welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

More gun laws = fewer deaths, 50-state study says
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 10, 11, 12  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
bitflipper



Joined: 09 Jul 2011
Posts: 728
Location: Here and Now

PostPosted: Tue Mar 19, 2013 5:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CTrees wrote:
WheelsOfConfusion wrote:
CTrees wrote:
Oh, and just in case anyone hasn't seen it, here's Senator Feinstein asserting that it's legal to hunt humans: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypHaYAv_EEw It just makes me laugh.

I think you perhaps have mistaken her claim and its message.


Okay, I'll bite: what did she mean when she said, "it's legal to hunt humans?"

I can't believe I'm about to try to clarify her statements, seeing as I disagree with Sen. Feinstein in just about every particular and I enjoy watching her make a public fool of herself, but, her full statement, in context, was, "We have federal regulations and state laws that prohibit hunting ducks with more than three rounds, and yet, it's legal to hunt humans with fifteen-round, thirty-round, even one-hundred-fifty-round magazines." Meaning, presumably, that the Senator feels we offer greater protection to ducks than we do to humans, and that this needs some sort of rectification. I doubt that she intended to endorse actually hunting humans even with a single round of ammunition nor to declare that such would ever be seen as a legitimate activity.

Although, if she did,... anyone know where I can get a Feinstein stamp for my varmint license? Razz
_________________
I am only a somewhat arbitrary sequence of raised and lowered voltages to which your mind insists upon assigning meaning
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
WheelsOfConfusion



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 12261
Location: Unknown Kaddath

PostPosted: Tue Mar 19, 2013 6:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CTrees wrote:
WheelsOfConfusion wrote:
CTrees wrote:
Oh, and just in case anyone hasn't seen it, here's Senator Feinstein asserting that it's legal to hunt humans: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypHaYAv_EEw It just makes me laugh.

I think you perhaps have mistaken her claim and its message.


Okay, I'll bite: what did she mean when she said, "it's legal to hunt humans?"

Just going by the context of the rest of the very short and incomplete video which was designed to be taken out of context as much as possible? Fucking easy, and I'm disappointed that you can't parse it. Her meaning? That there's no law on the books against high-capacity magazines in reference to guns being used generally like there are against high-capacity magazines in reference to using guns against ducks. Ducks get special protection that merits limiting your right to use munitions, and people are okay with this. So why ducks? In many places you can't use an extended or high-capacity magazine to hunt (hunting being a big part of the rationale for not imposing gun controls more broadly), but you can use it in other cases. Why? What case merits the use of high-capacity magazines and drums such that limits on their use are a dangerous infringment of your rights?
(Yes, it's often legal to shoot ducks and rarely is it legal to shoot humans. But when it's legal to shoot ducks, you're only allowed to load 3 rounds. Break that law during hunting season and you're charged with loading more than 3 rounds. When it's illegal to shoot ducks and you're loading more than the limit, you get charged for out of season hunting AND if you're using more than 3 rounds.)
If it doesn't raise a constitutional issue when you're trying to hunt ducks, what's the grounds for making it a constitutional issue at all? Hunting with a rifle or shotgun is a legitimate use, and we recognize that it's sometimes good and legal to limit ammo capacity even for that perfectly fine, legal, and valid use of guns. What's the legitimate use for a handgun plus a 30 round magazine such that it's never good and legal to limit the capacity for it? Why the blanket opposition when it comes to things like handguns which have few uses outside of aiming them at people, but not for hunting rifles and shotguns even though there are more legitimate uses for them like pointing them at game animals?

She's not saying it's legal to hunt humans full stop (you can tell because she didn't stop there or say it in a vacuum), she saying that there's no laws dealing with the issue such that someone going out of their way to kill as many people as possible (using high-capacity magazines) would be charged for that the same way we charge people for exceeding the capacity limit while hunting ducks. It's not the "hunting people is a crime" part she's talking about, it's the "regulation on what people can buy and use that enables them to commit the crime" part she's talking about.

