john5746

People who like to drink or want to possibly make a profit would, but maybe not "most". Oh yeah, laws are stupid. Anarchy is utopia. Who knew? Not even sure reducing gun ownership is being considered. Maybe a better analogy would be trying to control type of cigarette or % alcohol, instead of banning outright. Placing limits. Wait, you want to pass a LAW? I think people who want to have an arsenal to maybe fight their government are mentally ill. They should be locked up. And if you disagree, well maybe you are mentally ill. Yeah, now I see why the mother had guns.

Yeah, I have been suffering the winter blah's and was getting too emotional. I think all the news made me slip out of my delusion that this country wasn't a big shitpile and that the future looks bright. But, Christmas with family and avoiding the computer and TV a couple of days has allowed me to slip back into delusion once again. I have faith. I especially agree with Rigney's point that it takes much more courage to not resort to using guns or violence. I fell into the stereotype that real men use violence. Actually, I think good men try to avoid or reduce violence. I agree with the local/state/federal position, if a farmer in Oklahoma needs a load of fertilizer and a rifle, that's different than if a guy from Chicago wants the same things. And all I was really advocating is adding more weapons to the list of "weapons of war". If we accept the view that citizens should be able to form militias to kill their local police or national army, then I don't see how we should ban anything. Maybe if we had an agreement that in order to own these assault weapons, the people have to serve in the reserve military and be trained with the weapon and agree to be ready to serve in future conflicts at any time. Then we could keep a much smaller permanent military. At least I could see a purpose for the weapons in that case. Any idea that we put on the table - police in schools, better mental healthcare, bullet tracking, etc. will work better if we limit firepower of weapons floating out in society. It just makes sense. And however difficult gun laws are, mental healthcare I think is even more difficult.

I guess my point is that minorities would be the ones with the most justified reason to kill their government. But for the most part, they didn't do that and I'm glad they didn't do that. Today, gun ownership is nearly twice as large for white males and I have a feeling its even more so for these terrorist, child melting models. Some of that is probably economics, but still. Of course anti-government terrorism has been around since day one, but I think the increasing under-current is related to the backlash of the angry white man. And I'm using white as the power structure, not a race. Some that felt they were once in power and now are losing it are pissed. But they are not content with just the democratic method, especially if they continue to lose. Of course, most of them are just shooting from their mouths and just want to have a neat toy. They would probably shit in their pants if they had to really fight.

Mostly white men though, cause that's how we roll. Yep, all those groups you mentioned may have had a good reason to pick up a gun and kill some people, of course they would have been slaughtered and good ole boys would have been helping their government do it. But elect a black man and oh shit, time to kill. Yep, Ghandi was wrong. MLK was wrong. Bin Laden was right.

I agree that if we just concentrate on assault weapons, that would be a mistake. And that does seem to be the attention right now. A big part is the recent mass killings that involved them, but also I think it seems like an easy thing to do. But nothing seems to be easy in congress these days. Yes, we need to dig deeper and determine effective solutions, but I think destructive potential and utility are important, not silly. We do have extra regulations for certain weapons, like machine guns. We can expand that to certain semi-automatic weapons. We can do this in addition to other ideas. I think we need an amendment to the constitution that makes it clear that guns are a privilege, not a right. Guns are not to be used to fight government. But, that isn't going to happen anytime soon.

OK, so how do we decide if any weapon is unsafe? Only after it has killed enough people?

So what is your line of thinking? Do we ban guns based on usage in crimes? Size? Or don't ban at all. I'm sure if we start selling grenade launchers, they wouldn't be used often for suicide or hunting accidents or to hold up a bank. But do you think it might be a problem?

True, I think a big part of the problem is just using the word "guns". They are not all the same. Gun control doesn't mean all guns are banned. LOL, some well needed relief.

Well, this US citizen agrees with your views. And the arguments are not just a little weak, they are trash. I understand the point that we are not addressing the bulk of the current problem, but it is not possible to ban handguns. It should be possible to ban assault rifles. Those that argue for them show their true colors at least. Silly is a strong word to use. Maybe its not enough, but I don't think its wrong Attacking all or most gun owners would just stop everything in its tracks. We have to distinguish those that want to protect their property or persons from those that seek terrorism(wanting to fight against a democratic government with assault weapons is terrorism in my book) and those that want to be vigilantes(like the Trevor Martin case). I think iNow posted in the other thread that handguns were the chief killer in the Sandy attack. I can't find enough details about that, but the Bushmaster is listed as the primary weapon of that attack. Would he have been able to make all that destruction - getting in the window, etc. with just the two handguns? And talking of handguns, they to are not all alike. We can limit clips and certain ammo for those as well. So I do agree that we shouldn't just look at a label called assault, but taking into account the destruction capabilities of the weapon is important, I mean that's what separates a bow and arrow from a bomb. They both can kill, but the bomb can kill many more, much more quickly. Everything else is on that line. The ability to kill quickly, that's really what we are trying to limit in terms of gun types. Suicides and accidental deaths are a different issue. Suicide by one's own gun, not sure anything can be done. Suicide or accidental death with someone else's gun is the fault of the gun owner. That's better remedied by requirements for gun locks and severe jail time, rather than banning certain gun types. Arming teachers is so obviously from a deluded mind. I can't respond further, I had a big rant on this and deleted it.

I can understand the desire to have an armed guard at schools, maybe we are so screwed up it is necessary. If something like this is done, I think it should be separated from educators. I agree that this would be a big mistake, their primary job is not killing perps. Provide a trained officer for each school. Where do we get the money? We tax guns and ammunition. We tax it to hell and back and we use those funds for any safety improvements and to provide for victims of gun violence. If people feel the true cost in their wallets, maybe the demand will be adjusted.

