
|
|
Not many years ago in a nearby town, a 6 year old child was sucked into a monster woodchipper while working with his father. The father was a landscaper and his kids were helping out. Kid's clothes got tangled with a branch and was pulled into the contraption headfirst.
The typical brainless comments about needing more laws governing woodchipper sales or rentals lasted a few days.
But most people saw it for what it was, a horrible tragedy brought about by poor judgment by an adult.
But nobody here every suffers from poor judgment right? Of course not.
|
|
pud
climber
Sportbikeville & Yucca brevifolia
|
|
Interesting how they all go *crickets* every time there's another unbelievably tragic gun disaster that might well have been averted with some simple, reasonable gun restrictions (i.e. age requirements for using Uzis)
Seriously? Would you blame the knife for the cowardly deeds of ISIS on their prisoners?
My 9 yr old shoots.
However, I would not allow him to use an automatic weapon due to the unpredictability of such a weapon.
The range master in this case lacked common sense. He made a tragic mistake that will haunt this child her entire life or until she realizes it was not her fault.
Blaming the weapon is simplistic and an easy out, instead of laying the blame where it rightfully belongs.
It is also a cowardly way of politicizing this tragic event to further one's personal agenda.
The range master paid the ultimate price for his bad judgement. I hope the girl has a healthy support system in her family and she learns to understand she was not to blame.
|
|
Fritz
Trad climber
Choss Creek, ID
|
|
I do have young memories about being about 4-5 years old, & sitting on my mom's lap in the pickup, and shooting ground-squirrels outside the window with a semi-auto 22.
Of course, that is now illegal in Idaho & hopefully everywhere else.
That situation was far more under control than the 9 year-old with the UZI at the shooting range.
Of course, the question is?
Why does the UZI incident make you want to defend "guns for everyone?"
|
|
Flip Flop
Trad climber
Truckee, CA
|
|
I'm just counting the days until they lift the restraining order so that I can buy guns. Lots.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
" I would not allow him to use an automatic weapon due to the unpredictability of such a weapon. "
Exactly the point.
Why wouldn't you allow your 9 y/o to use an Uzi? Because any reasonable person recognizes that such tools are inappropriate at such an age.
Those of you who shrug this off...by your logic, any 9 y/o should be allowed to drink, too. And drive a car. Why the hell not? They are Americans, too, dammit!
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
I did not realize that gun ranges provide such an popular tourist outlet for the auto experience. (No new civilian automatics in the US since 1986). Not very useful. Even the army standard M16 is a 3 shot burst.
previous tragedy:
In 2008, an 8-year-old boy died after accidentally shooting himself in the head with an Uzi at a gun expo near Springfield, Mass. Christopher Bizilj was firing at pumpkins when the gun kicked back. A former Massachusetts police chief whose company co-sponsored the gun show was later acquitted of involuntary manslaughter. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2014/09/02/uzi-girl-gun-tourism-las-vegas/14988003/
|
|
Salamanizer
Trad climber
The land of Fruits & Nuts!
|
|
which victim?
the "trainer" or whatever he called himself?
What lapse of intelligence (or original lack thereof) caused him to let this happen?
He was guilty of gross negligence. He has paid the price.
As were the poor girl's parents. They will pay the price the rest of their lives.
or the child? she's certainly the most tragic victim. What horrors will that innocent child have to live with?
Yes, the trainer. As I said before, pure negligence. Anyone with an IQ over 40 can see letting a 9 year old shoot a fully automatic UZI is a bad idea without "proper" supervision. Which would include holding and securing the firearm at minimum. Does that mean we need more laws to protect stupid people from themselves? No! Stupidity will always find a way. Laws just punish the other 99% of us.
I guess I'm out of line here. Doesn't every 9 year old have a Constitutional right to an Uzi to defend herself?
Don't bother that she won't be licensed to drive for another 7 years at least.
Where was the Good Guy With A Gun? He could have stopped this.............
Your argument is typical baseless banter. You can't legally buy an uzi until you're 21, and you need a special license to get one that is fully automatic. Which is hard to get. So no, a 9 year old doesn't have the right to own a fully automatic UZI. Can a 9 year old be allowed to shoot a fully automatic UZI. Yes, I believe so, with "proper" supervision. Which she did "not" have. Kids shoot firearms like this every day and have for many years. Younger even and still accidents are extremely rare. The difference here is, most kids have parents and/or instructors that have a clue.
This accident was tragically unfortunate. Do we now need to surrender even more of our freedom to choose because of it? I say no...
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
"Can a 9 year old be allowed to shoot a fully automatic UZI. Yes, I believe so, with "proper" supervision. Which she did "not" have."
Well, then, what the f*#k. If a 9 y/o should be able to shoot a fully automatic UZI with supervision, then they should be able to drive a car, or drink what they want, or vote...
...with supervision, of course.
|
|
Salamanizer
Trad climber
The land of Fruits & Nuts!
|
|
Those aren't even remotely the same thing or situations. You can't possibly be so stupid to not see that.
Holding, securing and keeping control of a fully automatic weapon while a 9yo fires it at a range would be more like letting a 9yo sit on your lap and steer a car in an empty parking lot or field. Now what kid hasn't done that?
Your argument is both moot and pointless. But there's no point in arguing with you over it. Your judgments are cast in stone. Stepping outside your box and critically thinking is out the window.
I'm just glad most Americans see these kinds of things for what they are and not jump to their own fabricated conclusions about everything.
|
|
Delhi Dog
climber
Good Question...
|
|
Just curious.
Why would a person want a 9 yo to fire a Uzi anyway...?
I expect something like, "for fun" as an answer.
However I could be wrong so I'm asking.
As far as child soldiers...using that as any kind of justification or argument for kids to have, be able to have, shoot, or be able to shoot Uzis is FU.
|
|
fear
Ice climber
hartford, ct
|
|
It's definitely fun if you can afford the ammunition..... But obviously only for those able to handle such a device. While seated from the bench, a longer/heavier rifle with a bipod and stablized with sandbags would have likely been fine. Something on a tripod when the instructor is actually stablizing it himself with his own hand.
But instead he handed a chainsaw to a 9 year old and unfortunately paid the price for stupidity. Happens everyday in a thousand different situations.
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
Those aren't even remotely the same thing or situations. You can't possibly be so stupid to not see that.
Holding, securing and keeping control of a fully automatic weapon while a 9yo fires it at a range would be more like letting a 9yo sit on your lap and steer a car in an empty parking lot or field. Now what kid hasn't done that?
Allowing a kid to "drive" a car in a public place is illegal. Allowing a kid to drink alcohol anywhere is illegal in most states. Even if you allowed a kid to drive your car on private property and someone else got hurt you could be sued, yet allowing a kid to use a device whose absolute only designed purpose is to kill people, why would that be illegal?
The only political point that needs to be made about this is that what everyone agrees is "common sense" isn't nearly as common as we'd hope. This isn't a case for more laws, but it does highlight the irrational thinking of many in the pro-gun camp.
The comparison with child soldiers is also absolute rubbish. Those children are cannon fodder, their "officers" don't care whether they get injured, traumatized or accidentally shoot one another. I once saw a trained adult soldier shooting an FN-FAL in single shot mode when something broke and it unexpectedly went full auto, that rifle lifted clean out of his hands, luckily there were only a few rounds in the magazine. When my 140lbs shot it full-auto, it took all of my strength to keep that muzzle anywhere near the target, and all of my concentration to remember to release that trigger.
IMHO, the parents of that kid should be able to sue the range for emotional distress, especially after the range says their waiver "blew away in the wind".
TE
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
"Those aren't even remotely the same thing or situations."
So where do you draw the line between appropriate activities for an adult vs. a 9 y/o? Sounds like that's pretty much what this comes down to...differing definitions of 'appropriate'.
From alcohol to driving to Uzis to chainsaws, everybody has differing views of whether this is 'appropriate' for a certain age, and in some cases, society & law has created clear structure around them.
Law or not, everyone has their opinion. It blows me away what some people find as 'appropriate', though.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
Chief, go back to your other GunNutz® thread.
BTW:
'They're'
|
|
aspendougy
Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
|
|
It was stupidity that killed that guy; The little girl said the gun was too much for her to handle, but that did'nt seem to occur to either the parents or the instructor until it was too late.
|
|
tradmanclimbs
Ice climber
Pomfert VT
|
|
9yr old has no buisness shooting anything other than a .22. preferable a single shot or a bolt action. teaches them to be accurate and make their shots count. semi auto promotes spray and pray. the thing that makes this accident so inexcuseable is that it has happened bfore. Westfield MA the cheif of police was running a machinegun shoot and let a simeler age kid shoot an UZI. it got away from the kid and the kid was killed. Any serious fire arms instructor should know of that incident.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
quitcherbellyachin
|
|
anyone care to speak to the psychology of the girl's parents who had no problem bring her to a gun range and making arrangement to have her instructed on how to properly handle an Uzi?
create a psychological profile, a matrix of perhaps personality traits, for the parents
I have some ideas but I am always more interesting in reading what other people think, as I already know what i think
|
|
tradmanclimbs
Ice climber
Pomfert VT
|
|
No clue? I grew up on a farm so it was simply what you did. Start out with sling shots then graduate to bb gun. started shooting the single shot .22 at 7ys old and put on pest control not too long after that. hunting, fishing and killing anything that messed with the crops or livestock is what you did. did not know any different. I can gaurentee though that my dad would not in any way shape or form allow me to shoot an UZI at 9ys old. probobly arround 11ish? I started shooting a single shot 20ga shotgun. probobly shot the .303 british (bolt action) at 12 and was given that rifle at 14.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
You can tell it's true fetishism when people can't even concede that someone might be too young to fire an automatic weapon and instead blame the "supervision."
|
|
tradmanclimbs
Ice climber
Pomfert VT
|
|
The supervision was obviously dumber than a brick to even contemplate allowing a kid that young to shoot a submachinegun.
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
salamanizer
you took my bait. Obviously my sarcasm was above your head.
You will note my serious intent. I merely point out the idiocy of insisting that ANYONE has a right to own/fire any weapon. This should be obvious to any rational adult.
It is pure criminal negligence that someone would put a loaded Uzi into a chid's hands as if it were an arcade playtoy.
Even the army standard M16 is a 3 shot burst. I read a very good operational rationale for that.
Yes, the Army probably spent (some might say wasted) millions of dollars on the studies.
In the end they worked out that if the first 3 shots haven't hit or taken down the target the next dozen probably won't. So the 3 shot limit is just good shooting science. Don't waste the ammo, don't let the shooter keep spraying, making himself a target. Instead take time to correct her aim. Make her THINK dagnabbit!
Blowing a dozen rounds around the vicinity of a target who can evade or shoot back is counter productive.
Besides ammo is expensive to buy, to store and especially to ship to the front.
|
|
Gunkie
Trad climber
East Coast US
|
|
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
Can somebody please explain to me how it is illegal for a 9 y/o to purchase a weapon (isn't it?)...esp. an Uzi...?
...and yet it is legal for a 9 y/o to shoot one?
And how a business can be created around this?
The Westfield, MA incident...eerily similar, except an 8 year old kid winds up killing himself when losing control of the Uzi:
http://crooksandliars.com/2014/08/flashback-2008-8-year-old-killed-while
Meanwhile, the usual ST GunNutz® remain pretty quiet on this one....
|
|
tradmanclimbs
Ice climber
Pomfert VT
|
|
Ron O.
yes it is possible to teach a kid that age how to shoot a sub gun but is it the right thing to do? I have to dissagree with you and say it is not. teach them to be safe and accurate with bolt, lever and pump. It teaches shot diciplin. leave the semi auto and full auto for when they get older. heck you can teach a kid lots of things that are best left alone until the kid grows up a bit. what is the big rush?
|
|
crankster
Trad climber
|
|
NRA News shamelessly promotes viewer-submitted pictures of children with firearms, some engaged in unsafe gun practices
Meanwhile, these accidental shootings by children in the U.S. happened within just one month: August 2nd - September 2nd, 2014.
A 7-year-old boy shot himself at his family’s homemade shooting range in California:
The boy was reportedly firing a single-shot, .22 bolt action youth rifle under his father’s supervision. When the boy cried out, his father noticed there was a small hole in his shirt, then blood.
A 9-year-old girl accidentally shot and killed her instructor with an Uzi in Arizona:
"(The mother) was visibly upset and shaken," the report reads. She said "the gun went off and saw (her daughter) drop the gun. (The girl) turned to her and told her the gun was too much for her and it hurt her shoulder. (The mother) said no one knew Vacca was shot until the other instructor ran over."
A 4-year-old boy in Texas was injured after he found his parents’ handgun:
The boy climbed into his parents’ bedroom closet in their home on the 600 block of Destin Drive and found their .38-caliber gun on the top shelf, Fort Worth police said. The gun was loaded and unlocked when the boy pulled the trigger.
A 13-year-old boy was shot and killed by his 14-year-old friend while they were handling a rifle in Oklahoma:
Police say initially the other teens said the victim shot himself with the gun, but after questioning them separately, police say the 14-year-old accidentally fired the gun … Police say the rifle used was stolen from a home in Midwest City in 2011. Right now investigators don’t know how the gun ended up in the teens hands.
A 9-year-old girl died after shooting herself with her father’s gun:
"The young lady was searching or looking around, found the weapon, was pulling it out of the drawer an the gun discharged as he was pulling it out of the drawer," said Police Chief Rex Brown. Brown said the bullet hit her in the head.
A 7-year-old boy in Tennessee shot and killed himself with his grandfather’s pistol:
Hills’ grandfather, Dana Buck, said he was in the living room watching TV when he heard a shot. He ran to the bedroom and found Hills, who had accidentally shot himself with a pistol.
A 3-year-old boy in Chicago, IL was critically injured after finding his father’s handgun and accidentally shooting himself in the head:
Police said the boy was in a closet with at least one other child and playing with the gun when it discharged, hitting the boy in the head and leaving him in critical condition. Police said the boy’s father took the gun, the remaining rounds and fled the scene.
In Tennessee, a 10-year-old boy shot himself in the foot while hunting:
According to TWRA, the 10-year-old was dove hunting at the Buffalo Springs Wildlife Management Area in Grainger County when he accidentally shot himself in the foot. He was taken by medical helicopter to UT Medical Center with non-life threatening injuries.
A 3-year-old boy accidentally shot himself in the face in Atlanta:
The 3-year-old was taken to a local hospital for treatment, according to police. The newspaper spoke with a neighbor, Ivey McMullen, who said she “heard people screaming that ‘the baby shot himself.’”
A 7-year-old boy in Ohio shot himself while playing in his grandparents’ backyard:
Police said the boy was in his back yard on Impala Dr. with his brother. They found a gun, and began playing with it … Colerain police said that the boys live with their grandparents, and there does not seem to be a lot of supervision. Officers will also look into how the boys were able to get a gun so easily.
A 15-year-old boy shot himself in the face after he found a hidden key to his parent’s gun safe while they were at work:
[He] found a hidden key to the gun safe and was able to get to a handgun inside. The 15-year-old told police that the gun went off as he was putting it back in the gun safe … Police said the parents told them they didn’t think their children knew where the gun safe key was hidden.
So how’s our country handling this pattern of violence resulting from children handling firearms? A child can still legally own a rifle or shotgun in 30 states.
|
|
fear
Ice climber
hartford, ct
|
|
I don't think there was a real attempt to "teach" much here. Some of those ranges sort of act like an amusement park. "Come shoot a machinegun"... etc...
Unfortunately certain short barreled machineguns are like chainsaws and probably shouldn't be handled by children or small adults.
|
|
fear
Ice climber
hartford, ct
|
|
I think most are in agreement that handing a short-barreled machinegun to a child is a stupid thing to do...
|
|
Bad Climber
climber
|
|
Dingus said, "Teaching a nine year old to shoot a machine gun is the stupidest f*#king thing I ever heard."
I'm with you on this...UNLESS we really do have a Zombie apocalypse and the compound is being stormed by the brain-eating hordes. Then some VERY careful instruction and training might be justified.
Are there zombies in AZ?
BAD
|
|
fear
Ice climber
hartford, ct
|
|
One of my friends is a cop who pulled nightshift in one of our urban hellholes. He describes the scene after 2AM on a hot summer night as looking like the Michael Jackson Thriller video.... ;)
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
might well have been averted with some simple, reasonable gun restrictions (i.e. age requirements for using Uzis)
Just so that I'm clear, because on the face of it that seems like such an asinine comment....
Are you REALLY advocating that there should be a LAW in place to "cover" every possible facet of human stupidity?
|
|
Flip Flop
Trad climber
Truckee, CA
|
|
Guns don't kill people. Bullets don't kill people. The holes, voids, leaks and disruptions in the victim's body kills the body.
Old age kills people. You don't see anyone trying to make aging illegal.
|
|
fear
Ice climber
hartford, ct
|
|
You can't have a "law" for every stupid thing someone might do. The government cannot, and fails miserably at, enforcing common sense. Although tragic and good MSM fodder, there have not been a statistically relevant number of cases where children have shot themselves or others with short barreled machine guns at gun ranges.
Education is key for most of a society's ills, not meaningless and unenforceable new laws to add to the immense pile of other useless laws.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
Unfortunately, DMT, the lowest common denominator has (once again) illustrated their utter stupidity and selfishness, thus creating a stronger imperative to create regulation to avoid such horrible tragedy.
Still genuinely interested in this question:
Can somebody please explain to me how it is illegal for a 9 y/o to purchase a weapon (isn't it?)...esp. an Uzi...?
...and yet it is legal for a 9 y/o to shoot one?
And how a business can be created around this?
|
|
fear
Ice climber
hartford, ct
|
|
It's technically legal for a 9 year old to buy a chainsaw. It's technically legal for a 9 year old to buy a gallon of gasoline. No laws preventing them from buying matches from the same gas station either.
There are a million ways to die. Another million laws will not prevent that.
|
|
FRUMY
Trad climber
Bishop,CA
|
|
Actually it's not legal for a 9 year old to buy gas or matches.
|
|
FRUMY
Trad climber
Bishop,CA
|
|
I'm with you there.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
quitcherbellyachin
|
|
seems to be some confusion?
"laws" are not passed to STOP unwanted activity
they are passed in order to prosecute unwanted activity
big difference
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
There are a million ways to die. Another million laws will not prevent that.
Bingo!
I would only add the word "stupid" before "ways" in your first sentence.
You can't fix stupid, and you can't legislate it away. You can't even reduce it via legislation. And the effort to do so merely infringes on the liberties of the non-stupid.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
"laws" are not passed to STOP unwanted activity
they are passed in order to prosecute unwanted activity
Wait! Wait! Now I'm totally confused!
I thought that you were one of the ones so staunchly advocating more and more gun control laws to try to "prevent another Newtown" and so forth.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
Laws become appropriate when the actions of one person(s) consistently result in negative impacts on others.
Of course, we're only talking about two kid & Uzi deaths, here...that must be an 'acceptable loss' to preserve your 'liberty', madbolter?
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
"And yes we can legislate against stupidity, we the people do it all the time. Speed limits are a good example."
STOP INFRINGING ON MY PERSONAL LIBERTIES!!!!!!!!!!111116669999
I WANNA DRIVE AS FAST AS I WANT, WHILE ME & MY KIDS SUCK DOWN YUKON JACK!
Anything less....AND YOU ARE A FASCIST PINKO LIBERAL!!!!!!!1116699
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
that must be an 'acceptable loss' to preserve your 'liberty', madbolter?
That's a poorly worded way of summing up.
In a free society, a certain percentage will be stupid and behave stupidly. Yes, there will be loses. Are those "acceptable?" What does that word even mean?
Incidents like this are sad, but unavoidable; legislation is not going to prevent such things.
Then you refer to "my liberty" as though I am being selfish about liberty.
No, I care about liberty in general... universally speaking. A reduction of liberty in general will not prevent or even reduce stupid.
Legislating to the lowest common denominator serves neither the stupid nor the non-stupid.
|
|
FRUMY
Trad climber
Bishop,CA
|
|
I'm SORRY but that death was completely preventable.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
Your loss of 'liberty' due to implementation of speed limits & seatbelts has resulted in thousands fewer deaths on our highways each year.
What a horrible loss of 'liberty' you have sustained.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
And yes we can legislate against stupidity, we the people do it all the time. Speed limits are a good example.
I agree that you've chosen a good example...
to make my point.
I did not say you cannot pass laws. Of course you can PASS them. What I said is that you cannot prevent or even significantly reduce stupidity by passing laws. And I like that you chose speed limits as an example. It's perfect!
I will instantly agree that our speed limits laws ARE legislated to the lowest common denominator. And the effect of such efforts?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate
Look at where the USA ranks on "road fatalities per 1 billion vehicle-km." Well below most other developed nations, and we have THE superior highway system compared to everybody else except for perhaps Germany (the high-speed highways of which have no speed limit).
We have more vehicle-manufacture regulations, so we have relatively safe vehicles. We have an extensive and generally well-maintained system of roads. AND we have speed limits significantly lower than the roads and vehicles were designed to handle.
Yet, we still have double the rate of fatalities of most European nations.
Colorado has stringent anti-texting laws. Yet I've really watched and kept an impromptu tally: at least 1 in 3 drivers are texting at the point I glance over at them (usually because they are driving stupidly). It is ubiquitous, despite the law. Texting while driving is STUPID, it is illegal, and people are doing it in droves!
A "war on" drunk driving has been a national campaign for decades. It is STUPID, it is illegal, it negligently endangers MANY others, and it is STILL done all the time.
According to: http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/alcoholcountries/background_&_intro.htm, their statistics summarized up to 1998 for "alcohol involvement" in people causing fatal crashes show: 38.6% were at .01 or higher, 30% were at .10 or higher. The illegal BAC is .08 or .10, depending on state.
So, despite massive legislation, an "educational" campaign that sweeps the nation, dedicated enforcement, and the demotivator of the sheer selfish STUPIDITY of it, about 40% of people causing a fatal crash had been drinking, and 30% of those causing a fatal crash were over the "legal limit."
HOW does, say, Germany have such a dramatically lower death toll on the highways, when they also have highways that we do not have here that have no speed limit? Trying to make the case that reducing speed reduces traffic fatalities is not borne out by the international data that we have readily at our disposal.
No, instead, the prima facie speed law is all we really need (and all states already have it on the books), and it would put the burden of proof squarely back where it belongs: on prosecutors in a context of "innocent until proven guilty."
When you have an arbitrary, dumbed down, lowest common denominator speed limit system, here is ALL you get as your "net gain" for that project:
* States and municipalities convert their police forces into "highway tax collectors" to supplement revenues.
* Illogical and unjust traffic "courts" are populated by "judges" that are not real judges and are not accountable to the people.
* You can PROVE your case in traffic court and still be "found guilty," and this is the norm rather than the exception.
* In traffic court, you are guilty until proven innocent, and even then you really cannot prove that you are innocent. Your word against the cop guarantees that you will lose, despite the fact that the conflict of interest (in favor of revenue generation) is so apparent that it is flagrant!
* Municipalities encourage fine-paying by reducing "points" on your license if you'll just pay the fine instead of fighting it. You are motivated to do so, because if you try to fight it, you will almost certainly lose anyway, and then you will pay a higher fine and get the full points on your license.
* States and municipalities have a HUGE investment in speed control, with expensive equipment and man-hours devoted to speed enforcement. This investment (and it's ongoing) MUST reap a profit; and profit is what speed enforcement is about.
* People can dutifully drive the posted speed limit except for a tiny, short window of time and be merely unlucky enough to have the brief window "captured" by a radar or laser gun; BAGGED, and pay the fine!
* Speed limits are often illegally posted by municipalities, as they do not comply with state laws in terms of the mandated studies spanning years, etc. Yet, drivers getting bagged by radar or laser never think to check if the posted speed is even a legally posted speed. The few that do research the matter often find that the posted speed was not in compliance with state law. When such people go to court to argue that the posted speed was not even legal, they are told (and this is in fact a quote): "Okay, but if we let this cat out of the bag, we would find speed enforcement virtually impossible across the state. So, yes, the posting itself was illegal, but you still have to obey it. Pay the fine."
* THIS experiment has never been tried, but it would prove the correlation between speed limits and revenue generation.... Every state should pass a law precluding government (state or local) from benefiting from fine revenue. ALL fine revenue must be given to the spectrum of charities chosen by each state. Not even the "overhead" of speed enforcement can be taken out of the fine revenue. NOW see how much effort governments put into speed enforcement.
And it goes on and on.
Show of hands here: How many of you think that speed enforcement in this country is non-arbitrary, fair, judicious, and properly winnable in court in the event that you are falsely charged?
By contrast, EVERY speed limit law could be eliminated except for the prima facie speed law that already exists everywhere. Instead of the prima facie law being relied upon as a sort of "backstop law," it should be the ONLY speed law: You may not drive faster than is safe for your vehicle and the conditions.
That law alone makes it illegal to blast through a school zone with kids present at 50 mph, and any decent prosecutor could win such a case.
That law alone makes it illegal to weave in and out of heavy and slower traffic in an attempt to milk an additional net 5 mph out of the conditions.
And, that law would make it LEGAL to drive 100 mph (or more) in a modern, well-maintained vehicle on a wide-open, virtually deserted, dry, clear highway at 6pm (as often exists in many states).
That law would also distinguish between well-maintained vehicles designed for much higher speeds compared to poorly-maintained vehicles and those not designed for high speed.
That law would also distinguish among drivers. There are demonstrably better and worse trained and capable drivers. But the speed limit laws treat all drivers alike: ALL are treated as untrained, stupid hazards!
Speed limits ARE arbitrary, and they are NOT effective at reducing highway fatalities. There is simply too much OTHER stupidity to go around.
So, this is yet another example of how fine-grained attempts to legislate conditions down to the level of the lowest common denominator actually fail to accomplish the stated purpose. Instead they become revenue-generating scams that DO infringe on the liberties of the general public.
The more fine-grained you try to legislate, the more this effect will emerge.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
I'm SORRY but that death was completely preventable.
Yup, but not by a law.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
What a horrible loss of 'liberty' you have sustained.
It is indeed horrible, and it's just going more and more downhill as this nation more and more commits itself to being a nanny-state.
Meanwhile, stupid people continue to kill themselves and others in new and amazing ways. And the resulting knee-jerk laws will SLAM the barn door closed after the horses have escaped. And the stupid will console themselves with "Yes, but at least we can prevent more such incidents."
And the legal noose tightens and tightens around our necks.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Yeah? Your point? That Germany also has a lot of laws?
Irrelevant.
My point about Germany is that they are not nearly as anal and arbitrary as we are about vehicle speed, and they have half the highway death rate we have (and that's by miles driven, not per capita).
The fact that they have a bunch of other laws doesn't speak to that fact.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Sorry
Free soloing deaths are very rare, very very rare.
Before a free soloist even leaves the ground he/she already knows the result if you blow it.
We get rope climbing accidents all the time and they are on the rise.
Stupid climbers think all that gear and ropes will do the trick.
The idea is to not fall at all.
Now a days climbers climb until they fall then hang and then continue on.
They also put so much emphasis on climbing grades.
Stupid way to climb ......
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
if climbing is so dangerous, and becoming more-so
It's not becoming more dangerous.
It's always been dangerous.
The first thing Americans want to do is regulate and control everyone to become robots and sheep.
Americans are crazy stupid fools ....
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
So what's changing?
Over trust on equipment and technology .......
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
so what's changing?
What the Smoking Duck said plus more people climbing.
When you take personal responsibility for your actions, like getting yourself down from a climb, you are always more thoughtful.
often says the same thing about Solo climber deaths WTF does solo climbing by mature (more or less) legal aged adults have to do with giving a 9 year old an Uzi with multiple rounds in the magazine?
Who else are they endangering besides Smoking Duck and his merry band of pranksters? And they are ADULTS who are legally responsible for their own actions.
But back to the salient point: I guarantee if you as an adult gave a 9 year old a chalk bag, pointed to Nutcracker, and said "Go for it" you would legally be held accountable for any misfortune that resulted.
|
|
GDavis
Social climber
SOL CAL
|
|
I'm SORRY but that death was completely preventable.
Yup, but not by a law.
Yup our laws say that 9 year olds can shoot an Uzi. Like, if the law said that toddlers could fly F-18's, it wouldn't be anyone's fault if one crashed into Madbolter's house. Just what planes do.
Now, we could CHANGE that law but I like our rights to fly planes and won't budge an inch - even if that means we can't keep toddlers out of the cockpit.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
quitcherbellyachin
|
|
doesn't matter
because I thought it up, it must be true
the arrogance of ignorant certainty
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Like, if the law said that toddlers could fly F-18's, it wouldn't be anyone's fault if one crashed into Madbolter's house. Just what planes do.
LOL... amazingly cheap shot. And ridiculous as well.
Is your idea REALLY that it's "nobody's fault" if something negligent and stupid is done outside the context of an existing law? Do you REALLY think that we must have a law in place to cover every imaginable sort of stupidity or negligence so that "fault" can be properly assigned?
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
Blood alcohol limits and consequences in Germany, from Wikipedia.
Germany: zero for beginners ... as well as drivers making commercial transportation of passengers; 0.03% in conjunction with any other traffic offense or accident; .... penalty for 0.11% is a €500 fine and the drivers licence is withdrawn for at least six months, but usually about one year .); for 0.16% or higher regranting of the licence requires a successful Medical Psychological Assessment.. If someone is caught with more than 0.11% or higher within 10 Years of the last DUI incident with more than 0.05% and he´s found guilty of DUI, it carries a minimum €1.000 fine and a license suspension of at least one year, he has to take and pass successful an MPU and is required to prove to the Court that he has been sober for the last 12 months, before he can get his license back. .
Added to that, Germany's driving test is so difficult that some Germans travel to other EU countries to take driving tests, even to the UK and Ireland whose tests are themselves far, far harder than US tests, yet where driving on the wrong side is easier than passing their domestic test.
