Defend the Second Amendment!

How does one say E = mc^2 when he's prejudiced against atheists? Many people's imagination is not the same as someone else's, and I take offence to that comparison of "an imaginary god". I enjoyed the topic of conversation though, periodically over the last decade plus.

 

:beatdeadhorse5::troll:

 

Can any moderator here verify if the person who keeps making posts that read like a world salad, is a real person or a bot?

The posts are so jumbled I'm wondering if it's met the definition of spam.

 

coffee

It isn’t an economic solution and it isn’t about reduction

It was basically do nothing, preserve the status quo

As I’ve said the main thing is to tackle the fear and as I’ve explained in many posts I favour a holistic approach, taking in education, health and other social, economic factors as well as new drug regulations –
Here an old post

To me it would be about harm reduction, it’s not just about getting the guns out of the hands of criminals or anyone that might us them to do harm, but reducing crime in general.

That would involve a holistic approach, involving social, economic and political changes but would also include gun control measures.

But you can have gun control measures that don’t involve a total ban. There are gun control measures in place already in the US that don’t involve a total ban.

The problem is that because of the attitudes and mentality that often seems to be associated with the desire for gun ownership there is a tendency among some pro-gunners to be against virtually any kind of gun control. That is why I don’t think they’re serious when some claim to want to get guns out of the hands of criminals.

According to the FBI virtually all guns in criminal hands were bought legally in the US by American citizens. They were either stolen from the legal owner or passed on to a criminal for favour or money. It would therefore seem prudent to begin by trying to limit those ways in which criminals obtain guns.

Here are a couple of ideas I’ve suggested before

Any handgun kept at home or place of work (including businesses that involve guns) would have to be held in a secure (and approved) safe. People that didn’t have an approved safe would not be allowed to own a gun

If a person looses or has their gun stolen, and it is shown that they did not show due diligence in securing their weapon they would be subject to a heavy fine and banned from owning a gun.

Any guns would have to be presented for inspection 6 months after purchase then again one year after purchase and then every five years after that. Not presenting the gun would mean loosing the owner’s gun license and being banning from owning a gun. (plus see above)

Also according to the FBI gun misuse is often associated with domestic violence. So -

Anyone wanting to purchase a gun would first have to pass a psychological evaluation.

If in a relationship a partner, if they could give due reason, would have the ability to veto (in confidence) the handing out of a gun license (or have it removed).
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?p=6898734&highlight=holistic#post6898734
*

If someone had a Tiger and did nothing to stop it going out and eating someone – would you want the authorities to do nothing about that?

How many people should be eaten before the Tiger is taken away from such an irresponsible owner.

And if they didn’t fear the society they were in why would they want to make them, I mean those skills are not just American, many people in countries with low gun ownership levels could do the same but they don’t.
As I’ve told you before here - http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=483790&page=5

As I’ve said before it is possible to get a gun in the UK, many people have shot guns and if you are law abiding and seem responsible it is possible to get a license. It is just that most people don’t feel the necessity to have a gun. I mean what would I do with a gun in the city? Hunting, I’d rather preserve the wildlife we have, rather than shoot it. Keeping down vermin, I think calling a professional exterminator would be more efficient and less time consuming than sitting out on my porch in the hope a rat will show up.
As to home defence, well, as I’ve said before there just doesn’t seem to be the US pro-gunner’s level of fear about that here.

Exactly my point about the fear.

As pointed out guns don’t seem very effect as crime deterrents, thing is that general crime figures for the US are not that different from countries with lower levels of gun ownership and stricter regulation

Read here -
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=484487&page=2

The big exception is the much bigger gun related homicide rate.

All US gun ownership seems to mean for crime is that more people are killed with guns, through murder or accident.

In the UK few people have armed bodyguards (maybe the queen and prime minister) and in many circumstance they go without them. I meet the last mayor of London Ken Livingston on the tube (public transport) and the current one Boris Johnson I was cycling next to just the other day. In fact a lot of our politicians bike into work. David Cameron famously had his bike stolen when he’d nipped out to Tesco’s to do some shopping. As to the wealthy go to the right parts of London and they are just there shopping and eating out, without guards.

 

Meagain

I’m not totally disagreeing with you but you do say - in relation to the society that they find themselves embedded in. And The culture of the United States is very ego centered and also geared to instant gratification.

So you seem to admit to some cultural element (which to me is learnt)

You could say the culture has not grown out of it

‘Progressive’ teaching was not just confined to the US and is still practiced in many places.
http://www.edudemic.com/swedens-newest-school-system-has-no-classrooms/

Even the school where my child goes there was no ‘winner’ on infants sports day everyone got a medal that’s changes with juniors were there are winners but overall it’s about team over individual.

I think the thing is that in many ways European culture is more community rather than individual based (although some politicians would like to change that).

*

It was a commercial show and I believe it was aired on commercial TV in the UK

Thing is that in the UK we have the BBC which for many parents is preferred because it has very good shows and it doesn’t have adverts.

Oh I found this -“the BBC chose not to air Sesame Street for several reasons, including the show's educational methods, its creation for American audiences, and the U.K.'s long history of quality educational television programmes for young children” wiki

*

Yes this is one of the things I’ve noted. This can be in part the fault of the system of education.

If you have a system with limited resources but based on attainment, it can mean resources are directed to those that will get the attainment to the detriment of others.

It becomes about attainment not understanding

Small classes are good for debate large classes are more about keeping discipline

In my day I went through a lower system that was like that it was about control and assisting a few to achieve (and I wasn’t one of those due to my dyslexia) free thinking was discouraged and debate was seen as a breach of discipline.

It was only once I entered 6th form (with much smaller classes) that it became about free thinking and debate.

In the private school system they vet who gets in and have much smaller classes and debate is encouraged a lot earlier.

*

I’ve meet people that have been educated here and in the US and one of the things they noticed was in essay writing. In the UK when asked to write an essay we’d be given a bibliography, a list of books and that was it, in the US people were often not just given the books to read but also the pages and even the paragraphs, is that common or have I been misinformed?

*
There also seems to be this belief that ‘freedom of speech’ means freedom to say whatever you want without criticisms or having to defend it in any way.

That all ideas are equally valid even if one can be defended rationally and another cannot.

I mean sometimes people seem genuinely shocked that their ideas are being criticized and can only reply with righteous indignation or arguments along the line of ‘but I’m right so that the end of the argument’

 

Monkir

I’ve already stated my view that this is Turing Test contestant and not a very good one at that – but I don’t know.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolo...-time-after-convincing-users-it-is-human.html

I‘m not really bothered by it and it hasn’t broken any forum rules.

 

Why waste time on guns when autos kill nearly thirty times as many folks? Ban autos now!

 

Ranger

Already covered a number of times

First cars were not specifically designed as weapons however there are certain problems associated with private car ownership and a number of regulations have grown up to tackle those concerns.

People have to have a driving licence, and they only get a driving licence if they have passed a driving test. There are bars on people with a medical complains that may cause them to lose control of a vehicle (e.g. epileptics) or otherwise be of danger to other road users or pedestrians (sight defects). We remove licences from those that we deem unfit to hold one (e.g. drunk drivers). People have to have a tax disc and current insurance and driving without is illegal.

Then there are the rules of the road, which side of the road to drive, how to turn left or right, how to conduct at traffic lights or crossing points.

The car manufacturer also has a number of regulations to make sure the car is safe and a user has to have a yearly certificate of road worthiness to make sure it is still safe and driving without one is illegal.

I could go on but I think you get the idea.

To me gun ownership has its own concerns and so needs appropriate regulation to address those concerns.

 

And more

In the UK automobile accident data is collected and correlated so that accident black spots can be highlighted and the reason for accidents happening discovered so action can be taken as needed (such as installing traffic lights or road signs, putting in new speed restrictions or traffic calming or simply increasing visibility). This is an ongoing operation due to changes in road use and changing demographics.

I would hope you had something similar going on in the US?

Many societies try to set regulate drivers and driving and the type of regulation is often dependent on the number of drivers, the higher the number the more regulation is usually needed. The UK is a small island with a lot of cars.

We test drivers ability through a testing and licensing scheme, backed up with a penalty point system for bad driving (get too many points and you loose your licence). Again these things are constantly under review to see if improvements to the testing or the regulation of licences can be made (I believe the last driving test update was in 2003).

Also all cars are registered and their owners known and a driver must have insurance cover.

What happens in the US, can anyone that buy’s a car be able to take it on the road without licence or insurance or having it registered?

On the other side car manufactures, bring in new safely features as technology allows because cars can be sold on their safety (and I believe it reduces the insurance premiums) A new safety feature I’ve heard about is proximity braking systems that apply the brakes if the cars gets close to something even if the driver doesn’t. But a certain level of car safety is regulated for. New cars have to pass safety test before being allowed to be sold and existing cars have to pass a yearly MOT and that certificate has to be valid for the car to be allowed on the road. Then there are other things like safety belt laws and baby car seat regulations etc.

**

Now guns are weapons sold for how unsafe they are, that is, how much harm they can do to the target or how accurately it can be hit.

And that’s the thing guns are not cars.

For example the data for gun crimes and accidents are already collected and correlated, but where areas of concern are highlighted many pro-gunners seem against any action being taken or argue for the removal of regulations and legislation already in place. The equivalent idea transposed to automobiles is that there shouldn’t be any tests of driving ability, street signing, traffic laws, etc.

But let’s take the things that we have been using to try and reduce harm from having a lot of automobiles in a society and impose them on gun ownership?

All gun owners would need to pass a test of competence to get a gun licence and have a current licence.

All guns would need to be registered and any theft or resale reported and logged.

Insurance would be needed to be paid up and valid.

Accidents or misuse (e.g. having a gun while intoxicated) could result in penalty points, increased insurance payments or loss of licence.

All guns would be needed to be inspected once a year for the licence to be renewed.

Now some people wouldn’t care about such rules but many pro-gunners I’ve talked would think them an outrageous attack.

**

 

The fact remains that despite the fact that there seem to be far more unregulated guns than there are cars with or without regs the deaths by auto far out number deaths by guns.

Ban cars now!

 

LOL – ROGL – oh wow man that reply was so funny, and so witty, did that just come to you or did you have to work at it..I bet it just came to you…cause you’re that kind of guy

Hey everybody did you see what Ranger did there, oh he is so clever

Oh I mean it man, like you should be writing for television or something, go on man you should do stand up, I mean with material like that…

*

Now have you anything sensible to contribute?

 

Testing and licensing are required to drive in all states and yet autos with a far smaller number than guns still manager to kill almost thirty times the number that guns do in this country, and that doesn't count those that die from second hand exhaust each year. Car control now!

 

Ranger

I suppose that answers the question - have you anything sensible to contribute –

No

 

And you so sensibly chose to ignore auto's contribution to the deaths caused by their pollution not to mention their unmatched contribution to global warming.

 

Ranger

I’ve written on it a few times, I personally don’t drive I have no licence and am a great believer in public transport and cycling.

What are your thoughts on the environmental impact?

 

Meagain

Here is an article you might find interesting on extrinsic and intrinsic value systems.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/10/labour-britain-selfishness-market-inequality

Here is an extract -

"extrinsic values are strongly associated with conservative politics, it's in the interests of conservative parties and conservative media to cultivate these values. There are three basic methods. The first is to generate a sense of threat. Experiments reported in the journal Motivation and Emotion suggest that when people feel threatened or insecure, they gravitate towards extrinsic goals. Perceived dangers – such as the threat of crime, terrorism, deficits, inflation or immigration – trigger a short-term survival response, in which you protect your own interests and forget other people's."

 

I agree with my friend Medicine Man Wallace Black Elk (RIP) Mother Earth has us out gunned by far and we're the ones who will feel the worst of the impact.

BTW; I don't own a gun and find they are a detriment too hunting. They scare off the game.