Finally, she pointed out that if such were the general case, it would be easier for the police to get an opportunity to go against a gun-toting assailant because the shooter would have to reload more frequently, giving them an opening to act. She brought up the case of Jared Loughner, who emptied his single 33-round magazine and was tackled while reloading. Actually, she was just getting into this very important aspect of the discussion when the video cut off, in case you hadn't noticed because of it. Feinstein called for a 10-round limit in magazine capacity. If Loughner hadn't been able to buy one with three times that capacity, the opportunity to disarm him would have come 23 shots sooner. That's not the only example. Consider the case of Colin Ferguson, emptied two 15-round magazines into a train car, and was only stopped when reloading a second time. That's ten extra shots he got off compared what he could have done with legally available magazines purchased under Feinstein's proposed limit of 10 rounds per magazine for handguns. I found that example with a single second of Google searching just because I wanted to see if there were other cases besides Loughner's where the pause to reload presented the best opportunity to take out a gunman. Surprise, it was not hard to find another example! This just further reinforces the message that her argument was not in any way related to the legality of hunting people, but rather comparing laws that govern gun use in the hunting of animals to laws that govern gun use generally, which would come into play during the commission of crimes that are already illegal in and of themselves.

You'd have to be a bug-fucking idiot, at least ranking Pasha among the Divan of Sublime Stupidity presided over by The Sultan of Durrrrr, to think Feinstein said or thinks anything remotely akin to "it's legal to hunt humans right this second, we have to stop this with gun control laws!" What she's saying is that the legal and under-regulated availability of things like high-capacity magazines makes it more likely for them to be used by lunatics against other people. Contrast that with a legitimate activity like hunting, where their regulation makes it less likely for high-capacity mags to be used during duck hunts; and that this restriction faces little political challenge unlike the one that would presumably keep people safer from each other.

Far from being a stupid remark worthy of derision far and wide as an example of how batty gun control proponents can be, it sounds to me like she has a damn good point. And the fact that you seem to have immediately bought into The Crazy does you no credit.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
CTrees



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 3772

PostPosted: Tue Mar 19, 2013 6:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

But even if we convert her statement to "you can't *shoot* ducks with magazines greater than three rounds, but it's legal to *shoot* humans with 15, 30, or 150 round magazines,*" and continue the argument of "why give ducks greater protections?" It doesn't work. Ducks rarely kill people, unlike human criminals. If, for the sake of argument, one accepts that we should use the protections the law gives to animals as a standard to judge what protections we should give humans, we should look to animals that are actually dangerous to humans. Say, hiking through bear country, carrying a firearm for defense against possible bear attacks. Camping in the Alaskan wilderness, for instance. The restrictions on what you can carry for defense against bears are... virtually nonexistant. High capacity is fine, high power is desireable (.44 magum or better is probably *wise*). Handgun, carbine, rifle, shotgun, whatever works, and being open carried is okay. If they were to extend this liberal attitude to walking around in a bad part of town, I guess I could support that (humans being shot being given the same protections as animals being shot, right?).

Random bear attacks seem a lot more like random muggings to me than random attacks by maneating ducks, is all I'm saying. Even if she's not advocating for a live action recreation of The Most Dangerous Game**, we should at least keep the analogy limited to comparable circumstances.

Regardless, my general amusement *was* about her word choice. "It's legal to shoot..." would only run into problems with being a flawed analogy, not with implying premeditated murder was legal. "To hunt" was quite the gaffe - everyone laughed when Bush made stupid comments using the wrong phrasing; why is it not cool to laugh at Feinstein for the same?



*I maintain that the Second amendment has nothing to do with hunting, and thus does not prohibit restrictions on the activity. It's certainly possible to prohibit certain uses of firearms without restricting others.

**though she is rich, eccentric, has admitted to arming herself (CCW, etc), and has written in exemptions from her proposed laws for government officials like herself, so can we really be confident about her extracurricular activites?
_________________
“Yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation”
yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
WheelsOfConfusion



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 12261
Location: Unknown Kaddath

PostPosted: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ducks don't use guns, nor do bears. But that also means that bears don't buy their claws. Obviously laws limiting the sales of a number or length or sharpness of claws that bears can buy before they subsequently attack you would have no effect. So in addition to making a stupid issue of Feinstein's wording, you're making a stupid argument to substitute for her's. Son, I am disappoint.

As for second amendment issues, limiting magazine capacity and prohibiting "assault weapons" has been found not to be an infringement in the case of cities' and states' gun control laws, despite the 'incorporation' of the second amendment, even in a post-Heller landscape.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17307
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Tue Mar 19, 2013 8:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

i have to go to a meeting so don't have time to google it - but in how many cases was a crime prevented only by the "good guy" having a large-round magazine? not just having a gun - but needing to have more than 10 rounds?

and as i recall, the nra has pointed out that no one in aurora, or newtown, or any number of other mass shootings, actually had guns to fire back at the bad guy. so how did they constitute such a threat to the shooter that he needed large magazines to defend himself?

