The Magic Caf
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Guns don't kill people... (35 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..7..11..15..19..23~24~25~26~27..31..34..37..40..43..44~45~46 [Next]
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1199 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
For all practical purposes, it's impossible to have gun ownership without having irresponsible gun ownership.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
tomsk192
View Profile
Inner circle
3894 Posts

Profile of tomsk192
Quote:
On Sep 4, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
For all practical purposes, it's impossible to have gun ownership without having irresponsible gun ownership.


That is a very good point. [And thank you, Lobo, for talking about the subject in hand.]

I would postulate that sensible gun restrictions would put a huge onus onto already overworked law enforcement agencies, and also would take decades to put in place. It would be a slow, painful process.

Now, my experience is that sometimes it is necessary to engage in slow, painful processes, in order to achieve a highly desirable outcome. This works on both macro and micro levels, IMHO.
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
It is a good point, Lobo. And it creates a dilemma. But I don't think it's insurmountable. Though it may take time as tomski points out. I think that generational factors might also come into play and that eventually there will be cultural changes as well.
tomsk192
View Profile
Inner circle
3894 Posts

Profile of tomsk192
That's the sort of long-term thinking that is music to my ears.
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Well that's really the way most things change. New ideas only really take hold when old generations die. (I'm almost embarrassed at some of the things my grandparents and great grandparents believed.)
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1199 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
It all depends what you mean by "insurmountable." Ultimately, though, you have to be willing to accept some nonzero rate of unjustified gun deaths.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
tomsk192
View Profile
Inner circle
3894 Posts

Profile of tomsk192
We accept that nonzero rate in the UK. It is far preferable to the alternatives. I understand that our gun legislation is too extreme for the USA to contemplate, but any significant reduction in meaningless and avoidable killings surely would be preferable to the status quo.
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Quote:
On Sep 4, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
It all depends what you mean by "insurmountable." Ultimately, though, you have to be willing to accept some nonzero rate of unjustified gun deaths.


Well that's really not a question. There will always be unjustifiable deaths. It's not a matter of accepting it or not, it's just the way it is. But there is no question that those deaths can be reduced.

But back to generational changes- I remember when my German grandfather and uncles would all get together and drink beer. You knew it was time to leave the room when they started talking about why Hitler wasn't so bad. "He invented the Volkswagen, Bobby. Don't forget dot!"

Back during the Watts riots, a couple of friends and I were watching on TV when my grandfather showed up, sat on the couch and watched silently. He finally spoke up. "Back in Germany ve didn't haf problems like dot. Ve just line dem up against the wall. Pop, pop, pop. No problem."

We all just looked at each other is disbelief. Smile
tomsk192
View Profile
Inner circle
3894 Posts

Profile of tomsk192
Would I be right in assuming, Bob, (given your surname), that on the other side of the family you may have some distant relatives who were pop, pop, popped by my distant relatives? It's all relative! I'm here all week, try the veal!

When I was a child, some of my posh friends might go out shooting with their Dads. Guns were okay then, in this country. I'd love to go hunting; it's still possible, but I'm priced out of it. I love the idea of a bucolic idyll, where I take my sons out hunting, having learned it as a child myself.

Ain't gonna happen now, though. Certain sociopathic individuals f****d it up for the rest of us.

But, I'm pleased that another Dunblane is less likely, although not impossible of course. Meanwhile, if I didn't live in an inner city, and had a reason to shoot stuff, then I could easily get a license to hold certain firearms under certain conditions.

Maybe I'll move to the country after all?
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
You'd be right in assuming that. My paternal grandmother, Elizabeth Cassidy, was in fact present at the Easter Massacre and later became an IRA member. I learned early NEVER to mention England or the Queen when she was present.
tomsk192
View Profile
Inner circle
3894 Posts

Profile of tomsk192
Well, we are mostly a country of umitigated c****, of which I am no exception. However, I salute your paternal grandmother; she sounds like an eminently sensible woman, given the precedents of Cromwell and all who came after him.
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1199 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On Sep 4, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 4, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
It all depends what you mean by "insurmountable." Ultimately, though, you have to be willing to accept some nonzero rate of unjustified gun deaths.


Well that's really not a question. There will always be unjustifiable deaths. It's not a matter of accepting it or not, it's just the way it is. But there is no question that those deaths can be reduced.