They also have people who blow themselves up from time to time, therefore we cannot outlaw people carrying bombs on their persons.

I was really amazed by Robbie Parker, Emily Parker's father. Very impressed.

Unfortunately, looks like this thread is going to stay relevant indefinitely. Just sad.

I was trying to make the point that people and the market can behave irrationally, but you define whatever happens as rational, so I dropped that point. let's see if we can get to the heart of this thread - you seem to care about property at least. Is global warming a violation of property? And review some of your previous posts for the violin - you blame people like me for your retirement options. I don't mind really, just saying it isn't going to bring me closer to your POV.

The question of rational or irrational, doesn't matter much. Corporations and people will dump hazardous waste, cut corners, look the other way, and rationalize it. The risk/benefit ratio CAN be controlled somewhat. If you risk jail time or large lawsuits or must succumb to inspections, that increases the risk. Public attention to green corps increases the rewards. Its really mostly about making good choices easier and bad choices more difficult. Since bad != more expensive and that is how many things are decided, sometimes it needs to be pushed in that direction. I'm not saying make gas illegal, just try to factor in more of the true cost that the market cannot. Trying to factor in the true cost of gas could get complicated really quick. I think all the wars in the Middle East were due to oil. If not for oil, I think we would never have engaged with the Middle East, much as we do with Africa. That's a huge cost. Just want to say that I don't think your position is completely invalid. I think your point in regards to standards was correct, that's probably how it did happen. I think that's how it should work, opposing views clash and out comes something that nobody really likes, but most can live within. If you find it unbearable to live within, well take your own advice and don't play the victim/blame violin, that won't persuade many people.

I think that is more of a cultural expression. I agree with Phi that it is mostly the cuckold issue, but keep in mind that this is evolution, not conscious selection of the male that drives this. This video explains it very well. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZw3lxyuhEU From 5:00 on is relevant to this thread.

Yeah, at least with the Abrahamic religions, its pretty easy to see why the jews would find an end to the norm to be attractive. As far as contemporary, I think its the disconnect they see between having the perfect god and their own country going against it. Something must be wrong and it can't be their god, so destruction is needed.

Its more than an information gap. I eat too much and don't exercise enough, even though I know better. I think vegetarianism would be better for me and for the environment and I am creeping in that direction, but can't seem to make it happen. There is no upside to smoking, yet people start all the time. We know we should wear condoms, but don't. Humans can be lazy and irrational. The market is just an expression of our short term desires, minus empathy - hardly a way to run a society. Innovation is highly risky. Government can reduce the risk by keeping competitors from stealing ideas, making funds easier to access. They can also help with public access by insuring standards. Can you imagine if gas pump dispensers were different sizes? Since the market doesn't have the total costs of global warming built in, it might never be cheaper. It may always be cheaper to pollute. I think its ok to cost more, just like the iPhone, it is better. I would buy an electric car at a premium if I knew I could charge it at any gas station and mechanics were familiar with it. Businesses are good at innovation and competition, but to scale, we need the field set. Government is better at making a standardized field I already know electric cars are superior for the environment as do many others. But its just so easy to work with what is common. If we really pay the true price of the gas, in terms of damage to the environment, then the costs might be more in line. We could tax gas more and use those funds to subsidize the price of epumps for gas stations. That would speed up the demand, no doubt. Of course we are trying to persuade. Sometimes we need both carrot and stick.

Wouldn't it just shorten it? God is outside of space-time. All that is known to exist, exists within space-time. If 1 & 2 are true, then God does not exist. If you want to argue that god does exist outside of space-time, well that's a huge freaking assumption, but its also special pleading. You are constraining the universe itself based on rules that exist within it, when we know the rules as they exist today were not always the same. Yet, you want to make up a magical being that is beyond any rule. Just say that and be done with it. Unless you can talk to the mind over a beer, I see no use in making the assumption. In fact, it can be a hindrance, as in Newton with planetary motion.

You say you want a revolution Well, you know We all want to change the world But when you talk about destruction Don't you know that you can count me out Yeah, they love to say, "if you don't like it, leave". Basically, you would have 50 places where you could self-deport to. This libertarian dream stuff is just the other end of the coin from the communist crap from years ago. Utopia, where everyone can live in their own bubble without any compromise. Sounds great, it just happens to be impossible and it really isn't that great. Far better for people to learn to live in a culture of diversity, then to setup bubbles of segregation. Personal liberty and social welfare are not mutually exclusive. Reaching the optimum does require concessions from each, imo, but I think it is more of a balance, not either/or

Death, in and of itself isn't a worst possible scenario. My suffering and the suffering of others is far worse. My biggest issue with my death at this point is the financial and emotional toil it would take on those who love me. Becoming very sick and being a burden would be worse for me, since I would still be around to think about it. That being said, it is good to try and put things in perspective and not stress too much.

Yeah, that's pretty good rigney. I like it. I like this too. They are both equally real to me.

How about the church of dudes Thanks dude.

I agree with this in principle, but I think that religions pull this trick as well. People call themselves christian and it makes them feel one with their group, but in reality that label can't be pinned down to more than a few things in common. So if others want to play that game, have at it. I think of "foreigner" as a good analogy for atheism. When I was in Japan, I would regularly get together with a group of people from all around the world. The only thing we had in common was that we were not from Japan. But, that one thing brought us together to converse and drink.

I'm just thinking that drug testing might increase. For example, it is becoming more common for students to pass frequent drug tests to do clinical practice. If people start getting their cheeseburgers from stoned people, they might get interested in making sure the people giving them healthcare or driving them aren't stoned. I don't live in Colorado, so I don't know all the details, but it just seems a little dishonest to tie education to pot use.