....since your argument is about self-defense, i presume you thought the mass shooters were just defending themselves.
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darqcyde



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 10587
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.

PostPosted: Tue Mar 19, 2013 8:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Teen fatally shot when he mistakenly went into wrong house
By Claudine Zap | The Lookout – 3 hrs ago
Quote:
A 16-year-old who lived in Loudoun County, Va., was shot and killed when he accidentally entered the wrong house.

Caleb Gordley, a popular athlete who had been living in a brick house with his parents and sister for about a year, sneaked out of his house to go to a party with friends after he'd been grounded for not cleaning his room. When he returned around 2 a.m. he slipped into the house he thought was his. Friends said he had been drinking and mistook his neighbor’s similar house two doors down for his own and climbed in through the back window.

When the burglar alarm sounded, the homeowner treated Caleb as an intruder, and shot and killed him.

Caleb’s father, Shawn Gordley, told The Washington Post, “They have the exact same staircase as us, the exact same carpet. Caleb clearly thought he was in his own house.” He added, “He probably stumbled around and was just trying to go to his room.”

At Sterling Park High school in Sterling, Va., students mourned the loss of a talented athlete. The coach of the basketball team, Mike Koscinski, who had advanced Caleb to varsity this year, said of the junior, “He was the hype man. He got everyone hyped up before games.” A statement from the family reads, “Between the darkness and him being under the influence of alcohol, his mistake turned into the ultimate tragedy.”

Police are continuing to investigate the shooting, but Virginia law gives “wide latitude to people who fear for their safety when someone breaks into their homes,” according to The Washington Post.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/teen-fatally-shot-mistakenly-walked-wrong-house-163650001.html

Caleb's house (he had just moved there a month ago):



Two houses down, on the same side of the street:


_________________
...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.
http://about.me/omardrake
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17307
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Tue Mar 19, 2013 9:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

well, that should teach those kids - grounded means _grounded_.
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fritterdonut



Joined: 24 Jul 2012
Posts: 1191
Location: Hedonism

PostPosted: Tue Mar 19, 2013 9:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Whether or not he thought he was in his own house, the homeowner is still waking up to a burglar alarm and someone fumbling through the house in the dark at 2:00AM with no idea who it is, what they want or if they're armed.

A tragedy, but not one in which the victim wasn't at least partly to blame.
_________________
To get things done, you must love the doing, not the secondary consequences. The work, not the people. Your own action, not any possible object of your charity.
-Howard Roark, The Fountainhead


Last edited by fritterdonut on Tue Mar 19, 2013 10:42 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bitflipper



Joined: 09 Jul 2011
Posts: 728
Location: Here and Now

PostPosted: Tue Mar 19, 2013 10:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Darqcyde wrote:
Teen fatally shot when he mistakenly went into wrong house
By Claudine Zap | The Lookout – 3 hrs ago
Quote:
A 16-year-old who lived in Loudoun County, Va., was shot and killed when he accidentally entered the wrong house.

Caleb Gordley, a popular athlete who had been living in a brick house with his parents and sister for about a year, sneaked out of his house to go to a party with friends after he'd been grounded for not cleaning his room. When he returned around 2 a.m. he slipped into the house he thought was his. Friends said he had been drinking and mistook his neighbor’s similar house two doors down for his own and climbed in through the back window.

When the burglar alarm sounded, the homeowner treated Caleb as an intruder, and shot and killed him.

Caleb’s father, Shawn Gordley, told The Washington Post, “They have the exact same staircase as us, the exact same carpet. Caleb clearly thought he was in his own house.” He added, “He probably stumbled around and was just trying to go to his room.”

At Sterling Park High school in Sterling, Va., students mourned the loss of a talented athlete. The coach of the basketball team, Mike Koscinski, who had advanced Caleb to varsity this year, said of the junior, “He was the hype man. He got everyone hyped up before games.” A statement from the family reads, “Between the darkness and him being under the influence of alcohol, his mistake turned into the ultimate tragedy.”