I'll absolutely agree with Madbolter that speed limit fines in isolation have become a perverse incentive and now do little to improve safety, but traffic and vehicle regulations as a whole have reduced US road fatalities to their lowest levels since the 1920's, and that's NOT a per-capita or per mile driven figure, that's in raw numbers.
And of course you can legislate against stupidity, as just one simple example, there's no mechanical reason why you can't start a car in drive or reverse gear, but there's a CFR that says car manufacturers must add an interlock to prevent it. Although not technically a law, it has the force of law and is intended not to prosecute offenders, but to prevent injury and death, often of the stupid or their progeny. Think of how many gun analogies you could make with that example.
TE
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
What makes driving in Germany more safe than here is a combination of the law and culture. You can only pass on the left side. If you see an approaching vehicle, you have to move to the right lane.
And, most importantly, Germans are very obedient.
Yet again, you help me make my point, which was that speed laws are NOT what make the roads safe or not. It IS possible to have virtually no speed limits in a developed society and yet, somehow, amazingly, have people not crashing into each other at ridiculous rates. Exactly my point!
So, as I said, speed limit laws in this country are a perfect example to make my overarching point, which was that you cannot legislate away stupidity and its baleful results. Germans are generally not stupid drivers; we are. Speed laws don't change those fundamental facts. You can make a law to cover everything, and you will not change the fundamental facts.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Think of how many gun analogies you could make with that example.
Wow... we're close to on the same page again, TE.
I totally agree that all sorts of things could be done to improve gun safety. And I personally think that the range and the parents should be at least civilly held accountable for this incident.
What I'm arguing against is the pervasive trend on these threads to "solve by more legislation (preferably at the federal level, of course)."
|
|
crankster
Trad climber
|
|
Anyone who take a 9 year-old to a redneck machine gun range should be reported to Child Protective Services.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
What about taking an already morbidly obese kid to an all-you-can-eat buffet and then watching with a satisfied smile while he/she packs down another 5000 calories?
CPS on that one?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
While in America, laws are designed to protect people from themselves.
And therein lies the problem. Parents and other responsible adults are supposed to have enough functional brain cells to recognize the danger in such a situation. There should indeed be liability in this incident, due to such obvious foolishness.
But the nanny-state actually makes people dumber! There is an increasing lack of a sense of personal responsibility in this society.
|
|
johnboy
Trad climber
Can't get here from there
|
|
There is an increasing lack of a sense of personal responsibility in this society.
And blaming that on laws that are inacted is quite a stretch.
|
|
tradmanclimbs
Ice climber
Pomfert VT
|
|
I think with this one perhaps we should just let darwin do his thing....
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
I totally agree that all sorts of things could be done to improve gun safety. And I personally think that the range and the parents should be at least civilly held accountable for this incident.
Then do you agree that the Gun Industry's unique exemption from product liability lawsuits should be repealed? With immunity from lawsuits, why would they voluntarily do anything to improve safety, or limit use of their products by criminals?
The entire point of workers' comp is to limit the ability of employees or their estates to sue for 'accidents' in the workplace, so I imagine the widow will have very little recourse. Ironically, the family of the girl may have the best opportunity to sue the range, even though they were clearly partly responsible.
TE
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
Product liability?
How was the Uzi defective? It went "bang-bang-bang..." when the trigger was pulled, just like it was supposed to.
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
I wasn't mentioning product liability in relation to this case, just gun safety in general.
I'm no fan of the laws, but I certainly don't see why one product gets a special legal exemption. Product liability can apply when there is a failure to warn about non-obvious dangers. For any other product where three adults apparently failed to see any danger and yet one got killed due to the product, a lawsuit would be possible.
TE
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
What would be the difference if dad hooked up the 9YO with a chainsaw or a power mower and they killed themselves or someone else?
|
|
bergbryce
climber
East Bay, CA
|
|
Fyi, most of the Autobahn has controlled speeds. It's only when you get to those few remaining stretches out in the country, not on major inter-city thouroughfares that you actually find 30 or 40 kilometer long sections that are really speed limit free. Get your arse out of the left lane in these zones.
This is a case of very poor decision making that was abetted by a very strange and potentially deadly obsession that exists in our country.
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
What would be the difference if dad hooked up the 9YO with a chainsaw or a power mower and they killed themselves or someone else?
The legal difference is that you can sue the mower maker for your stupidity, but thanks to GWB, not gun makers.
TE
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
"What would be the difference if dad hooked up the 9YO with a chainsaw or a power mower and they killed themselves or someone else?"
Dunno...why don't you post up a link to such an example, and we'll discuss?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
The legal difference is that you can sue the mower maker for your stupidity, but thanks to GWB, not gun makers.
I don't think that any manufacturer should be exempt from litigation. I also don't think that oil companies should get subsidies and special tax breaks. I feel the same about tobacco companies.
Is your idea that it's a GOOD thing to have such an irresponsible society that we can sue a company for our own stupidity? And exactly how should an Israeli company be liable in this particular incident. Exactly what product liability suit would be legit here?
So, sure, no exemptions! But let's also have sane courts that will simply toss out irresponsible suits!
|
|
Degaine
climber
|
|
1) Regarding drivers in Western Europe
*Someone showed the stats and seems to know Germany so I won't add anything
*Stats for France are similar. Why are the less accidents and why are they better drivers? Simple: much better training (driver's ed), a much more difficult exam to obtain your license (written and in the car), a relatively objective points system for losing your license that government applies stringently. In France the radars fixed (and automated), so no negotiation with a Police Officer. In addition to filling government coffers, speeding has decreased overall in the last 10 years and so have fatalities (especially motorway fatalities).
*All in all in my experience in countries like Germany, France, Switzerland, Italy (Northern), is that people in general are much more aware of the space their car takes up, and are much better at handling theirs cars. It's not just a function of cars being smaller on average, since I've seen bus drivers parallel park with laser-like precision.
2) Madbolter wrote:
Is your idea that it's a GOOD thing to have such an irresponsible society that we can sue a company for our own stupidity? And exactly how should an Israeli company be liable in this particular incident. Exactly what product liability suit would be legit here?
a) Honestly, in the case with the Uzi, I don't see how holding the company liable would work. Perhaps a law (or even just shooting range rules) similar to the amusement park "if you're not this tall you can't ride" might be the appropriate response, or maybe simply insurance companies now won't cover a shooting range if they don't have rules that limit what 9 year olds can do. That written, in the case of such a dangerous weapon, I think it should be all too easy for parents to be extra careful. I shot hand guns and rifles as a young kid (at targets and cans) and was taught so well as how to handle a weapon safely that my parents had to take me aside and tell me that it was okay to point a squirt gun at someone and that it didn't need a safety.
b) The day will come about at some point where manufacturers will be held liable for their guns getting into the hands of those who did not purchase them legally. The gun manufacturers are all too happy to see a rise in demand in their weapons regardless of whose hands they end up in. Similar to illegal immigration: as soon as the US government starts cracking down heavily on ConAgra, Tyson, etc., then there will be serious immigration reform, until then all the big companies who are making money hand over fist off of the current system are all to happy to keep it that way.
|
|
Degaine
climber
|
|
Thanks for the link krahmes, f'ing hilarious!
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
b) The day will come about at some point where manufacturers will be held liable for their guns getting into the hands of those who did not purchase them legally.
That was the specific reason why the 2005 law exempting gun manufacturers from liability was passed, so without a repeal of that law, it won't happen. A string of increasingly successful lawsuits threatened to hold manufacturers liable for failing to take steps to reduce diversion of their products. The manufacturers went to their friends in congress and we got the The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act
I do correct my previous statements, gun makers can still be held liable for defective products etc.m only the willful negligence they have shown in the distribution of their products is immune from liability.
TE
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
Still looking for an example, TGT?
Good luck with that.
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
That cartoon made my rainy day Crankster!
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
City types are clearly the most unknowing of guns.....clearly, not a bad thing. Guns have a certain application but, in their overall societal effect, they are a net negative. I have more practical experience with an Uzi than anyone on this forum and I can't think of a good argument for their continued existence.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
"Still jerkin yur gerkins over one accident eh? "
If one person is killed due to such stupidity, it's one person too much (yourself excluded, obviously).
The fact that this has happened at least twice in recent years, and that this has involved 8 or 9 year old children, makes this especially egregious. Marginalizing an incident like this really reinforces the as#@&%e-factor.
Edit:
"Some dude anywhere owns 20 rifles or somesuch? Chances are good that dude is a whack job."
Fixed that for ya, DMT.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
If one person is killed due to such stupidity, it's one person too much (yourself excluded, obviously).
And you propose to do exactly WHAT about this incident... to prevent even ONE more like it from EVER happening? Even one such death is "too much," so, clearly, we as a nation must do WHATEVER will keep it from happening again!
So, if you could make any law(s), exactly what would the law(s) look like?
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
Something along the lines of it's illegal for anyone of ~14 y/o or under to operate Uzis or similar type weapons. The specific age and type of weapon is somewhat negotiable.
Or at the very least, making it illegal for a business to allow ~14 y/o or under to operate such weapons.
It just doesn't seem very unreasonable, except to whacknut My-'Liberty'-Is-More-Important-than-You' types.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
It just doesn't seem very unreasonable, except to whacknut My-'Liberty'-Is-More-Important-than-You' types.
Nope... totally reasonable.
So, should there be a law keeping morbidly obese kids away from the all-you-can-eat buffet line? Like in bars, you know: "You've had enough kid!"
If not, then why not?
|
|
xtrmecat
Big Wall climber
Kalispell, Montanagonia
|
|
I disagree Apogee. I have a grandson that has owned his own guns since his fifth birthday. By age seven or eight he could safely do an Uzi with his father or I.
He'll, he knows more about guns and gun safety than 90 % of the posters on this and the appreciation thread, and he's only ten years old now. Probably can outshoot the same amount.
I'm sure you cannot fit him into your whackjob class now, or can you? Just a normal Montana boy that grew up peeing in the backyard and playing in the dirt.
Burly Bob
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
OK, Bob...if you aren't good with a blanket law that regulates ages & weapon types, how about conducting a business that is based on this?
"So, should there be a law keeping morbidly obese kids away from the all-you-can-eat buffet line? Like in bars, you know: "You've had enough kid!"
Ever hear of 'false equivalency'? You are creating one right now. They usually get thrown out as a way of distracting from the central issue.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Good on you, Burly. As I think you know, I lean your way. Responsible parents are worth their weight in gold, particularly in the present nanny-state mindset!
"Liberals" always want to legislate the nanny-state down and down to the every lower lowest common denominator. Individual values be damned. There's nothing that can't be fixed with a good law.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Ever hear of 'false equivalency'? You are creating one right now.
Oh, trust me, I know exactly what it is, and I know that I'm not creating one now.
YOU are the one arguing the BS line: "If it can save even one life," as you argue that even this ONE incident simply demands a legislative response.
And it is EXACTLY equivalent that far, far more lives are ruined and prematurely ended (in generally horrible fashion) by the parental irresponsibility that turns kids into mini-planets. You seem to have nothing to say about that, and I'm just wondering why you are not all "up at arms" about that sort of parental irresponsibility.
I mean, if "saving just one life" means new laws are DEMANDED by a "responsible society," then I want to know where and why you draw ANY lines.
If you think my equivalency is false, then here's your golden opportunity to explain what makes it false... and that will have the wondrous side-effect of explaining why you draw legislative lines where you do.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
F*#k your generalizations & stereotypes, madbolter.
If everyone was concerned with the safety & well-being of others on the highways, speed limits probably wouldn't be necessary.
If everyone could post a 5 million $ bond to cover their longterm care when they become head injured in a motorcycle accident, helmet laws would be pointless.
Etc, etc.
The problem with this?...REALITY.
The world just doesn't work that way, and while there just enough idiots & selfish as#@&%es out there on the highways (or as parents) that some kind of regulation becomes necessary to minimize the likelihood that their dumbass decisions hurt someone else.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
The world just doesn't work that way, and while there just enough idiots & selfish as#@&%es out there on the highways (or as parents) that some kind of regulation becomes necessary to minimize the likelihood that their dumbass decisions hurt someone else.
It sure seems to me like the incidence of this sort of thing is already pretty dang "minimized." And YOU don't get to back off to "minimized." YOU said that there should not be even ONE such incident, and there must be laws to keep this from ever happening again.
You do NOT want "minimized." YOU argue that there should be CONTROL over stupidity. You argue that legislation is "reasonable" to achieve such control. Given RARE incidents like this, people like you are QUICK to propose new legislation to slam the barn door shut afterward. But human beings are AMAZINGLY adept and finding RARE and wonderful ways to display their stupidity.
Your solution? More laws, damn it! More laws!
Now WHO is not living in the REAL world?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
If everyone could post a 5 million $ bond to cover their longterm care when they become head injured in a motorcycle accident, helmet laws would be pointless.
Unlike you liberals, I don't WANT a nation in which "everybody" is somehow responsible to provide long-term care for some guy who takes chances with his life. I believe in a world of personal responsibility: You pays your money, and you takes your chances.
You know, like climbers!
If you love helmet laws, then you should LOVE and be stumping for no-free-solo laws! No long-runout laws! Grid-bolt, so that stupid people that aren't well-qualified to lead trad won't go out and hurt themselves... at taxpayers' expense.
You can't have it both ways. The liberal, nanny-state mindset DEMANDS more and more laws, because that "state" of affairs makes us ALL responsible for stupidity and negligence. Return to a nation of individual responsibility (with community/church charity for tough cases), and you'll find that you immediately need far fewer laws.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
" I believe in a world of personal responsibility: You pays your money, and you takes your chances."
Me, too. I just wish the world actually worked that way.
And shove your generalizations and stereotypes up yer arse, madbolter.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
Well, I'd agree with madbolter in respect to the question of the types of regulation and laws that should exist in the first place, and where the line is drawn between self-regulation & implemented law.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
Equating hiking with the use of an Uzi by 8 year olds.
Seriously.
SERIOUSLY?.
You GunNutz® are either desperate for fecking Nutz.
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
So, should there be a law keeping morbidly obese kids away from the all-you-can-eat buffet line? Like in bars, you know: "You've had enough kid!"
If not, then why not?
No, because allowing fat kids to eat too much at the buffet line doesn't facilitate the murder of 10,000 healthy kids.
TE
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
Hmmm,.. back after a few days, and the voices are familiar.
Aren't we lucky that in (most of) the U S of A (most of) our kids don't need to know how to handle weapons.
I made a general example of an Israeli girl.
That instructor blew it. I agree with extremecat, and even know a similar 10 year old.
I have more practical experience with an Uzi than anyone on this forum and I can't think of a good argument for their continued existence.
Uh,......... you sure about that Jim?
Open bolt, cheap to produce,.... Entebbe?
Got any betting money in your retirement fund there guy?
Oh, and locker, don't tell anybody but the Duke isn't holding an Uzi. It is a Mac 10 with a suppressor.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
What apogee is saying...
It seems like a no brainier that children should not be allowed to play with Uzis: except to the Ayn Rand-government-is-always-evil delusional no brainers who make stoopid "arguments" otherwise.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
I have no idea if children should be allowed to do x, y, or z. However, small children should not be allowed to play with Uzis.
Guntards who have a problem with that can swallow a donkey shlong for all I care.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Guntards who have a problem with that can swallow a donkey shlong for all I care.
LOL ......
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
Tgt you are a fooking idiot. Really, truly a fooking idiot,
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
These guntard dipshits know goddam well that the idea of an 8 y/o with an Uzi is just not ok. Instead of acknowledging this simple, obvious fact, and suggesting some kind of realistic solution (any kind of solution), they throw up diversion after diversion with false equivalency arguments.
You guys like to think you are principled in your thinking, but you're not. You stand by your dogma with no sense of reality whatsoever.
Feckin' useless ST Republi-tards, the lot of you. Why do you hate America & Americans?
|
|
Mike Friedrichs
Sport climber
City of Salt
|
|
Wrong again Ron. Guns now kill more people in Utah than MV crashes.
I've been the first responder on two motorcycle accidents, one where the person was wearing a helmet and one where he was not. If you think it only affects the person in the accident, you should try (with no first aid experience, or training) holding an accident victim's head while they bleed, wondering if they will ever speak, or live again. I couldn't sleep for weeks, and when I did I had nightmares. If you live on a desert island, do what you want. Otherwise, your decisions will affect other people.
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
one where the person was wearing a helmet and one where he was not I suppose like gun laws, Utah has very lax helmet laws. If any.
Riding any motorcycle without a helmet, anywhere, is about as smart as giving a child a loaded Uzi.
Too bad that common sense (really not so common) has gotten a bad name with so many Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death whackos.
Death it is then to many of them.
At least Utaaahhr requires helmets for motorcycle riders 17 and younger.
I can see it now, Dad on his Harley with Mom riding pillion, neither with helmets and Junior riding alongside with his helmet. Who's setting the example?
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2011/06/state-by-state-guide-to-motorcycle-helmet-laws/index.htm
Or New Hampshire, the Live Free or Die state. No helmet law. Should change their motto to Live Free And Die.
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
Cars kill more,, we should outlaw them,
No, cars kill fewer people than guns, we established that last week with The Chief's figures. Motor vehicles as a whole kill slightly more people than guns each year.
If you want to exclude suicides by gun (which is reasonable), then you also need to exclude any vehicle death where the deceased was the negligent driver. More than half of all road deaths are single vehicle accidents, and of the remaining multi-vehicle fatalities, let's very conservatively assume a 50% survival rate for the responsible driver. That brings the number of deaths caused by someone else with a gun to far above the number caused by someone else with a car.
TE
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
No seatbelts required in NH either I believe.
Should change their motto to Live Free And Be an Organ Donor.
TE
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
"There is your no-holds-barred 2nd Amendment gun nut fear, right there."
Pretty much. Their position is not based on rational resistance due to principle...they know goddam well that 8 y/o's with Uzis is not ok. (Most of them would never allow their 8 y/o to use an Uzi, under any circumstance.)
Their resistance is nothing more than irrational fear, with no regard to who might get killed or hurt along the way.
|
|
GDavis
Social climber
SOL CAL
|
|
Being shot to death will finally be less likely than dying in a car accident?
Oh joy to us! We are such a blessed nation! To have a 1:1 ratio of violent weapon deaths to auto accident deaths!
What a coup!
Fooooour scoooooore, and seven yeeeeeeaaaaars agoooo.......
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
This is not about MVA's, or buckets of water, or helmet laws, or anything else except whether it's appropriate for an 8 y/o to be shooting an Uzi.
Everything else is just a distraction.
|
|
Byran
climber
San Jose, CA
|
|
That's a pretty remarkable downturn in automobile fatalities. Especially considering that in the last 35 years our country's population has increased by 40%. That's the kind of statistic that almost gives one hope for the future, lol.
This is not about MVA's, or buckets of water, or helmet laws, or anything else except whether it's appropriate for an 8 y/o to be shooting an Uzi.
Everything else is just a distraction.
I'd actually say the real issue with US gun violence is a problem of poverty, gangs, crime ridden neighborhoods, with lots of people who can barely make rent, no jobs, no money for public schools, where drug abuse is criminalized instead of treated, and where every corner has a payday loan center, liquor store, and gun shop.
Rare accidents at shooting ranges, killing sprees at upper-middle-class schools, and redneck militiamen with an arsenal in their basement are the distraction.
Idiotic business practices like putting an uzi into the hands of an 8yro with no shooting experience should hopefully go away through proper litigation and without the need for more legislation.
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
whether it's appropriate for an 8 y/o to be shooting an Uzi.
No, it's about whether it's appropriate to be standing anywhere near an 8 y/o shooting an Uzi. One redeeming feature about gun safety is how exceeding difficult it is to accidentally kill yourself with one. That kid was never in danger of being killed, unless some friend was in a neighboring stall.
TE
|
|
GDavis
Social climber
SOL CAL
|
|
One redeeming feature about gun safety is how exceeding difficult it is to accidentally kill yourself with one.
Should one of us start digging up links of people shooting themselves?
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
There's already one disturbing video of an 8 y/o from 2009 shooting himself in the head with an out-of-control Uzi.
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
You people with the "just not appropriate" argument would crack me up if you didn't sound eerily familiar to to the bigots I have heard all my life.
Putting a fully loaded Uzi into her hands before working with single, double, triple loads etc. was stupid and, as was already pointed out, will likely see litigation that results in other range operators likely to reassess and re-evaluate.
New laws are the last thing we need (unless it allows stupid people to be shot,...)
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
Now the question of 8 y/o's and Uzis is being equated with bigotry?
You GunNutz® just have no rational, direct response to this, do you? Just diversion & distraction via false equivalencies.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
You GunNutz® just have no rational, direct response to this, do you?
I guess that I shouldn't respond to this, as I'm not a GunNutz®.
My response is: The incident is tragic. This sort of thing is rare. Laws cannot control or reduce human stupidity to a threshold lower than the present incidence of this sort of stupidity. So, we all bemoan it. But that does not motivate new laws to "correct" the situation.
On a different point, I'm no lawyer, but if I were the widow I would be talking to one. Workman's Comp does not end the right to sue in the case of gross negligence. Yes, the instructor contributed to his own death. But both the range and the parents are complicit.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
We prolly have some level of agreement on this, madbolter. And I give you credit for at least being direct to the issue, and going beyond the false equivalency arguments.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
More distractions & diversions.
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
Oh Ron
what have you been smoking?
1.25 MIL people die in auto accidents here in the us annually.
|
|
Byran
climber
San Jose, CA
|
|
1.25 million is (roughly) the annual traffic-related death rate worldwide
Here are the stats for the United States, straight from the National Highway Traffic Safety Admin
http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx
Last year had 33,561 deaths.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
Don't bother hillbilly dipshits with facts.
It just annoys them, and makes you look silly for trying.
|
|
ms55401
Trad climber
minneapolis, mn
|
|
regarding the platitude up-thread that 30% of child-soldiers are girls
I don't give a fukk about the gender of children-soldiers, nor should you.
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
Im willing to bet NONE of you bawling over guns has even slightly been affected yourselves by gun violence I call your bluff Ron.
I know four people who've killed themselves with firearms.
The first man who gave me a summer job mowing and trimming his garden. With a revolver.
An ex Utah Highway Patrolman turned attorney with his service revolver.
Both of these men were good friends of my family when I was a teenager. I knew them both well.
In 2006 my female friend and neighbor with a shotgun, in her house, with her husband at home.
Last year a 21 year old boy who went to school with my son. With a rifle in his garage. With his parents upstairs.
I see his parents at least once a month.
My neighbors on the fire company had to deal with these two tragedies.
Don't try to tell me the survivors of these suicides, whom I see regularly, are not daily affected by gun deaths.
I know another neighbor who shot a teenaged neighbor boy for breaking into his cabin and having a party with friends. Shot him in the back as he ran away. Fortunately he survived, still has the bullet in his back next to his spine. I know the neighbor boy's father.
I guess this kid goes into your "the one that got away" category.
And I've never lived on the "wrong side of town".
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
Nobody wants to 'disarm' you, hillbilly...except for the little troll that runs around your paranoid brain.
Unless, of course, you put an Uzi in the hands of an 8 y/o. Then we'll all have our fingers crossed that you wind up like the 'instructor' in the OP's example.
|
|
pud
climber
Sportbikeville & Yucca brevifolia
|
|
1.25 million is (roughly) the annual traffic-related death rate worldwide
Here are the stats for the United States, straight from the National Highway Traffic Safety Admin
http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx
Last year had 33,561 deaths.
Yeah, they should outlaw cars.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
HighTraverse, I am so sorry to hear about those incidents. Very, very sad.
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
Yeah, they should outlaw cars. Great red herring. But a fail.
Everyone recognizes a car can be a deadly weapon when used by someone immature, untrained or mentally incapacitated by intoxicants. Every nation regulates their usage.
Cars are highly regulated. In all US states.
You have to be of a reasonable (in most states) minimum age to drive them.
Most states require you to demonstrate competence in driving skills and understanding the driving laws.
The owner must be insured for liability for damage to others.
You are obliged to follow complex and sometimes "onerous" driving laws.
If you are convicted of DUI you can lose your license.
If you carelessly run over and kill someone you can be sent to state prison.
The car is licensed by the state to it's owner from the time it is first sold till it goes to the wrecking yard.
I believe on the whole these are reasonable regulations that protect society. It doesn't mean I want to take your car away.
Unless you run over and kill someone.
License firearms from manufacturer to scrapyard. License those who use them. Keep them out of the hands of children unless under strict adult supervision. Require all owners to carry liability insurance.
Take the gun away if you're convicted of a violent crime, whether or not gun related.
I don't even have a problem with well-regulated open carry laws as California had until the Supreme Nutcases had their say. You could get an open carry license if you could convince a County Sheriff (any county, not even yours) that you needed to carry.
Agree to nationwide policies that do these things and I'll STFU.
|
|
crankster
Trad climber
|
|
And ill make any and all of you anti gun freaks a deal.. IF you can dissarm me, you can have my guns.. But i guarantee the democratic party will take a huge hit in voters.
After a period of repentance for offending every person within reading distance, the Moron Known As Ron has returned. Only worse.
Hospital whites or Prison jumps, it's just a matter of time.
|
|
johnboy
Trad climber
Can't get here from there
|
|
Thanks HT for pointing out the stupid idea that cars are analogous to guns.
Reminds me of when MB1 tried to correlate that if we can't even keep prisoneers in prison safe from harm, how can we expect to keep young kids in schools safe from harm.
All the same, right?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
License firearms from manufacturer to scrapyard. License those who use them. Keep them out of the hands of children unless under strict adult supervision. Require all owners to carry liability insurance.
Take the gun away if you're convicted of a violent crime, whether or not gun related.
I don't even have a problem with well-regulated open carry laws as California had until the Supreme Nutcases had their say. You could get an open carry license if you could convince a County Sheriff (any county, not even yours) that you needed to carry.
I agree with all of these, HT. Shocking!
I would prefer to see states be "shall issue" rather than "prove you need it (to somebody)," but I'm all in favor of much stricter training, evaluation-for-competency, and know-the-law testing before that "shall issue" gets triggered. And I think that open-carry should need a CCW (shall-issue); that way, whether you carry open or concealed is a convenience/tactical decision rather than yahoos running around open because they cannot muster the CCW.
It IS a huge responsibility to be packing, and there ought to be some structured societal review. At that point, people would not be freaking out to see people packing, any more than they do with cops, because they would know that anybody packing had paid a significant price to do so.
We are too many people, generally too closely packed together, to be the wild-wild-west at this point. But anybody that wants to undergo the necessary review should be able to care for his/her own self-defense rather than be forced to proxy it off.
|
|
johnboy
Trad climber
Can't get here from there
|
|
The amount of people that use cars on a daily basis compared to those that use guns an a daily basis aren't in the same ballpark
Then factor in how many people try to maim or kill someone with a gun as compared to a car.
A lot of deaths with either, but one isn't trying to.
Quit trying to compare premeditated killings to accidents.
Edit,
We are too many people, generally too closely packed together
Good point Madbolter1, that would carry over to both cars and gun.
|
|
GDavis
Social climber
SOL CAL
|
|
has even slightly been affected yourselves by gun violence
One of my best friends was neighbors with the little girl whose name Obama couldn't pronounce from Sandy Hook - his son was her playmate.
My childhood friend (age 2 - 9 years) shot himself in high school.
A prominant local in Idyllwild shot themselves a while back very soon after I'd talked to them.
Officer Daniel S. Bessant was not only a childhood friend and volunteer for youth programs at my church, his family was very close with my parents and we went to his funeral in 2006 after a gang youth shot him while he was checking on the locals (he was a GREAT cop).
A kid in my English class shot himself shortly after graduation (depression).
A 'friend' of mine has very, very dark thoughts and owns many, many weapons. He has assaulted someone with a deadly weapon in the past - good boys at the military slapped him on the wrist, so these days he just illegally guns down Coyotes. Military f*#ked him up something feirce.
I apologize if this sounds crass, but f*#k you. Really, f*#k you. There's a reason we are livid about gun violence.
Edit - I keep remembering more and getting more upset. Going to stop and go to bed. sigh.
|
|
GDavis
Social climber
SOL CAL
|
|
And ill make any and all of you anti gun freaks a deal.. IF you can dissarm me, you can have my guns..
At a gym I train at an ex pro fighter does classes for armed and special forces on weapons safety, with rubber guns. How to be on either end of a situation when someone has a concealed weapon. One guy has come in a good 5-6 times for private sessions, he's JUST NOW getting to the point where an out-of-shape light heavyweight can't take his weapon at 15 feet.
I love those classes, love watching and seeing the intricacies of the technique and drilling aspects of firearm safety into muscle memory. It also lets me know that having a weapon and not BEING a weapon is a very, very bad idea. If you can carry a concealed weapon and haven't been PROPERLY trained on armed combat, then EVERYONE is carrying a concealed weapon - they just have to grab you first : /
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
I apologize if this sounds crass, but f*#k you. Really, f*#k you. There's a reason we are livid about gun violence.
Personally, I truly get what you are saying.
I've had friends killed execution/gangland style. Had they been armed, they would have at least had a fighting chance.
I've personally defended myself with a gun twice (in the dimly distant past, not since I've started carrying recently). In both cases I was just a normal guy trying to do my job (in one case) and get to work (in the other case). I wasn't some bad guy out looking for trouble, and I wasn't involved "in the lifestyle."
Criminals having guns is a serious, serious problem; and it is only increasingly widespread. That is the primary issue that must be addressed before you are going to get a lot of "gun nuts" to mellow out. Literally, the reason I'm packing now is an armed robbery across the street from our office in a good part of town. We're at the office into the wee hours regularly, and we've heard altercations in the parking lot.
The bottom line is that as long as there is a use/need for a gun as adequate self-defense, normal people are going to carry guns. That fact that some misuse them (particularly in suicides) is indeed tragic. The struggle is to differentiate legitimate gun carrying from problem gun ownership. Sadly, there is no solid litmus test that can differentiate the two in advance of misuse.
So, I'm definitely in favor of laws that will tend to make gun carrying as responsible as possible. But I'm also enough of a realist about human nature to be quite confident that there is no "solution" to the problem of gun violence. Criminals WILL continue to have them, and that is the root of the legitimate desire on the part of many to also have them.
|
|
GDavis
Social climber
SOL CAL
|
|
I've had friends killed execution/gangland style. Had they been armed, they would have at least had a fighting chance.
You and Johnny enjoy your hypotheticals, the rest of us will live in reality.
|
|
johnboy
Trad climber
Can't get here from there
|
|
I was talking about violent actions. IE Robberies, attempted murders , self defense etc
Thanks for making a point about the defferences between car deaths and gun deaths.
Deaths by either are not exceptable.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
"...the rest of us will live in reality."
+10000000
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
"And it is simply not arguable that aggressive enforcement of drunk driving laws has not resulted in fewer accidents and deaths; utterly unarguable."
Liberty-tard argument countdown:
10.....
9....
8....
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
"...the rest of us will live in reality."
+10000000
No, no! +1000000000000000000000
No, even that's not enough for REALITY! Yayyy reality! You go, reality!
+100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
No, +infinite
No, +infinite like the set of all numbers, not just infinite like the set of whole numbers!
Yayyyy reality!
ROFL
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
And it is simply not arguable that aggressive enforcement of drunk driving laws has not resulted in fewer accidents and deaths; utterly unarguable.
Show me some aggressive and effective enforcement against gang violence and drug-related violence. Then we'll start talking about private citizens.
Address the problem where it is, not where it isn't.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
So an 8 y/o shooting an Uzi is the same as an adult solo climber who decks?
How are these situations the same?
How are these situations different?
Explain. Then try to comprehend.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
They're both the same?
Both are living entities.
gotcha ya drama queen .....
|
|
johnboy
Trad climber
Can't get here from there
|
|
What are you trying to say Johnboy, that getting drunk, then getting behind the wheel of a car ISNT pre-meditated?
Are you saying that a momentary decision that resulted in a fire arm accident is different than drinking until one is inebriated THEN getting in a car is somehow not in the same league?
Reread what I quoted you were talking about.
Accidental verses purposely.
I then went on to say neither were exceptable, car deaths or gun deaths, that would incude accidents.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Reread what I quoted you were talking about.
Accidental verses purposely.
I then went on to say neither were exceptable, car deaths or gun deaths, that would incude accidents.
Here's a little help for you, in reality....
"Accidental versus purposefully." (Look it up, since you are talking about a contrast regarding premeditation.)
"... neither were acceptable..."
"... that would include accidents."
I'm normally not the grammar Gestapo, especially on a thread! But, since you're going to hold everybody to reality and all, it seems appropriate to be nit-picky all up in the house.
Edit: And, btw, I do not agree that the typical drunk driver is acting purposefully. Purposely, yes. Purposefully, not in the vast majority of cases.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
Nope, not as long as those individuals are of sound adult mind to make such a choice, and their choice doesn't impact others negatively (literally or figuratively).
So why doesn't that apply to an 8 y/o with an Uzi?
Because they are 8 y/o, and they're using an Uzi.
Got it yet? Or are you gonna change the subject again?
|
|
Jingy
climber
Somewhere out there
|
|
But with guns... we need laws now?
 yes.
Because people with guns constantly imposing their will... without ever considering others prior to doing so.
Climbers have better judgement than firearm owners?
yes.
Climbers would never have taken their kid to a wall and said solo it so you can earn more respect from others...
Guns seem to be ego driven in my view.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
There is no fooking reason for eight year olds to use Uzis. You guntards don't realize how dishonest or ridiculous you are sounding by repeatedly trying to change the subject. We could play "Well, what about..."all day long, but the issue of this thread is 8 yos and Uzis. Yes, legislation might be needed to protect kids from their dumb sheet parents.
" Boo hoo hoo, guvmint is taking my freedom to be a dumbass parent. Wah!!!" Well, too fooking bad!!!'
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
Got a link to 8 y/o soloist deaths?
<crickets>
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Try to change the subject.
Funny... I thought I was getting back on subject. This was about guns, or something like that. Right?
So, if you want to talk about aggressive enforcement saving lives, then I totally agree and would want to see more aggressive enforcement regarding criminal use of guns, or something like that.
|
|
Jingy
climber
Somewhere out there
|
|
dirtbag
climber
Sep 9, 2014 - 10:09am PT
There is no fooking reason for eight year olds to use Uzis. You guntards don't realize how dishonest or ridiculous you are sounding by repeatedly trying to change the subject. We could play "Well, what about..."all day long, but the issue of this thread is 8 yos and Uzis. Yes, legislation might be needed to protect kids from their dumb sheet parents.
" Boo hoo hoo, guvmint is taking my freedom to be a dumbass parent. Wah!!!" Well, too fooking bad!!!'
I'm in 100% agreement with this statement
|
|
GDavis
Social climber
SOL CAL
|
|
You know one thing that sucks? All those free soloers falling on people, often purposefully.
In fact, climbing injuries that can be prevented by a helmet are a HUGE problem in our country.
We are the MOST destitute nation when it comes to climber fatalities and climbing murder. People climb and kill themselves and eachother at a rate EXPONENTIALLY higher than of similar developed nations.
After all these schoolchildren have been squished by stoned dudes soloing Royal Arches, I think its time. It's finally time to have a serious discussion about climbers not wearing helmets. It's affecting us ALL.
|
|
johnboy
Trad climber
Can't get here from there
|
|
I'm normally not the grammar Gestapo, especially on a thread! But, since you're going to hold everybody toreality and all, it seems appropriate to be nit-picky all up in the house.
Edit: And, btw, I do not agree that the typical drunk driver is acting purposefully. Purposely, yes. Purposefully, not in the vast majority of cases
Thank you, my grammer stands corrected.
BTW, if I was living "reality" to that degree, I would be a busy boy correcting Ron's and many others posts. Luckily I set my standards low enough to get the meat of their posts.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
Still waiting for a link to an 8 y/o soloist death.
Ain't got one? Well, no sh#t.
'cause it doesn't happen.
Want a couple of links to 8 y/o Uzi deaths? No problema. Betcha there's more to be found, too.
It's a reality thing. Try to understand.
Edit: 'grammar'
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Then we agree, laws can prevent the loss of life otherwise maintained by stupidity.
Progress!
Sorry. Not so fast.
"Prevent" is far too sweeping. I'll agree that some reduction can be achieved, depending upon how "aggressive" you want to be about any particular issue.
And I agreed pretty thoroughly with HT's proposals upthread!
But some isolated cases like the subject-incident of this thread are going to happen.
I continue to maintain that misuses of guns by law-abiding citizens in this country are few and far between enough that the "reductions" resulting from laws and enforcement would be negligible compared to the risks and expenses of having yet another (failed) "war on" something.
Take suicides out of the statistics, and the majority of gun deaths are gangland and drug-crime related. Haven't we already been having a "war on" those things?
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
Most any liberty-tard knows damn well that an 8 y/o using an Uzi is just not ok. Of course, there's a few that actually believe it is ok...but they are thankfully a small, psychotic percentage (that should be medicated and watched closely).
So for those liberty-tards that know this isn't ok, they don't have any retort to a situation like this except to draw false equivalencies, and try to change the subject. Bottom line, as DMT pointed out yesterday, is that they are scared to death that any kind of gun regulation...even some they'd probably agree with...with result in the gubmint taking away all their precious gunz.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
+ numerical-infinity, Jonnyrig. That about sums it up. LOL
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
Links, please.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
"prohibiting minors from firing automatic weapons wouldn't really bother me."
And if you've bothered to read most of this thread, that's exactly what has been discussed & proposed. Nothing more.
But you paranoid GunNutz® find this to be a slippery slope towards the jackbooted Obama thugs kicking down your doors and taking away every gun you own.
You guys are off-the-charts f*#king paranoid, and completely irrational.
|
|
Jingy
climber
Somewhere out there
|
|
Hey, how about that 11yo who died because the draws were incorrectly assembled? Did you whine about new legislation for that, or just write it off as another horrible accident? Totally preventable.
I'm not a gun nut...
I wasn't whining, because no gun nut was whining about it...
If the gun nuts don't want regulations that make guns safer objects....
I think they deserve what they get every time.
no regs = this stuff continues...
More regs = maybe this is prevented...?
I don't know... it hasn't been tried yet in the greatest nation no the planet.....
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
"An accident is an accident is an accident"
Yep, they're all the same.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
quitcherbellyachin
|
|
passing laws does not reduce unwanted behavior because bad or dumb people don't follow laws
example: seat belt laws, people should be free of the Nanny State and don't need Big Government
protecting them from their themselves, let the Free Market sort it all out
example: traffic laws, again these are dumb laws because bad or dumb people do not follow laws
example: supposed "gun control laws", bad and dumb people don't follow laws, therefore we don't no any laws, in fact all gun laws should be repealed because bad people don't follow laws
especially all back ground checks, you can buy any weapon right out of your local newspaper with no background check required so why impose burdensome government regulation on the hard working Federally Licensed Firearm Dealers? It just cuts into their time selling guns anyway.
The more i think about it all makes sense, we just don't need any Nanny State stupid laws.
|
|
Jingy
climber
Somewhere out there
|
|
Ron - Think about what you wrote... then again... false equivalence...
Can the minor one day off the couch jump onto 13c OTD R/X?
In order to put this in context...
I take my 9 year old climbing one day...
She's been climbing before...
I am confident she can climb on her own...
So I send her up a 5.13C R/X.... solo....?
You wouldn't, neither would any one else, and here you are the only one making that case...
Let's recap in your world...
I take my 9 year old gunnin'/shootin' one day...
She's been gunnin'/shootin' before...
I am confident she can shoot on her own...
So I handed her an Uzi.... solo....?
You might....
I wouldn't.... And I point out that guns are the reason these deaths occur... take the guns out of the equation and how many people get to live per year, again?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
You Americans are some of the stupidest people on the planet.
You have more laws then anywhere else.
Your whole consciousness is based and rooted in stupidity.
Raise your consciousness and all your stupid idiocy will become minimized and with very few laws required.
Instead you idiots try to force everything by writing more laws.
Stupid Americans .......
|
|
GDavis
Social climber
SOL CAL
|
|
I know, right? It's annoying and sometimes late at night I drive the opposite way in the valley to get to el cap. There's no one around who cares? Just another dumb law I know what I can and cannot do I am an adult.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
"people get all incensed when a gun's involved."
Maybe that's because it happens so goddam regularly and affects so many innocent people?????????????????????????????
Shocking!
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
"An accident is an accident is an accident"
Yep, they're all the same.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Maybe that's because it happens so goddam regularly and affects so many innocent people?????????????????????????????
How many incidents like this thread's subject-incident have happened? Ever?
And you get "goddam regularly" from that?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Oh... ROFLLLLL
You guys just lump "everything bad-gun" all together and then use this hodge-podge to justify getting all incensed over what is really a virtually isolated incident.
Guns ARE dangerous. No debate.
Climbing is dangerous, yet how MANY of you allow your sub-16 year-old kid lead? You think that's SAFE... in ANY scenario?
Skiing is dangerous, yet how many of you taught your kids to ski at a tiny age?
Is a 16 year-old SAFE to drive? Really?
It's ALL relative. Accidents happen. Get over it.
|
|
Degaine
climber
|
|
Ron Anderson wrote:
So that is 3 deaths from autos and alcohol. Somehow, this will be perfectly acceptable.
Please quote, link, or reference the post (or posts) where anyone stated that deaths as the result of drunk driving are acceptable (or "perfectly acceptable").
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
madbolter1 always has good brain.
apogee not very good brain .....
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
Let's revisit this issue when your kid (or one you are very close to) gets their head shot off by an out-of-control Uzi that was put into their hands by a moronic parent. (Perhaps even yourself.)
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
"I'm saying when an accident involves a firearm, some of you guys come unhinged."
Maybe that's because it happens so goddam regularly and affects so many innocent people?????????????????????????????
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
What I thought was tragically funny (in a morbid, climbing humor sort of way) about that "how it happened" video regarding Tito is this:
When I learned to climb, we used double-biners on a bolt (in line). No draws. Just flat-out simple.
But then draws were invented to make even slinging between a couple of biners so much better. Then we had incidents of draw failure. Then we had incidents of cross-loaded biners failing.
So, we make draws more complicated by introducing "retainers" and such to keep everything where it should be.
And what do we get as we more and more "improve" the system? Human error.
I took about a million falls (give or take, lol) during the last four decades, and I've never had catastrophic equipment failure... always used just double-biners on bolts. But, you know, we've just got to more and more complicate a simple system to make it "better." Complicate it, and more and more human error crops up.
Oh well, you know, accidents happen. Get over it.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
Most any liberty-tard knows damn well that an 8 y/o using an Uzi is just not ok. Of course, there's a few that actually believe it is ok...but they are thankfully a small, psychotic percentage (that should be medicated and watched closely).
So for those liberty-tards that know this isn't ok, they don't have any retort to a situation like this except to draw false equivalencies, and try to change the subject. Bottom line, as DMT pointed out yesterday, is that they are scared to death that any kind of gun regulation...even some they'd probably agree with...with result in the gubmint taking away all their precious gunz.
(As long as we're repeating ourselves....)
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
Terrapin Station
|
|
Werner, it sounds as though maybe you would like to move to a different country. What's the hold-up?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Let's revisit this issue when your kid (or one you are very close to) gets their head shot off by an out-of-control Uzi that was put into their hands by a moronic parent. (Perhaps even yourself.)
Not worried at all. I'll take my chances.
And something I never imagined will be what takes me out.
I'm a climber. I'm gonna die, and so is everybody else.
Get over it.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Do you use draws, madbolter1?
Never had much use for 'em.
|
|
Degaine
climber
|
|
johnnyrig wrote:
Hey, how about that 11yo who died because the draws were incorrectly assembled? Did you whine about new legislation for that, or just write it off as another horrible accident? Totally preventable.
I haven't followed the situation closely since late last year, but if memory serves the guides / instructors who were responsible for ensuring the safety of the entire group of minors - this was an organized outing - were brought up on manslaughter charges for negligence. Honestly not sure how the proceedings finished.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
jonny, your 'question' was answered days ago. You either missed it due to your reading comprehension issues, or you are just being an arguing troll.
In either case, you get what you give. Get it?
|
|
Jingy
climber
Somewhere out there
|
|
jonnyrig?
Was this the question you asked?
How about putting rf chips in speed limit signs, or embedded in the freeway so that vehicles could be automatically governed to the max speed limit?
Maybe built into the Gps system already on the vehicle?
you don't see a hint of topic change in your statement?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
That's how our system works. I advocate to folks that we the people have a right, an absolute right, to change the constitution, if we choose. There is even a constitutional vehicle for it. We can change the 2nd amendment or even repeal it. We have that right and that power.
You can change the constitution, but you cannot change the inalienable rights upon which it was based and that were presumed in its creation. The second amendment is not what grants the right to keep and bear arms. That amendment presumes the right, and that right will remain regardless of the verbiage or existence of that amendment.
Change the constitution very much, and you'll have war on your hands. The right of revolution is the REAL "absolute right." That is what trumps the false "absolute right" of the majority faction you appear to want to exercise.
|
|
Jingy
climber
Somewhere out there
|
|
I asked how many deaths of soloing minors it would take to pass restrictive legislation.
ok, so... do you see how I can see a false equiv happening there?
Please check one of my posts that splains why I think so..
Not that I am in this discussion at all, or anything..
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
"I asked how many deaths of soloing minors it would take to pass restrictive legislation."
Well, I suppose that question might be easier answered if/when it ever happens (esp. at an 8 y/o level).
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Slaveholders said the same thing. They were wrong too.
You see, it comes down to 'We the people'. Not you the single gun owner. When we the people decide, it will be done. Gun rattling will not stop it.
Seriously, are you that confused? I mean, is it really possible for anybody educated in this society to be THAT clueless?
You are equating slavery with inalienable rights?
Look, you have the ABILITY to do many things, including change the constitution. But you confuse ability with right. I have the ABILITY to murder you, but I clearly do not have the right to do so.
You and people like you might get enough of a majority faction together to ultimately make all sorts of constitutional changes. You'd have the ABILITY to become a majority faction (please, do look it up). But you would NOT have the right. The right of "the people" is NOT absolute!
And many millions of us will only tolerate so much "change" before you have a war on your hands. Call it "gun rattling" if you like, but people like you scare the CRAP out of me. You are confused AND feel empowered to exercise the (false) "absolute right" of "the people." That's a really, really bad combination!
|
|
Jingy
climber
Somewhere out there
|
|
Dingus answers. Apogee deflects.
jonnyrig starts... changes sujects....
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
The guy who made the stupid judgment in this case paid for it with his life.
End of story.
Seems like that happens to a soloist every once in a while.
|
|
fear
Ice climber
hartford, ct
|
|
If we had a simple licensing system here in the states for climbers we could save a lot of lives.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
WE... the people (some of whom, you just kaint reach!)
"We the people" do not have the right to do anything "we" wish, just because enough of "us" wish it. And if you think that "we" do, then, yes, you really do scare the crap out of me.
And if enough of "you" give it a real try, you will indeed have a war on your hands.
So far, people like you have been picking away at inalienable rights, bit by bit. And that is the real winning strategy for you, because the slow slide is almost imperceptible. Thus, people at any particular point don't recognize what has been lost.
Keep that up, and you'll "win," but I won't care because by then (at the present rate of slide) I'll be gone. But try to do big "change" in the lifetime of one person, and you WILL see a violent reaction.
So, my advice is to quit mouthing off and posturing and just stick with the program. That will ultimately get you what you want: A "safe" and "controlled" society.
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
Obviously since the minority faction of the founding fathers didn't have any right to include these words in the Constitution, slavery didn't actually ever exist. Jefferson himself, speaking about a Virginia Bill to provide freedom of (christian) religion, acknowledged the ability and entitlement of future assemblies to remove that freedom, noting only that it would be against natural law. He could see and accept the practical differences between "natural law" and human law, why do you pretend that you can't?
TE
|
|
johnboy
Trad climber
Can't get here from there
|
|
It's ALL relative. Accidents happen. Get over it.
Yes they do happen, we mourn, we move on.
Doesn't mean that some can't try to lessen the amount of them in some way.
Some here are having a hard time differentiating between an intentional killing and an accidental killing.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Obviously since the minority faction of the founding fathers didn't have any right to include these words in the Constitution, slavery didn't actually ever exist. Jefferson himself, speaking about a Virginia Bill to provide freedom of (christian) religion, acknowledged the ability and entitlement of future assemblies to remove that freedom, noting only that it would be against natural law. He could see and accept the practical differences between "natural law" and human law, why do you pretend that you can't?
Uhh... the differentiation between human and natural law (inalienable rights) is precisely the distinction I have been making.
You can change human law and get enough of a majority together to do whatever you wish. What you CAN do comes completely apart from what you have the RIGHT to do.
As long as your faction is in the minority, no worries. The republican system of governance controls you. But, as Federalist 10 notes, when a faction gains the majority, that is the ONE and fatal threat to a rights-based government.
When a majority faction gains the ascendancy, the ONLY remedy left for rights-loving people is revolution. This is not a "threat." This is basic political philosophy.
I would not even bother to argue these points with people like you, as clearly you do not care about fair and charitable argumentation. But there are many lurkers who are of reasonable mind and who can discern correct principles when they are expressed.
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
One of the arcane arguments for the, now outdated, Second Amendment is that an armed populace couldn't be subjected to a tyrannical government. That may have been somewhat true 231 years ago but times do change.
Foremost is the fact that the world's oldest democracy has proven over 200 plus years that tyrannical, despotic leaders cannot emerge in a true democracy.
Secondly....scraggly, turkey necked militia types who feel disenfranchised could no more mount a revolution than they could get into their local community college.
Witness the fire power of just a single 12 man Special Forces A Detachment and you'll understand.
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
Jonyrig....I can assure you that the US military will take care of ISIS. Why don't you join up and help dude? I served my time and i resent know it all chicken hawks who talk big and do nothing.
I don't believe that militia groups are going to be a factor in the war on ISIS...do you?
|
|
Jingy
climber
Somewhere out there
|
|
At what point are you justified in shooting at your government?
That's weird....
you planning something?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
When you feel that some "faction" has taken control of the government, then it's ok to start shooting?
Are you really that uncharitable, unschooled, and even idiotic?
Seriously
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
"Why don't you join up and help dude? I served my time and i resent know it all chicken hawks who talk big and do nothing."
Worth repeating.
About 10,000x to every chickenhawk who squawks about military action.
|
|
johnboy
Trad climber
Can't get here from there
|
|
Are you really that uncharitable, unschooled, and even idiotic?
Instead of a snarky remark, why don't you just clarify your position?
|
|
johnboy
Trad climber
Can't get here from there
|
|
Why do we need new ones in this case when we could instead justifiably and effectively prosecute the responsible parties, what with this particular scenario being so rare?
A good point, seeming that the majority of both sides have slipped away from this observation.
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
Jim is sounding as out there (in the other direction) as Bird did 10 days ago.
But I believe the political spectrum is horseshoe shaped with the ends being closer than they are to the middle.
Uh, Jim,..... the world's oldest "democracy" is also the one with the best armed citizens; Switzerland!
Hearing Dingus talk about "we the people" makes me wonder if he knows we don't live in a democracy. We live in a constitutional democratic republic.
Two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch is a democracy.
In the US the lambs have (second amendment) rights too.
Johnboy said
Deaths by either are not exceptable.
Arguing with people that slaughter english is not acceptable,..
Apogeez said
Most any liberty-tard knows damn well that an 8 y/o using an Uzi is just not ok. Of course, there's a few that actually believe it is ok...but they are thankfully a small, psychotic percentage (that should be medicated and watched closely).
You are too late.
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
As long as your faction is in the minority, no worries. The republican system of governance controls you. But, as Federalist 10 notes, when a faction gains the majority, that is the ONE and fatal threat to a rights-based government.
When a majority faction gains the ascendancy, the ONLY remedy left for rights-loving people is revolution. This is not a "threat." This is basic political philosophy.
I would not even bother to argue these points with people like you, as clearly you do not care about fair and charitable argumentation. But there are many lurkers who are of reasonable mind and who can discern correct principles when they are expressed.
I care deeply about fair and charitable argumentation, and feel genuinely educated by some of what you say, and much of what I have read elsewhere in response. What I do not care for, and will continue to challenge you on is your assertion that Natural Rights or Libertarianism are some form of consistent, universally accepted moral code on which no disagreement exists among any persons who have studied political philosophy as much as you. That’s simply egotistical bullsh#t. If it was that easy, the bill of rights would read something like: “Congress nor any state shall make no law that infringes on the natural rights of humans as described in the writings of .....”.
Your basic argument against certain proposed gun laws is that they might be democratic, legal, constitutional, and even effective, but since they don't comply with your personal exact moral interpretation of a certain political philosophy, simply should not be allowed. Unfortunately for you, natural law has neither judge to rule nor sheriff to enforce. I hope life doesn't deliver you too many more disappointments.
TE
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
How else are you going to claim tyranny as a motive for the 2nd?
Seriously, this is too deep for you at present. If you honestly cared to educate yourself and get a foundation upon which to engage in a productive discussion, I would be happy to point you to some resources. Until then, there is no "answer" you are going to get. And once you have some basic background, you won't need someone on a ST thread to enlighten you.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
What I do not care for, and will continue to challenge you on is your assertion that Natural Rights or Libertarianism are some form of consistent, universally accepted moral code on which no disagreement exists among any persons who have studied political philosophy as much as you.
"on which no disagreement exists...." Are you serious? If you are reading me to be claiming anything close to that, then you you are injecting a lot of yourself or somebody else in there.
Philosophical libertarianism is indeed internally consistent, which is something that modern liberalism cannot sustain. So that's something. And intelligent people certainly do disagree on just about everything. So, "universally accepted" is absurd, and you know it. I've never even suggested much less claimed anything like that.
What I can say with assurance concerns the principles the founders (federalist and anti-federalists alike) were attempting to establish by force of law. They were fundamentally natural-law, libertarian principles.
Now, any large enough group of people CAN make fundamental changes to the principles of law that govern this nation. Yes, that is built right into the constitution. What that group cannot do is change what the rights actually are.
It comes down to a question I asked much earlier: DO you think that there ARE any inalienable rights? You did not answer, nor did anybody else.
If you say that there ARE, then I want to know what you think they are. And if you think that there ARE, then you are already finished as far as "natural law" or whatever you want to call it; you already agree that there are rights that transcend any form of government.
If you thing that there are NOT, then the nation you want to see this become is very, very scary indeed. Furthermore, you will have a huge historical problem, because I can point you to countless cases in which you will readily admit that there are human rights that necessarily transcend this or that form of government.
THIS government was founded in an attempt to protect certain inalienable rights. And when a majority faction is able to trample on enough of them, or on even a small subset in an egregious enough way, you WILL have a huge pile of rights-minded people rise up to overthrow (again) what has become tyrannical.
That’s simply egotistical bullsh#t. If it was that easy, the bill of rights would read something like: “Congress nor any state shall make no law that infringes on the natural rights of humans as described in the writings of .....”.
I'll go you one better. The bill of rights was staunchly resisted, not even supposed to exist at all, precisely BECAUSE of the confusions it introduced... the VERY confusion you yourself appear to suffer from.
These rights were PRESUMED by the founders, and had the anti-federalists (themselves believers in these very rights) not attempted to "say much less by saying more," the PRESUMPTION of those rights would not now be getting called into question.
Your basic argument against certain proposed gun laws is that they might be democratic, legal, constitutional, and even effective, but since they don't comply with your personal exact moral interpretation of a certain political philosophy, simply should not be allowed.
Utterly ridiculous. I have agreed with all sorts of proposed laws, including, most recently, the short slate proposed by HighTraverse. "Simply should not be allowed" is patently ridiculous, and I have said nothing of the sort.
You WILL find me VERY suspicious of granting the FEDS more powers that rightfully should be in the hands of the states. So, yes, I'll issue states' rights arguments in response to this or that proposal. But your sweeping claim is demonstrably wrong.
Unfortunately for you, natural law has neither judge to rule nor sheriff to enforce.
Wrong again. The ultimate "sheriff" is "we the people," where that group transcends governments, factions, and attempts to cow them into submission. Push that group hard enough, and ultimately you DO get revolution.
I hope life doesn't deliver you too many more disappointments.
Life is full of disappointments. It is also full of a lot of joy, which is what I focus on.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
If you cant articulate a logical response, you ought not spout off about it.
Seriously, not worth the effort for you. From your posts, it's clear that this would be a waste of effort.
You'll call that a punt, and I'll laugh.
Not everything can be properly explained in a forum setting, particularly not to everybody who might ask a question that the very phrasing of the question reveals that they don't know what they are asking.
Sorry.
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2014 - 07:01am PT
|
I'll go you one better. The bill of rights was staunchly resisted, not even supposed to exist at all, precisely BECAUSE of the confusions it introduced... the VERY confusion you yourself appear to suffer from.
I fully realize that, but the bill of rights exists because a significant enough number were concerned about the confusion caused by its absence. They themselves couldn't agree on how natural rights would be implemented in practice, and that was for a government with very limited duties related to the daily lives of its citizens, a government with no power to regulate such messy issues as murder, violence, theft or even enslavement.
Call me a traitor again if you like, but Natural Rights do not exist as anything other than a philosophical concept. They are a form of morality, no more valid than any other morality. That doesn't mean that I don't believe in them as a great but incomplete foundation for human laws, but when you claim that your personal moral code, or even the moral code of hypocritical founding fathers is more important than the constitution or its laws, you are no different any religious nut who asserts heavenly authority to control what others do with their lives.
I simply don't believe that either classical Liberalism, or modern Liberalism in any pure form would be an effective form of Government. I don't believe that the pure form of any -ism except possibly pragmatism would lead to an effective Government. I believe in the Constitution of the United States as one of the best foundations for Government yet devised, I believe that it is not perfect, nor will it ever be.
I don't believe that 9 year old should be allowed to shoot Uzis, but neither do I believe it is anything close to the biggest gun-related imperfection in our laws.
TE
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2014 - 08:15am PT
|
NO. Not you, you won't even step up to the plate. Nobody will. Why?
I tell you why,
They're all just stupid sheep .......
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2014 - 08:26am PT
|
So, "universally accepted" is absurd, and you know it. I've never even suggested much less claimed anything like that.
Of course I know it's absurd, and every time you use any person's or any group's interpretation of what natural rights are, and impose them on me your argument becomes absurd.
Suppose your earlier comment read like this, I could have no criticism of it.
You and people like you might get enough of a majority faction together to ultimately make all sorts of constitutional changes. You'd have the ABILITY to become a majority faction (please, do look it up). But according to the philosophical concept of natural rights, you would NOT have the right. According to the philosophical concept of natural rights, The right of "the people" is NOT absolute!
But, no, you made an absolute statement that under your chosen moral principles, we don't have that right, even if the US constitution and our moral principles and the moral principles of 99.99% of the population were to say otherwise.
TE
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2014 - 08:48am PT
|
The whole gun hysteria was created on purpose by the tools behind the Obama administration.
It was a purposely created hysteria in perfect concert with the media.
You've all been 0wned .......
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2014 - 09:06am PT
|
The tide will turn, however slowly, and more sensible gun control will follow. The NRA is fighting a "hold the line" campaign reminiscent of Big Tobacco a few years ago.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2014 - 09:14am PT
|
Very shortly, there will be riders on horse back riding all the way across this country to deliver to Washington a list of grievances
The brainwashed anti gun nuts will smear you into the ground along with their controlled media and the stupid sheep will all babble along in unison.