But back to generational changes- I remember when my German grandfather and uncles would all get together and drink beer. You knew it was time to leave the room when they started talking about why Hitler wasn't so bad. "He invented the Volkswagen, Bobby. Don't forget dot!"

Back during the Watts riots, a couple of friends and I were watching on TV when my grandfather showed up, sat on the couch and watched silently. He finally spoke up. "Back in Germany ve didn't haf problems like dot. Ve just line dem up against the wall. Pop, pop, pop. No problem."

We all just looked at each other is disbelief. Smile


It really is a matter of accepting it. If I made you the Gun Czar and let you pass all laws you deemed reasonable and that became out new framework, we'd still have some number of gun deaths, and you'd accept them. That's the cost of doing business. But other people would not accept them. As the president said, "If it could save one life, we have to try." So what would those people do after one of those deaths made national news? Well, of course, they'd start clamoring for unreasonable legislation.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
R.S.
View Profile
Regular user
CT one day I'll have
176 Posts

Profile of R.S.
Quote:
On Sep 4, 2014, acesover wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 4, 2014, R.S. wrote:
Thanks for your thoughtful response. Presumably, the embryos will all be used. And since the pro-life advocates claim that life begins at the instant of conception, there are 1,000 lives at stake here. Life is life, right? That's what we've heard over and over. But this scenario demonstrates we all value the life of a 5 year old much more than that of an embryo or a blastocyst or even a fetus. Variations of this scenario can be agonizingly difficult. And I'm not claiming there is an easy answer or even a "right" answer. There is a lot of gray area here. And since gray seems to dominate, I (and many others in the pro-choice camp) feel that these tough decisions are best left to the mother. She can evaluate her own life circumstances and decide what to do with her own body much better than anyone else can for her. That seems reasonable.

And by the way, I would love to see the day where there are NO abortions at all! And I think that allowing teens access to birth control (along with the proper sex education) would greatly reduce the abortion rate. Do you agree?

Thanks.

Ron


What do you mean the embryos will all be used? Just because you have 1000 embryos does not constitute 1000 births or even further development of them. Many of these artificially made embryos do not survive to bear a child. Also many are not used. As once the let us all them parents finally conceive a child they may only want one and what do they do with the rest? Some continue to keep them frozen, but to what end I do not know. Some just have them destroyed.

The decision for choosing to save the girl is not difficult as there is no telling what will happen with the embryos. But the little girl is here now. She has already went through the development of birth and survived. The embryos are still very fragile and again no telling they will survive and if so for how long.

Lastly I have an issue with this sort of conception especially when it brings in a third party besides the parents who will raise the child. Maybe there is a reason these two people cannot conceive and it should be left that way. Again that is just me. Not a moral issue but just an issue as that it may not be normal for this couple to have children. Why? I do not know. Maybe nothing, but perhaps something in later generations may crop up and present problems. I do not know. Nature has a way of protecting itself. Bringing new life into the world is completely different than saving what is already here.


I said PRESUMABLY they would be used. But rather than get bogged down in details, and speculate on intended uses, let's simplify it. Assume that whatever YOU, Acesover, consider to be the very start of life is what's in those petri dishes/tubes/containers, and that the intended purpose is to fully develop all of them, OK? Now, does this change anything for you? Under YOUR definition of the beginning of life, would you now let the 5 year old girl perish and save those 1,000 "lives"? Remember, all those 1,000 embryos/cells/whatever have already met YOUR standard for whatever YOU consider to be the very start of life.

Also, you didn't comment on whether you agreed that reducing the abortion is important, and that giving teens access to birth control is a good way to do that (with the added bonus of reducing STDs as well!). Smile

Thanks.

Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
21014 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
The point it always moves the goal post. If a certain number of deaths is acceptable, then someone ALWAYS is going to say one is too many. Therefore it stops nowhere short of complete gun grabbing. Something is always the "why should we have such easy access to___ " Something ALWAYS becomes the thing that is the worst and someone always wants to take that away.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
tomsk192
View Profile
Inner circle
3894 Posts

Profile of tomsk192
But isn't the actual business of government to do business? It doesn't really matter what the fringe says, you just get your hands dirty in the pot of actual business.

It's fascinating to see the view from Europe on Obama. We see his unpopularity, and it has petrified his image in most people's minds at a former time, when he was more appealing, and fulfilled their dreams of a 'fairer tomorrow'. Now he is slated from every side for his domestic policies, perhaps fairly perhaps not.