Police are continuing to investigate the shooting, but Virginia law gives “wide latitude to people who fear for their safety when someone breaks into their homes,” according to The Washington Post.

Yes, it's tragic.

It's also tragic that the kid was disobeying his parents and out drinking underage in defiance of Virginia's laws.

Did he get what he deserved? Hell, no. He deserved a night in jail, a hefty fine, and being grounded for four more months while he washes the dinner dishes every night to pay his parents back for bailing his dumb ass out and paying off his fine. But, he wouldn't even have been in the situation to get shot if he'd been obeying the rules under which all teens are expected to live. Which adds up to a fairly convincing argument, in my mind, for why those rules exist. Defying those rules is what put young Mr. Gordley in the situation where he will now never get what he deserved, and no-one can do a blessed thing about it.

I grieve for the parents; no parent should ever have to bury their child.

I also grieve for the neighbor; it must be horrible, the guilt that person is probably feeling.

But if I could, I'd give the boy a sound kick to the backside; it sounds like he could have benefited from one.
_________________
I am only a somewhat arbitrary sequence of raised and lowered voltages to which your mind insists upon assigning meaning
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darqcyde



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 10587
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.

PostPosted: Tue Mar 19, 2013 11:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I would NOT want to be the person who supplied the alcohol.
_________________
...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.
http://about.me/omardrake
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
fritterdonut



Joined: 24 Jul 2012
Posts: 1191
Location: Hedonism

PostPosted: Wed Mar 20, 2013 12:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Darqcyde wrote:
I would NOT want to be the person who supplied the alcohol.


I didn't even think about that. Whoever it was is in for a world of hurt, both mentally and legally.
_________________
To get things done, you must love the doing, not the secondary consequences. The work, not the people. Your own action, not any possible object of your charity.
-Howard Roark, The Fountainhead
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bitflipper



Joined: 09 Jul 2011
Posts: 728
Location: Here and Now

PostPosted: Wed Mar 20, 2013 2:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Darqcyde wrote:
I would NOT want to be the person who supplied the alcohol.

This, too.
_________________
I am only a somewhat arbitrary sequence of raised and lowered voltages to which your mind insists upon assigning meaning
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Snorri



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 10878
Location: hiding the decline.

PostPosted: Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

bitflipper wrote:


Did he get what he deserved? Hell, no. He deserved a night in jail, a hefty fine, and being grounded for four more months while he washes the dinner dishes every night to pay his parents back for bailing his dumb ass out and paying off his fine. But, he wouldn't even have been in the situation to get shot if he'd been obeying the rules under which all teens are expected to live. Which adds up to a fairly convincing argument, in my mind, for why those rules exist. Defying those rules is what put young Mr. Gordley in the situation where he will now never get what he deserved, and no-one can do a blessed thing about it.


God I can't wait till I have kids of my own and can scare them with the threat that if they go into the wrong house they'll get shot.


Wait...what?
_________________

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fritterdonut



Joined: 24 Jul 2012
Posts: 1191
Location: Hedonism

PostPosted: Wed Mar 20, 2013 4:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Snorri wrote:
bitflipper wrote:


Did he get what he deserved? Hell, no. He deserved a night in jail, a hefty fine, and being grounded for four more months while he washes the dinner dishes every night to pay his parents back for bailing his dumb ass out and paying off his fine. But, he wouldn't even have been in the situation to get shot if he'd been obeying the rules under which all teens are expected to live. Which adds up to a fairly convincing argument, in my mind, for why those rules exist. Defying those rules is what put young Mr. Gordley in the situation where he will now never get what he deserved, and no-one can do a blessed thing about it.


God I can't wait till I have kids of my own and can scare them with the threat that if they go into the wrong house they'll get shot.


Wait...what?


This wasn't just going into the wrong house. This was breaking in (the kid slipped in through a back window) while intoxicated, at 2 in the morning and setting off a burglar alarm while stumbling around the house in the dark.

Perhaps it would be better to warn them that if they are drinking heavily they should stay the night at a friend's house (assuming they are drinking at a friend's house) to sleep it off.
_________________
To get things done, you must love the doing, not the secondary consequences. The work, not the people. Your own action, not any possible object of your charity.
-Howard Roark, The Fountainhead
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Monkey Mcdermott



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 3316

PostPosted: Wed Mar 20, 2013 5:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rolling Eyes
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 10, 11, 12  Next
Page 6 of 12

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group