They will create more hysteria thru their stupid think tanks.
You will be taken to the cleaners .....
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2014 - 09:31am PT
|
They themselves couldn't agree on how natural rights would be implemented in practice.
That is a very different issue than the idea that they couldn't even agree among themselves that there WERE natural rights that needed defending in some way. Implementation is always a bugaboo.
So, if we ARE going to even attempt a discussion on this front, we will need to have some very basic clarity, and that means that I will need to understand "where you are" on some basic points. I've asked you before, and I'll ask you this last time: Do you believe that there are ANY inalienable, negative rights? If so, what are they?
Without that starting point, there's really nowhere to go here.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2014 - 09:42am PT
|
"...and guys like TE love to pull figures out of the bum"
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2014 - 09:54am PT
|
Answered above about my beliefs on rights, but my point is that legally it doesn't matter a damn what you or I believe. Practically, it does matter what the majority, super majority and even a minority believe, but that doesn't make any of us morally correct, if there even is such a thing.
The ultimate "sheriff" is "we the people," where that group transcends governments, factions, and attempts to cow them into submission. Push that group hard enough, and ultimately you DO get revolution.
You see, at least that's a coherent argument against certain Gun Control measures. It's also a reasonable argument for Gun Control. You've made or pasted statistical arguments too, some of which were coherent, some of which were totally flawed, but at least your basis was clear.
TE
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2014 - 09:55am PT
|
Edited after misreading quote.
Ron, read again what I said about 99.99%, it was a hypothetical, Madbolter says it doesn't matter what any majority thinks or votes for, if it doesn't meet his moral code, we don't have the right to do it.
TE
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2014 - 10:01am PT
|
run and hide behind the same canned response which amounts to "if I gotta explain it, then you wouldn't understand".
ROFL... I must be a prophet or something like that. Totally predictable.
Okay, look, you guys are asking like there's some clear, bright "line" over which the government crosses into tyranny. There is no such clear, bright line.
Furthermore, I deny your premise that defense against tyranny is the "backstop" argument for the second amendment. I've said repeatedly, and I'll say again: the second amendment PRESUMES the right to life, which implies the right of self-defense, which implies the right to possess and use the means necessary to defend against putative threats. Defense against tyranny is just one species of the right of self-defense. So, I simply deny that this tail-wagging-dog "account" is even remotely correct.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the founders all operated under a presumption of inalienable rights, the defense of which was the first priority of legitimate government. Having studied the alternatives, I am very confident that the founders were correct in that presumption. That is why you don't find me talking about these points in the subjunctive sense.
So, when you ask for a "definition of tyranny" and call for some account of when a government has crossed the line into tyranny that justifies or even calls for armed revolution, you do not realize what you are asking!
I'll take a stab at the former, but the latter is based upon both philosophical and historical confusion.
"Tyranny" is any government that exercises its powers in violation of the inalienable, negative rights of its citizens.
How MUCH violation is tyranny? Well, ANY! Legitimate government exists primarily to SECURE and DEFEND these rights. So ANY violation is tyranny.
Now you are probably seeing the point that even the best of intentions can fall down in practice. This is why it's easy to look at US history and find countless examples of falling down in practice.
The most basic problem arises when these practical failings are taken to be normative, such that the principled bar gets lowered to the level of our failings. When the founding PRINCIPLES start moving downward, that is when I get worried. Practice will always fall below the principles that guide us! So, pulling the principles down to meet practice guarantees a downward spiral into tyranny.
There is another way that tyranny emerges. That is when over generations a slow, imperceptible philosophical sea-change occurs. That is precisely what has happened in the US. As more and more people are ignorant of the founding principles, and, worse, they are ignorant of WHY those principles are indeed the correct ones, people start getting very "fluffy" about what government's purpose is, what legitimizes it, and, hence, what practices are even appropriate. Their very definition of "tyranny" gets fuzzy or even non-existent.
Consequently, as in the US revolutionary war, there was no clear, bright line that was "the start of the war." There were particular incidents that made it into the history books, and certain key battles demonstrated a "trend" toward revolution. But the bottom line is that the US government is presently FAR more tyrannical toward US citizens than ever was the British crown toward colonists. The colonists ultimately revolted over grievances far less egregious than the full-on systems of rights-abuses perpetrated by OUR government.
The revolution was not primarily about "grievances." Those tipped the balances, but many and complex factors came into play! And only about 1/3 of the colonists even supported separation from England. About another 1/3 opposed war with England and were staunch loyalists. And about another 1/3 didn't involve themselves in any way. So, a MINORITY of the colonists ultimately prevailed in both starting formal separation proceedings and in prosecuting the revolutionary war. Thus, as we see in other revolutions, a minority rises up to revolt over very complex factors of which "grievances" are but a part.
Thus, there is and CAN be no clear, bright line to such things. What would it take in the US? I have literally no idea! No idea is possible in principle. What would JUSTIFY open revolt? Well, in my opinion, we're far past that point. What would cause ME to join a revolt? Well, now we're back to a huge slate of very complex factors. I'm sure it's the same way with many other like-minded individuals. You don't just wake up one day and think, "That's it! I have enough! I'm going shooting at authority figures." It just doesn't work that way.
But there are well-publicized incidents that indicate a growing level of unrest among a subset of Americans, and what many people do not realize is how QUICKLY that low-level, bubbling "unrest" can coalesce into a rapid-organized and very determined rebellion.
ONE aspect of the second amendment was indeed to assure that Americans had the means readily at their disposal for such a rapidly-organized and determined rebellion to take place. At some point people WILL say, "give me liberty or give me death," and they will indeed be prepared to even LOSE on their feet than to live on their knees. What triggers that? I have no idea? What would cause me to join it? I have only vague ideas. Psychologically, there just are no clear, bright lines; and history demonstrates that fact.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2014 - 10:15am PT
|
madbolter1
Thanks for the time you put into your posts.
I always enjoy their informative contents ....
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2014 - 10:16am PT
|
As more and more people are ignorant of the founding principles, and, worse, they are ignorant of WHY those principles are indeed the correct ones,
Apart from that one single word, I agree with almost everything you wrote above. I probably even agree with your definition of Tyranny, except that we (and nobody else) can agree on exactly what those negative rights are, or how exactly one negative right can be prioritized over another.
TE
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2014 - 10:17am PT
|
Thank you, Werner. I really appreciate you saying that.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2014 - 10:18am PT
|
how exactly one negative right can be prioritized over another
The very nature of negative rights ensure that there can be no conflict or need to "prioritize" among them.
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2014 - 10:27am PT
|
If 4 men approach you on a street and threaten you with a knife, the "votes" on this case are 4 to 1, yet go against your one sole right to defend your life. That may be a whacky way of putting it yet it gets the point across.
No I get it fine. I don't believe in the death penalty for theft, or even violent assault if that's what you're asking. I've was once threatened by two drunk kids with beer bottles, while I was carrying a loaded FN-FAL. We all lived to tell the tale.
TE
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2014 - 10:28am PT
|
The very nature of negative rights ensure that there can be no conflict or need to "prioritize" among them.
So you can shoot someone for stealing your ice cream?
TE
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2014 - 10:32am PT
|
So you can shoot someone for stealing your ice cream?
You'll have to explain what you mean by "can" in your question.
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2014 - 10:33am PT
|
The right, not the ability.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2014 - 10:35am PT
|
Accolades from a smoking duck. You should be very proud.
If you knew my history at all, you would know that "accolades" don't make me "proud," and "criticism" doesn't do much to ruin my calm.
I just happen to appreciate Werner as a person and as a climber. You might learn to treat people with more basic respect.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2014 - 10:42am PT
|
Actually, I wasn't really referring to you, madbolter.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2014 - 10:45am PT
|
"You might learn to treat people with more basic respect."
You get what you give. You give what you get. KnowwhutImeen?
|
|
FRUMY
Trad climber
Bishop,CA
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2014 - 10:57am PT
|
I love sheep calling other people sheep.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2014 - 11:02am PT
|
So you can shoot someone for stealing your ice cream?
So, here's the struggle with explaining something like this: you have certain intuitions about what a "commensurate response" should look like. Those intuitions are founded on you "knowing the outcome" in advance. So, you phrase the "question" as though the outcome is already known at the point that the victim is making a response-decision. Thus, that is not a fair way to ask the question.
The short answer is that, yes, you have the right to defend your life, your property, your family, etc. from ALL violations of those negative rights. There are multiple issues in play here:
1) There can be no conflict of negative rights, because ALL others need to "do" to satisfy your negative rights is NOTHING! Just leave you alone, and your negative rights remain uninfringed.
2) When somebody "crosses the line" into an attack on your negative rights, you must recognize that negative rights are a deeply integrate web. Locke recognized and very cogently argued that the right to property just is the right to life. I won't here provide the (lengthy) recasting of his arguments. But, yes, when somebody threatens your property, he/she IS threatening your life. This is no mere "abstraction" or "academic ideal." The practical implications are very real and very present. And recognition of this fact is why it is virtually universal in US law that lethal force is justified in the case of robbery or burglary.
3) WOULD I shoot somebody for stealing my ice cream? Of course not. If that outcome were known, I would not "spend a life" to get my ice cream back.
4) However, even given (3), when anybody does have the temerity to attempt theft from you, you have no idea in advance how far things will go. You have no idea how MUCH of a nut-job your assailant is. And according to Locke (and most jurisdictions in the US), somebody having the temerity to rob from you must be taken deadly seriously.
Finally, your example, while an interesting thought experiment, doesn't provide an example of a conflict of negative rights. Perhaps you are thinking that your negative right to property conflicts with the assailant's negative right to life. However, this is a confusion because the assailant is not asking you to respect his NEGATIVE right to life in that scenario. At that point, he is asking you to respect a POSITIVE right to life; he is expecting you to DO something that violates a negative right of yours (namely: "hand it over") IN ORDER to respect his right to life. HE has set up the scenario such that it is IMPOSSIBLE for you to do nothing in that scenario. You must DO something, so we are already out of the realm of negative rights and duties.
ALL he had to do to get you to respect his NEGATIVE right to life was stay out of your sphere and not DEMAND that you DO something. The minute he demanded that you DO something, he has injected HIMSELF into a positive rights/duties realm.
Now, it is up to YOU whether or not you will respect his positive right to life. And, you, being a finite being, CANNOT positively respond to EVERYBODY'S demands that you honor their positive right to life. You cannot feed everybody. You cannot support everybody. Etc. Thus, you might refuse to respond positively to ANYBODY making such demands upon you. And somebody attempting to FORCE their particular demand upon you BY violating a negative right of yours, CAN rightfully be responded to in violent and even deadly fashion.
Another aspect of this, denoted by Locke, is that the assailant has actually taken himself COMPLETELY out of the realm of rights. He has become a "society of one" by intentionally violating one of your negative rights. Thus, he has NO presumption that his own presumed rights will be honored by anybody existing in the "incommensurable paradigm" that he himself has created. (This, by the way, is the fundamental basis for the notion of capital punishment.)
Many incorrectly think of this as a "forfeiture of rights" by the assailant, but the reality is more nuanced than that. It is not a "forfeiture" by the assailant. He is literally taking himself out of the realm of rights entirely. "Rights" are a relation between persons. By isolating himself from society via his decision to intentionally violate the negative right of another, he severs the "relations" that ground rights. Thus, he "has" no rights insofar as he is outside the realm of rights.
Again, there is no conflict of negative rights, as the assailant is outside the realm of rights and has at best a POSITIVE right to his own life at that juncture. HOWEVER you treat him at that juncture is a function of your own mercy and "read" of probable outcomes in the situation.
Let me hasten to say that I do not advocate treating others as "harshly" as you have a right to! For one thing, we often cannot tell when a rights violation is intentional, driven by confusion/desperation, and many other factors. As humans, we often err, and we should strive to err on the side of mercy! That is a strong case against capital punishment!
However, you asked about rights relations, and I have summarized the theory. Of course, the application is fraught with hazard! But I'm talking about the theoretical basis for much western thinking regarding rights and the laws that are grounded in them.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2014 - 11:05am PT
|
I appreciate your response.
Thank YOU!
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2014 - 11:37am PT
|
Anytime you acknowledge that the answers to any of this are nuanced, I'm not going to argue with you. That isn't to say I agree where any given line might be, but I'm neither certain about being right nor confident of making a good case on my own behalf.
When you say that your political philosophy is the one and only "correct" set of principles on which to base any legitimate Government, I will challenge, whether or not I'm up to the task.
TE
|
|
crankster
Trad climber
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2014 - 02:35pm PT
|
The whole gun hysteria was created on purpose by the tools behind the Obama administration.
If you believe nonsense like this you'd also believe that 9/11 was an inside job.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
quitcherbellyachin
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2014 - 02:40pm PT
|
The whole gun hysteria was created on purpose by the tools behind the Obama administration.
just sheer and overwhelming ignorance
bet you voted to put Caribou Barbie one heartbeat away from being Commander in Chief
didn't you, bunky?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2014 - 03:04pm PT
|
When you say that your political philosophy is the one and only "correct" set of principles on which to base any legitimate Government, I will challenge, whether or not I'm up to the task.
Understandable. However, in this context, it is impossible to convey all the reasons I am convinced. So, I'll speak with more confidence than you're comfortable with, you'll challenge, I'll often "punt," and that will be "such is life." LOL
I'm open to hearing alternative principles of legitimate government. So far, I've not read or heard of anything even in the ballpark of what Locke et al came up with. These principles explain the dignity of human beings, provide a basis for individual rights (and responsibilities), and, if really followed, would also greatly reduce the excesses of giant corporations and the ultra-wealthy.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2014 - 03:20pm PT
|
"These principles explain the dignity of human beings, provide a basis for individual rights (and responsibilities), and, if really followed, would also greatly reduce the excesses of giant corporations and the ultra-wealthy."
Boy, you sure put a lot of stock in Locke. (No pun intended.) Sure, his was an important historical perspective, but don't you think that narrows your own perspective, especially as it relates to modern America?
|
|
dee ee
Mountain climber
citizen of planet Earth
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2014 - 03:25pm PT
|
People with or without guns kill people with or without guns.
It was probably already said upthread but I'm not going to wade through all the bs to check.
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2014 - 03:44pm PT
|
I'm open to hearing alternative principles of legitimate government. So far, I've not read or heard of anything even in the ballpark of what Locke et al came up with. These principles explain the dignity of human beings, provide a basis for individual rights (and responsibilities), and, if really followed, would also greatly reduce the excesses of giant corporations and the ultra-wealthy.
Legitimacy is in the eye of the governed, and while I repeatedly support the principles you wish to see embodied in a government, I don't see them as an exclusive approach, nor their imperfect implementation a justification for violent rebellion.
Why didn't the Founding Fathers implement Libertarianism at the State level? They were after all, the political class and in a perfect position to do so. I believe it was because they realized that those principles alone wouldn't work when it came down to the messy business of governing the interactions between people, not merely interactions between states. They themselves couldn't live up to those principles, how could they expect the lesser classes to act any better?