But I would point towards other national leaders, who got their arms full of gore, or pig sh*t or both, and twenty years later were recognised for their decisions.

The current President is in favour of reforming healthcare and gun control. From the other side of the Atlantic, it's a total no-brainer. And well done for electing a President who got his hands dirty. The USA will look back on him better than they look at him today, is my prediction.
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1199 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
I think your prediction is quite unlikely to come true.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
tomsk192
View Profile
Inner circle
3894 Posts

Profile of tomsk192
Quote:
On Sep 5, 2014, R.S. wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 4, 2014, acesover wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 4, 2014, R.S. wrote:
Thanks for your thoughtful response. Presumably, the embryos will all be used. And since the pro-life advocates claim that life begins at the instant of conception, there are 1,000 lives at stake here. Life is life, right? That's what we've heard over and over. But this scenario demonstrates we all value the life of a 5 year old much more than that of an embryo or a blastocyst or even a fetus. Variations of this scenario can be agonizingly difficult. And I'm not claiming there is an easy answer or even a "right" answer. There is a lot of gray area here. And since gray seems to dominate, I (and many others in the pro-choice camp) feel that these tough decisions are best left to the mother. She can evaluate her own life circumstances and decide what to do with her own body much better than anyone else can for her. That seems reasonable.

And by the way, I would love to see the day where there are NO abortions at all! And I think that allowing teens access to birth control (along with the proper sex education) would greatly reduce the abortion rate. Do you agree?

Thanks.

Ron


What do you mean the embryos will all be used? Just because you have 1000 embryos does not constitute 1000 births or even further development of them. Many of these artificially made embryos do not survive to bear a child. Also many are not used. As once the let us all them parents finally conceive a child they may only want one and what do they do with the rest? Some continue to keep them frozen, but to what end I do not know. Some just have them destroyed.

The decision for choosing to save the girl is not difficult as there is no telling what will happen with the embryos. But the little girl is here now. She has already went through the development of birth and survived. The embryos are still very fragile and again no telling they will survive and if so for how long.

Lastly I have an issue with this sort of conception especially when it brings in a third party besides the parents who will raise the child. Maybe there is a reason these two people cannot conceive and it should be left that way. Again that is just me. Not a moral issue but just an issue as that it may not be normal for this couple to have children. Why? I do not know. Maybe nothing, but perhaps something in later generations may crop up and present problems. I do not know. Nature has a way of protecting itself. Bringing new life into the world is completely different than saving what is already here.


I said PRESUMABLY they would be used. But rather than get bogged down in details, and speculate on intended uses, let's simplify it. Assume that whatever YOU, Acesover, consider to be the very start of life is what's in those petri dishes/tubes/containers, and that the intended purpose is to fully develop all of them, OK? Now, does this change anything for you? Under YOUR definition of the beginning of life, would you now let the 5 year old girl perish and save those 1,000 "lives"? Remember, all those 1,000 embryos/cells/whatever have already met YOUR standard for whatever YOU consider to be the very start of life.

Also, you didn't comment on whether you agreed that reducing the abortion is important, and that giving teens access to birth control is a good way to do that (with the added bonus of reducing STDs as well!). Smile

Thanks.

Ron


Stop it.
R.S.
View Profile
Regular user
CT one day I'll have
176 Posts

Profile of R.S.
Quote:
On Sep 4, 2014, tomsk192 wrote:

The current President is in favour of reforming healthcare and gun control. From the other side of the Atlantic, it's a total no-brainer. And well done for electing a President who got his hands dirty. The USA will look back on him better than they look at him today, is my prediction.


I have the same feeling. Especially in light of such unprecedented and virulent opposition by the opposing party. A party who early on publicly announced that their top priority was to see that Obama be a 1 term president.

Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
tomsk192
View Profile
Inner circle
3894 Posts

Profile of tomsk192
He grasped a poisoned chalice from the stupidest national leader of all time, and then made it vaguely palatable. I'd call that an achievement.
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Lobo- acknowledging that there will always be unjustifiable gun deaths is the same as accepting it. And I'm sure you know that "If the is just one death, that's too many" is just hyperbole. Your prediction doesn't logically follow.
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Guns don't kill people... (35 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..7..11..15..19..23~24~25~26~27..31..34..37..40..43..44~45~46 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2022 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.07 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL