Author Topic: Overheard at Work  (Read 8455431 times)

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3131
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #9050 on: July 07, 2015, 02:14:04 PM »
That said I think the evidence from gun control around the world is pretty clear. It works. Sure, black market guns still exist but they're prohibitively expensive and cause more trouble than they're worth for a lot of shit.


Between myself and close family we own enough guns, including scary black rifles, to arm a small village. That's just a handful of people.  They aren't going anywhere.  Outlaw them and they will "disappear".  There are millions more just like me.  And few other places have it written into their Constitution that they are allowed to own them.

dsmexpat

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 223
  • Age: 30
  • Location: New Mexico
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #9051 on: July 07, 2015, 02:25:43 PM »
That said I think the evidence from gun control around the world is pretty clear. It works. Sure, black market guns still exist but they're prohibitively expensive and cause more trouble than they're worth for a lot of shit.


Between myself and close family we own enough guns, including scary black rifles, to arm a small village. That's just a handful of people.  They aren't going anywhere.  Outlaw them and they will "disappear".  There are millions more just like me.  And few other places have it written into their Constitution that they are allowed to own them.
The fact that it's in the Constitution doesn't in any way make the American situation unique. The Second Amendment is an Amendment. The idea that it couldn't possibly be changed is absurd, not only can it be changed but the fact that it is changeable is actually contained within the name. Might as well call it "The Second Rule Which We Didn't Always Have But We Decided To Put In Because These Things Can Be Changed". Sure, you'd need a lot of political will to change it but that's no different to any other country anywhere. Currently they're legal in the US. They were legal other places. Hypothetically with political will behind it they could be made illegal, just as they were elsewhere.

And yes, they wouldn't disappear overnight. Hell, it might take a century. But that doesn't mean it's not worth doing. Worst case scenario they'll eventually become somewhat obsolete.

What really gets me about the Second Amendment though is that it's an argument for the defence of the individual against an overmighty state and that state exists. The front line isn't gun control, it's privacy, and more liberty has been lost there than you'll ever lose on guns. You were never going to be able to form a militia and fight against the Federal Government, you'd have lost against Lincoln and you'd certainly lose against Obama. What you could do though is form a political party, share your dissent, exercise free speech, organize people for rallies and so forth. That's the counterbalance you had left after the Civil War and that's the counterbalance you've lost since 2001.

Sure it's not a currently a tyranny but an America without guns wouldn't be a necessarily be a tyranny on day 1. But if you want to argue that guns are needed for the preservation of liberty against a potential tyrannical state then where the hell is your defence of privacy in a world where every single American is spied upon. I believe in a living constitution. An application of the Second Amendment that limits it to guns is no more meaningful than an application that limits it only to muskets, it comes down to the balance of power and the front line there is not guns. 21st Century revolutionaries would not have won the revolutionary war against 21st Century King George, not because of gun control but because of communication control.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2015, 02:28:39 PM by dsmexpat »

zephyr911

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3642
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Northern Alabama
  • I'm just happy to be here. \m/ ^_^ \m/
    • Pinhook Development LLC
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #9052 on: July 07, 2015, 02:44:08 PM »
As an American who has spent plenty of time using actual firearms, and is neither afraid of them nor interested in taking yours away:

We in the U.S. are pretty dumb about guns. And we're only interested in looking at actual data if it supports conclusions we've already reached.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #9053 on: July 07, 2015, 02:46:48 PM »

Gun and (all) crime dont have a correlation. Stricter gun control lowers domestic murders and "accidents" a lot,

Feel free to support that statement with actual facts.
Quote

Quote
Notice that such an event is actually rare enough to be news,
Notice that in other countries with less guns such a thing doesnt happen at all.


Is that so?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers_%28Europe%29

This is just Europe, but notice, if you will, that every one of them occurred in nations with stricter gun control regulations.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #9054 on: July 07, 2015, 02:55:59 PM »
Here, the nut job has a gun.

True, but then so can you.  No one is better positioned, nor more motivated, to protect your own family than you are.  And has already been cited here, the police don't actually have a duty to protect you or your family; they have a duty to protect the interests of the state, which may or may not include protecting you.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #9055 on: July 07, 2015, 02:58:02 PM »

Timeline is probably something like this
Dream of being a gangsta, having a gun, committing some kind of crime.
Finding out that just because you want something doesn't mean you can afford it, that the world is run by money and nobody wants to help you live your dreams.
Going back to school to become an insurance claims adjuster.
Joining r/personalfinance and r/frugal.
Saving 20% of every paycheck to slowly save up the $50k a black market gun will cost.
Aged 40 finally buying that gun, even as you struggle to remember why you set yourself that goal in the first place.
Thinking back to your past self and why you wanted that gun. Reflecting on how free you used to feel and asking yourself what happened to the young man you used to be. Sure you've become the assistant vice-manager of regional sales, but along the way you've lost yourself.
Gun goes in mouth, you pull the trigger.

Wow, you have issues. I'll concede that you shouldn't buy a gun, you might hurt yourself.

dsmexpat

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 223
  • Age: 30
  • Location: New Mexico
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #9056 on: July 07, 2015, 03:03:17 PM »
Here, the nut job has a gun.

True, but then so can you.  No one is better positioned, nor more motivated, to protect your own family than you are.  And has already been cited here, the police don't actually have a duty to protect you or your family; they have a duty to protect the interests of the state, which may or may not include protecting you.
I'm not sure anyone is arguing against the safety of families. The objections are more linked to the externalities (guns get outside of homes and self defence scenarios) and the effectiveness of the plan (a gun won't improve every situation and massively increases the potential for error). Part of the problem that gun control arguments need to address though is the American police force. If we're going to suggest that people trust professionals to handle these situations then we need a degree of professionalism from them.

cloudsail

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 263
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #9057 on: July 07, 2015, 03:13:54 PM »
Here, the nut job has a gun.

True, but then so can you.  No one is better positioned, nor more motivated, to protect your own family than you are.  And has already been cited here, the police don't actually have a duty to protect you or your family; they have a duty to protect the interests of the state, which may or may not include protecting you.
I'm not sure anyone is arguing against the safety of families. The objections are more linked to the externalities (guns get outside of homes and self defence scenarios) and the effectiveness of the plan (a gun won't improve every situation and massively increases the potential for error). Part of the problem that gun control arguments need to address though is the American police force. If we're going to suggest that people trust professionals to handle these situations then we need a degree of professionalism from them.

Exactly.  And if I have a gun that doesn't help my child at school.  I honestly can't believe the arguments for teachers being armed and having people with guns patrolling schools.  Really???  That's supposed to be the solution???  OMFG how about just getting rid of the goddamn guns already???

But yeah, the guns are already there.  For the sake of posterity though it really doesn't seem like trying to arm the population to the teeth is the way American society should be headed.  The only future where that sounds like a good idea is the zombie apocalypse.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #9058 on: July 07, 2015, 03:27:43 PM »
Here, the nut job has a gun.

True, but then so can you.  No one is better positioned, nor more motivated, to protect your own family than you are.  And has already been cited here, the police don't actually have a duty to protect you or your family; they have a duty to protect the interests of the state, which may or may not include protecting you.
I'm not sure anyone is arguing against the safety of families.

Well, not here. But I have had those conversations before. There really are people who believe that it's morally preferable to die after a rape than to buy a gun. In most cases, those don't use those exact words; but more than once, I have heard that exact phrase.  So please, don't assume that just because you are reasonable, that everyone that advocates for increased gun control is willing to stop with "reasonable gun regulations".

Quote

 The objections are more linked to the externalities (guns get outside of homes and self defence scenarios) and the effectiveness of the plan (a gun won't improve every situation and massively increases the potential for error).


Those are fine objections, but they don't change the fact that a personal firearm is the single most effective means of self-defense humanity has ever devised, and almost any regulation that prevents a rational & (otherwise) law abiding individual from access to that technology is a violation of her basic human right to defense of self.  The absolute, or even relative, effectiveness of that method is highly debatable; but also entirely irrelevant.  Either a human being has the right to life, or they don't.  If I own myself, then I have a right to defend myself; but if I don't have that right, then I must not own myself.  Who owns you?

Quote

 Part of the problem that gun control arguments need to address though is the American police force. If we're going to suggest that people trust professionals to handle these situations then we need a degree of professionalism from them.

Oh, I completely agree with that statement.  Good luck with that, though.  Policemen are still human beings, with all their own failings & biases and bigotry.  It was the police that released dogs upon black protestors in the South during the 1960's.

LennStar

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1037
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #9059 on: July 07, 2015, 03:32:02 PM »

Gun and (all) crime dont have a correlation. Stricter gun control lowers domestic murders and "accidents" a lot,

Feel free to support that statement with actual facts.
Quote

Quote
Notice that such an event is actually rare enough to be news,
Notice that in other countries with less guns such a thing doesnt happen at all.


Is that so?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers_%28Europe%29

This is just Europe, but notice, if you will, that every one of them occurred in nations with stricter gun control regulations.
2. What connection has that list to - link quote - idaho-walmart-shooting-accident-mother-toddler ?

1. First part should be self evident: You dont prevent a burglar in a shop or a car stealing when there is no one there, if that person has a gun or not.
Second part: Feel free to browse criminal statistics, but keep in mind that definitions vary.
In germany with ~80 million people in 2014 there were 630 tried murders, 40% succeded, 80 (12,7%) carried a gun (does not mean fired).
To compare: in 1994 there were 1146 tries, 52,3% succeded, 220 carried (19,2%) guns. More guns, higher success rates - this trend is jumping around a bit over the years, but seems quite linear.

For comparism: USA 2006 (only year-tab I found in the german WP):
14990 murders, 10177 with gun (67,9%)
Overall germany: 0,9 incidents per 100K people, USA 5 per 100K.
Also quote:
New Hampshire und South Dakota have rates comparable to Germany, while  Alabama, Kalifornien und Texas have up to 25-times the amount of gun incidents as Germany.

I dont know about the first 3, but I think California and Texas have the opposite of strict gun laws.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #9060 on: July 07, 2015, 03:39:10 PM »
  And if I have a gun that doesn't help my child at school.

There is a high corrolation between gun ownership and homeschooling. There might be a connection there.

Quote
I honestly can't believe the arguments for teachers being armed and having people with guns patrolling schools.  Really???  That's supposed to be the solution???  OMFG how about just getting rid of the goddamn guns already???

How would you propose to "get rid of the GD guns" exactly?  Do you honestly believe that making a felon out of myself, and people like myself, will achieve that end?

Quote

But yeah, the guns are already there.  For the sake of posterity though it really doesn't seem like trying to arm the population to the teeth is the way American society should be headed.

Why not? It's been pretty close to that in the past, and yet, here we are.  There was a time in our history that is was a fine in Massachusetts to fail to bring a firearm to public gatherings.  The old saying "an armed society is a polite society" is historicly true.  Once upon a time, Japan was one of the most heavily armed populations in the world (with weapons other than firearms), and their older generations complain that their society is becoming less polite with each passing generation.  Their might be a connection there as well.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3131
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #9061 on: July 07, 2015, 03:41:53 PM »
Well, not here. But I have had those conversations before. There really are people who believe that it's morally preferable to die after a rape than to buy a gun. In most cases, those don't use those exact words; but more than once, I have heard that exact phrase.  So please, don't assume that just because you are reasonable, that everyone that advocates for increased gun control is willing to stop with "reasonable gun regulations".

The other thing is that what people usually suggest as "reasonable" gun laws are completely ineffective.  "Oh, yeah, you can have a hunting rifle or shotgun, but you can't have an AR-15, that's a reasonable gun law."  Guess what, you get to pick, you want me to shoot you with my hunting rifle, a .308 Winchester with a nice wooden stock that looks all antiquey, or that scary black AR-15 that looks all mean and evil and terrible?  Choose carefully.  And someone on here has the name "shoulderthingthatgoesup" which is a reference to a gungrabber Senator from NY, who was supporting a bill that banned guns with certain characteristics (basically trying to ban AR-15s) including a barrel shroud.  When pressed, she said the barrel shroud was the "shoulder thing that goes up."  In reality, a barrel shroud is, just as name suggests, a shroud over the barrel to provide a place to handle the weapon without having to touch a (potentially hot) barrel.  So the person writing the bills to outlaw stuff has no idea what they are outlawing.  This are "reasonable gun laws"?!?!  And after the Sandy Hook tragedy, gun grabbers were all over trying to ban the AR-15.  Because it was used, and because it's scary looking, goddammit!  Well, go compare the number of AR-15s used to commit crimes against, say, the 9MM pistol, .38 revolver, or even .22 pistol.  It's not even close.  More "reasonable gun laws".  That's why a lot of us think there's no such thing as a "reasonable gun law" (I'd argue the firearms act of 1934 is a decent compromise) proposed these days.   

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3131
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #9062 on: July 07, 2015, 03:43:32 PM »
I dont know about the first 3, but I think California and Texas have the opposite of strict gun laws.


I am having a hard time reading your post, but the above sentance, either way I read it it's wrong.  CA and TX basically have gun laws on the far extremes from one another.  TX is "lax" and CA is very strict. 

klystomane

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 179
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #9063 on: July 07, 2015, 03:52:24 PM »
So far, the pro-gun advocates that I've listened to (I dare not argue with them) have stated the following (or a combination of) reasons for why guns should continue to exist:

1. Second amendment from the 18th century (because we live in the past and never change), right to bear arms, protect ourselves from terrorists and grizzly bears, etc.
2. We may have a billion guns but only 2 gun associated deaths a year, so it's okay - 2 deaths a year are worth sacrificing for the billion people that want to shoot stuff up the other 363 days of the year (although I think we're already well into double digits this year among the cases that we know of)
3. You can outlaw guns, but people will find other ways to hurt you anyway (i.e. bombs that require planning, time and skill to make, etc.).
4. Guns don't kill people, people kill people (sometimes with guns).
5. All them other countries that don't have access to guns are doing it wrong (okay, I made this one up).

I might be missing some other points...this is all I can remember so far though. Maybe I should stroke a pistol to stimulate the brain a bit.

'murica!

gimp

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2359
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #9064 on: July 07, 2015, 03:52:31 PM »

shelivesthedream

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3711
  • Location: London, UK
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #9065 on: July 07, 2015, 03:57:36 PM »
Here, the nut job has a gun.

True, but then so can you.

An eye for an eye, and soon we will all be blind. I just don't understand this American obsession with defending yourself. I have never had to defend myself against violence or home intrusion and I do not know anyone (even a friend of a friend) who has. Yet y'all seem to be convinced there is an axe murderer round every corner. Sure, criminals can get guns in the UK but most gun crime here is stuff like gang warfare, not guns being turned on strangers. I do not want to live in a world where everyone has a killing machine in their pocket. It's a really sad view of humanity. People are, by and large, law abiding and reasonable. If there is a problem, we have the police. And seriously, unless you have your gun with you all the time, odds are you're going to be in the wrong room when the gun-wielding nut crashes through your front window so won't be able to get it and 'defend' yourself anyway. The only gun-based self-defence I can take seriously is against wild animals, which I know exist in America more than the UK.

Q: Y'all go on about this "inalienable right" to defend yourself. We have the human right to freedom from violence, putting the onus on others to not be violent/the state to protect you, rather than assuming that everyone is out to get you and you need to be prepared for the "evil other". Do any other countries have the right to defend yourself violently in their constitution?

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #9066 on: July 07, 2015, 03:57:59 PM »

Gun and (all) crime dont have a correlation. Stricter gun control lowers domestic murders and "accidents" a lot,

Feel free to support that statement with actual facts.
Quote

Quote
Notice that such an event is actually rare enough to be news,
Notice that in other countries with less guns such a thing doesnt happen at all.


Is that so?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers_%28Europe%29

This is just Europe, but notice, if you will, that every one of them occurred in nations with stricter gun control regulations.
2. What connection has that list to - link quote - idaho-walmart-shooting-accident-mother-toddler ?


Well, nothing.  But that wasn't what I was responding to. Feel free to read the quoted part above for the first time.

Quote
1. First part should be self evident: You dont prevent a burglar in a shop or a car stealing when there is no one there, if that person has a gun or not.


Not correct, nor self-evident. The statistical evidence that exists proves that an increasing percentage of people that own & actually carry a firearm in public acts as a general deterant against crime.  That was the basic conclusions on the largest study on the subject ever funded, and by gun control advocates.  They didn't like the conclusions, but they were published anyway. The title is More Guns, Less Crime by John Lott.  Even he said he was surprised by the outcome, but as a scientist he could not look at the evidence and maintain his position on the matter.

Quote
Second part: Feel free to browse criminal statistics, but keep in mind that definitions vary.
In germany with ~80 million people in 2014 there were 630 tried murders, 40% succeded, 80 (12,7%) carried a gun (does not mean fired).
To compare: in 1994 there were 1146 tries, 52,3% succeded, 220 carried (19,2%) guns. More guns, higher success rates - this trend is jumping around a bit over the years, but seems quite linear.

Your opinion on what seems to be linear is not a logical argument.

Quote

For comparism: USA 2006 (only year-tab I found in the german WP):
14990 murders, 10177 with gun (67,9%)
Overall germany: 0,9 incidents per 100K people, USA 5 per 100K.
Also quote:
New Hampshire und South Dakota have rates comparable to Germany, while  Alabama, Kalifornien und Texas have up to 25-times the amount of gun incidents as Germany.


I'm going to point out here that both New Hampshire and South Dakota have gun ownership rates vastly higher than Germany's, as well as California's.  At the same time, Alabama and Texas (and everywhere else in the US, as far as I am aware) are vastly more diverse than Germany.  The US is a nation of blending cultures, and sometimes such blending results in conflicts that nearly homogeneous societies such as Germany & Japan don't suffer from.  So to compare the violent crime rates of the US to such nations in Europe is not so straight forward, to put it in the kindest way I can.

Quote
I dont know about the first 3, but I think California and Texas have the opposite of strict gun laws.