TE
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2014 - 05:04pm PT
|
Legitimacy is in the eye of the governed...
Are you really this much of a relativist about rights?
and while I repeatedly support the principles you wish to see embodied in a government, I don't see them as an exclusive approach, nor their imperfect implementation a justification for violent rebellion.
Are you really this much of a relativist about rights?
Why didn't the Founding Fathers implement Libertarianism at the State level?
I honestly have no idea what you mean with this question. It's not like state and federal libertarian principles are mutually exclusive.
They were after all, the political class and in a perfect position to do so.
Again, I don't know what you mean. Most of the guys attending the constitutional convention just went back home to their farms and shops. Most of them were not the "political class," and the founders that remained politically active wouldn't have thought of themselves as a "political class." Career politicians came much, much later!
I believe it was because they realized that those principles alone wouldn't work when it came down to the messy business of governing the interactions between people, not merely interactions between states.
I think it's clear that you have not read the federalist nor anti-federalist papers. Do you really believe that these guys were thinking something like this? "Well, let's take a shot at this. It's not really practically implementable, but, you know, what the hey? We've got some really cool theories, so let's just put our lives on the line as an academic exercise that we already know can't really work."
Honestly?
They themselves couldn't live up to those principles, how could they expect the lesser classes to act any better?
Wow... so much to say! Prolly better to say less than more!
I'll just repeat that when we bring the principles down to the level of practice, we GUARANTEE that the nation CAN only spiral the drain. And even our "imperfect implementation" has been a far cry beyond what any other nation has ever achieved. Probably because the principles themselves (until fairly recently) have acted as an almost sacred touchstone.
Abandon those, and this nation WILL descend into anarchy or a police state. Which do you prefer? Probably, actually, you'll get to experience both: anarchy followed by a police state.
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2014 - 05:31pm PT
|
I honestly have no idea what you mean with this question. It's not like state and federal libertarian principles are mutually exclusive.
The federal government in 1789 had little or no role in legislating the actions of individual people in their daily lives. It had no constitutional authority to legislate against personal crimes like murder, violence, theft or even slavery. None of the Federal Government's enumerated purposes would have presented any need to infringe on personal liberty, so implementing a non-infringing federal government wasn't so difficult. Even then, early federal laws regularly infringed on the Bill of Rights. Implementing a purely Libertarian state government however was so obviously impractical that no state has ever tried it. That is not to say they weren't inspired to improve their laws and constitutions toward the ideal.
TE
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2014 - 05:37pm PT
|
The Civil War may have freed the slaves, but by allowing the federal government excess power it enslaved free men.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2014 - 06:33pm PT
|
None of the Federal Government's enumerated purposes would have presented any need to infringe on personal liberty, so implementing a non-infringing federal government wasn't so difficult.
Ahh, got it. Thanks for the explanation.
Well, it is the case that the states are not allowed to form state constitutions or laws that violate the federal constitutional principles. We regularly see even today that state laws are brought before federal courts and even ultimately the SCOTUS. So, it seems like the presumption (which has largely played out) was that the states would follow the lead of the federal constitution.
Now, we can argue 'till the cows come home about how "libertarian" the principles were. Anything productive would need to be handled step by step and chewed up in small bites. If you're game, I am. I just wonder how far down the rabbit hole we'll have to go to find clear cut common ground. I mean, as just one example, are you really as relativist as you seem? Are there any inalienable rights you would stake a claim about?
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2014 - 08:17am PT
|
Dingus, you never met Xanthippe.
Socrates was happy to drink the hemlock.
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2014 - 08:36am PT
|
^^^^^^^^ HaHaHaHa! I tried marrying up too but I took the chicken's way out.
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2014 - 11:49am PT
|
Well, it is the case that the states are not allowed to form state constitutions or laws that violate the federal constitutional principles
True today (although I hesitate at your addition of the word "principles"), but absolutely not true until ratification of the 14th Amendment and in practice not true until Supreme Court rulings early in the 20th Century. Is it co-incidence that this is about the time you claim the rot set in?
I'm away for a while, don't miss me too much, but as a last word, I'd like to add to DMT's comment: I swore an oath to the Constitution of the United States, not to its principles, or to John Locke's principles. If, as certain members believe, a revolution is coming, I have no doubt which side I will join.
TE
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2014 - 12:47pm PT
|
I swore an oath to the Constitution of the United States, not to its principles, or to John Locke's principles.
I didn't understand it when Dingus said it, and I don't understand it when you say it. What IS the "constitution" apart from this or that interpretation of it? And what IS an interpretation of it apart from the principles upon which our founders framed it?
That's like saying, literally, "I believe in dsal4sadj, and ajadl21o, and furthermore as;as;ld2309!!! And, damn it, if you try to revolt against asdljaf;l2390, I know where I'll stand!!!" You're just talking gobbledygook.
Like those people who think you can just laugh at "originalism" while being "proud to be an American," this sort of disconnect between what the constitution MEANS and whatever you want it to mean is patently absurd. WHAT do you think you are defending? Some verbiage "interpreted" in a vacuum? Some verbiage "interpreted" however the political wind or majority faction happens to be blowing?
Again, if you are as much of a relativist as you come across, then you are literally "defending" NOTHING.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2014 - 01:36pm PT
|
Dingus, there are times in which you strike me as a full-on whack job. Your attitude is simply beyond belief, which is why I don't generally respond to you at all.
"Cowboy?" Wow....
Get over yourself.
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2014 - 01:50pm PT
|
Whatever....people with guns or guns with people. Folks are dying from gunshot wounds here at a far higher rate than in the rest of the First World.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2014 - 02:04pm PT
|
"Wow... so much to say! Prolly better to say less than more!"
Did you really write that? Are you trying to be ironic, or what?
Your posts over the course of this thread contain way more verbiage than anyone else's (excluding cut & pastes). Not that this is bad...just sounds pretty hypocritical, that's all.
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2014 - 02:12pm PT
|
donini compared us to the rest of the First World.
By many accepted measures we are now Second World.
Could it be because so many of us take delight in and are prideful of burying their heads in the sand?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2014 - 02:14pm PT
|
just sounds pretty hypocritical, that's all.
Or, just maybe, I'm learning the level at which people can cope. ;-)
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2014 - 02:33pm PT
|
From the Any Idiot Can Carry a Concealed Weapon in School department:
A Taylorsville elementary school teacher somehow shot herself in the leg while in a school restroom.
The woman, who was not immediately identified, was in a faculty restroom at Westbrook Elementary School (3451 W. 6200 South) on Thursday morning when her handgun went off, said Ben Horsley, spokesman of Granite School District.
The gunshot occurred a little before 9 a.m., before school started. No students were around at the time, Horsley said.
The bullet entered and exited her leg, and she was taken to Intermountain Medical Center, where she was listed in good condition later Thursday.
Granite School District police are still investigating how the handgun accidentally discharged.
Classes were proceeding as normal as possible, Horsley said.
.
.
.
The teacher — a concealed carry permit holder — was allowed to have the weapon on campus per school district policy, as well as state law, Horsley said. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58402182-78/teachers-carry-concealed-utah.html.csp
Teachers carrying guns in an elementary school?
What doesn't kill you makes you stronger???
No Darwin award for her, she's still among the living. Although obviously she was already brain dead.
.....how the handgun accidentally discharged You could infer the safety was off.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2014 - 03:20pm PT
|
You could infer the safety was off.
If an external safety was even designed into it in the first place.
For the record, I'm all for making gun manufacturers responsible to determine how a gun "accidentally goes off" and change their designs so that that can't happen. Liability suits if their designs are not safe. There is no excuse for any gun "accidentally going off." Yikes!
Just based upon the design of my gun (H&K P30), I can tell you that it's not going to "accidentally go off," even with a round in the chamber, which is how I carry it.
Anything made by humans can fail, including an external safety switch. But at least it should be there and properly designed upon manufacture!
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2014 - 10:54am PT
|
The first power, viz. of doing whatsoever he thought for the preservation of himself, and the rest of mankind, he gives up to be regulated by laws made by the society, so far forth as the preservation of himself, and the rest of that society shall require; which laws of the society in many things confine the liberty he had by the law of nature.
John Locke
Obviously I'm just cherry-picking, but that's a pretty tasty cherry.
TE
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2014 - 11:28am PT
|
Sixth-grade teacher Michelle Ferguson-Montgomery’s concealed 9 mm Glock handgun went off in a faculty bathroom at 8:45 a.m. Thursday. Horsley said the teacher was hit by fragments from the toilet and possibly the bullet in her lower left calf. Ferguson-Montgomery, a 14-year veteran of the school, was taken to Intermountain Medical Center for treatment and released. So does a 9mm Glock have a safety?
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2014 - 11:35am PT
|
Here is on topic news. John McCain’s comments will hopefully soon appear.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/sarah-palin/11091080/Sarah-Palin-and-family-caught-up-in-Alaska-mass-brawl.html
Ernst Photo: AP
By Raf Sanchez, Washington8:00AM BST 12 Sep 2014
Sarah Palin and her family were reportedly involved in a mass brawl at a snowmobile party which had to be broken up by police.
Alaska's gossip blogs lit up with accounts of the Saturday night fight, claiming that the former governor's son and daughter both threw punches while Mrs Palin herself shouted: "Don't you know who I am?" as the scene descended into chaos.
Police confirmed that "some of the Palin family members" were at the party, where a "physical altercation [was] taking place between multiple subjects". A spokesman added: "Alcohol was believed to have been a factor in the incident."
According to Amanda Coyne, an Alaskan political blogger, the incident took place at a party celebrating the Iron Dog snowmobile race, a contest won several times by Mrs Palin's husband Todd.
Mrs Palin's 25-year-old son Track apparently emerged from a Stretch Hummer limousine and got caught up in a fight, soon joined by his younger sister, Bristol. The blogger suggested that the other participant in the fight was a man who had previously dated another sister, Willow Palin.
Track Palin stumbles out of a stretch Hummer, and immediately spots an ex-boyfriend of Willow’s. Track isn’t happy with this guy, the story goes. There’s words, and more. The owner of the house gets involved, and he probably wished he hadn’t. At this point, he’s up against nearly the whole Palin tribe: Palin women screaming. Palin men thumping their chests.
Word is that Bristol has a particularly strong right hook, which she employed repeatedly, and it’s something to hear when Sarah screams, “Don’t you know who I am!” And it was particularly wonderful when someone in the crowd screamed back,
“This isn’t some damned Hillbilly reality show!”
Anchorage Police would not confirm whether the former governor was at the scene, saying that "no arrests were made" and the incident was being looked by detectives and prosecutors.
It wasn't the only drama to befall the Palins in recent days. On Sunday, the day after the fight, a man was arrested for allegedly stalking Bristol Palin.
Miss Palin, now 23, first came to international attention during the 2008 election when it emerged she was pregnant at 17. She was twice engaged to the baby's father, Levi Johnston, but the pair split up without marrying.
Mr Johnston later wrote a book titled "Deer in Headlights: My Life in Sarah Palin's Crosshairs".
Police said that Miss Palin returned to her home on Sunday to find Peter PW Ferrero, a 25-year-old man from Florida waiting in her driveway. He had allegedly bombarded her with hundreds of Facebook message has been charged with felony.
Ferrero claimed he had climbed up to a third-floor balcony at the house and tried to open a door there, according to a police report.
Sarah Palin’s office did not respond to requests for comment.
See? I said there was climbing.
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2014 - 11:42am PT
|
am I the only one surprised no one in Palin's party pulled a gun?
Isn't Ms. Palin supposed to be a Bad Ass Mama Grizzly?
The Gorilla from Wasilla?
The Moose Mauler?
I'll bet they'll be packing at the next party.
“This isn’t some damned Hillbilly reality show!” wrong
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2014 - 12:33pm PT
|
Glocks have a safety built into the trigger that prevents the gun from firing if dropped.
In general guns never go off accidently. There was a poorly designed japanese pistol with an exposed sear that, if bumped the wrong way, would cause the weapon to discharge, and the Hollywood favorite SPAS-12 gauge would sometimes discharge when merely the safety was flipped off, but over all for an accidental discharge to occur a weapon must be handled incorrectly.
Most people I see with guns don't even exercise trigger finger discipline; scary.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2014 - 12:39pm PT
|
Obviously I'm just cherry-picking, but that's a pretty tasty cherry.
Yeah, pretty tasty when taken entirely out of context. LOL
If you're reading that to suggest that Locke's idea was that people are to be subjugated to government whims and violations of their rights, well.... LOL
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2014 - 04:26pm PT
|
If you're reading that to suggest that Locke's idea was that people are to be subjugated to government whims and violations of their rights, well.... LOL
Nope, just that once entering into a governed society, even his idealized one, Locke recognized that a person will inevitably find his liberty confined. The basic right remains, but the freedom to do "whatsoever he thought for the preservation of himself" is lost once he leaves the state of nature. Not out of context at all, and contrasting well with your assertions.
There really is a lot of fascinating reading in there, thank you for introducing me to the original works, the brief synopses I'd read decades ago weren't nearly adequate to appreciate the brilliance of the man.
TE
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2014 - 05:48pm PT
|
contrasting well with your assertions.
When you read more, you'll find that Locke was crystal clear that "in society" a man's rights are not "constrained" in the sense you are saying. A man merely agrees to be intentional about not stomping on the toes of others in exchange for others not stomping on his toes. And he agrees to submit the to authority of the "society" that adjudicates over disputes. There is NO sense in which a man "gives up" any (negative) rights upon joining society. And negative rights need no "constraining," as no conflict between them is logically possible.
Further, Locke emphasizes that, although people tend to be willing to suffer a good deal of abuses of their rights before rising up against their government (people do love a good status quo!), the right of secession (both individually and as a group) is one of the most fundamental inalienable rights. Neither revolt nor secession are trivial, and people do not engage in either trivially (as we see in our own society). But it is among the rights of people to do either at will and thereby return themselves to the state of nature.
Of course, profound practical problems and implications await anyone trying, given that our government provides no "room" for anyone to secede. But we're talking rights at present.
I'm glad you're enjoying partaking of the original sources!
|
|
Flip Flop
Trad climber
Truckee, CA
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2014 - 08:33pm PT
|
With results like this I suggest that we give more guns to children.
[Click to View YouTube Video]
Werner is a bigoted a-hole.
Ron is plain stupid.
Hey you tards, both you guys got your pay days working for the government. That's laws paying your bills and making you feel all important. Climbers are not a bright bunch.
|
|
Jingy
climber
Somewhere out there
|
|
|
Oct 17, 2014 - 06:38pm PT
|
[Click to View YouTube Video]
If I ever see a gun in a restaurant, I leave with a word with management about how I never see the inside of their restaurant ever again.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
|
Oct 18, 2014 - 09:05am PT
|
I got news for you, Jingy.
Unless you're eating at some corporate joint like Red Lobster or Applebee's, there IS a gun in the restaurant. Maybe more than one.
|
|
| Messages 1 - 287 of total 287 in this topic |
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!