California is pretty strict, although less strict than Germany; but at the same time, the legal ownership rate California is very low.  Of course, Germany is typically considered the most restrictive of gun regulations among all Western nations; and yet, amazingly, there are still guns there.

dsmexpat

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 223
  • Age: 30
  • Location: New Mexico
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #9067 on: July 07, 2015, 04:00:48 PM »
Here, the nut job has a gun.

True, but then so can you.  No one is better positioned, nor more motivated, to protect your own family than you are.  And has already been cited here, the police don't actually have a duty to protect you or your family; they have a duty to protect the interests of the state, which may or may not include protecting you.
I'm not sure anyone is arguing against the safety of families.

Well, not here. But I have had those conversations before. There really are people who believe that it's morally preferable to die after a rape than to buy a gun. In most cases, those don't use those exact words; but more than once, I have heard that exact phrase.  So please, don't assume that just because you are reasonable, that everyone that advocates for increased gun control is willing to stop with "reasonable gun regulations".

Quote

 The objections are more linked to the externalities (guns get outside of homes and self defence scenarios) and the effectiveness of the plan (a gun won't improve every situation and massively increases the potential for error).


Those are fine objections, but they don't change the fact that a personal firearm is the single most effective means of self-defense humanity has ever devised, and almost any regulation that prevents a rational & (otherwise) law abiding individual from access to that technology is a violation of her basic human right to defense of self.  The absolute, or even relative, effectiveness of that method is highly debatable; but also entirely irrelevant.  Either a human being has the right to life, or they don't.  If I own myself, then I have a right to defend myself; but if I don't have that right, then I must not own myself.  Who owns you?

Quote

 Part of the problem that gun control arguments need to address though is the American police force. If we're going to suggest that people trust professionals to handle these situations then we need a degree of professionalism from them.

Oh, I completely agree with that statement.  Good luck with that, though.  Policemen are still human beings, with all their own failings & biases and bigotry.  It was the police that released dogs upon black protestors in the South during the 1960's.
My proposed regulations wouldn't be seen as reasonable by you so don't paint me with a reasonable brush yet.

Firearms are by no means perfect and I have no idea how you get from "human beings have a right to defend themselves" to "human beings must have access to any technology that allows them to defend themselves, regardless of external costs to society as a whole". Your argument is an excellent argument in favour of the right to own a nuclear weapon. Guns are fine for your run of the mill rapist but they won't do shit against a drone strike. They won't help you when criminals on Wall Street decide to repossess your house. They certainly won't protect you from Kremlin Joe. What will protect you is the threat of MAD, those fuckers won't touch you if they know you'll just burn it all down at the first sign of trouble.

Now obviously I'm being absurd and you can't have a nuclear weapon, even if the threats to your existence are far more likely to come from Wall Street or Washington than they are to be a rapist after your family and even if it'd be a much more useful deterrent for either of those. You can't have a nuclear weapon because if I let you have one then I have to let other people have one and some dumb fuck would sell it to a terrorist and another would get confused in the night and accidentally use it on his neighbour, someone's kid would obliterate a state playing with one and those suicidal people, well, they're gonna take a lot of innocents with them. So even though it is indisputably the most effective tool for dealing with the real threats to your liberty and property on a day to day basis I can't let you have one. And I can't let you have a gun either.

Your right to self defence does not come without limitations. And you know that, or else you'd want your tactical nuke. It's not some natural, God-given thing that you're born with, it's a negotiation that you make with the people who you share the world with. If we agree that tactical nukes aren't a good idea then we agree that there is no basic right to self that means you can own any weapon you like. From there on we only disagree on where the tradeoff between personal freedom and societal good should be. And that's fine by me honestly.

swick

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2899
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #9068 on: July 07, 2015, 04:07:50 PM »
MOD NOTE: An ongoing  debate over guns is veering way off topic. If you feel the need, start an "off topic" thread and copy over the relevant posts.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #9069 on: July 07, 2015, 04:31:10 PM »
Firearms are by no means perfect and I have no idea how you get from "human beings have a right to defend themselves" to "human beings must have access to any technology that allows them to defend themselves, regardless of external costs to society as a whole". Your argument is an excellent argument in favour of the right to own a nuclear weapon.

Except that guns are capable of being precise, while nukes (like hand grenades) are indiscriminate weapons.  Every concealed carry license holder knows, due to the training requirements of their license, that they are legally responsible for what happens to every bullet that leaves their firearm, regardless of whether or not their use of force was justifiable under law or not.  Said another way, if a CC holder were to ever draw their weapon in self-defense, and then fire said weapon, if it does *not* hit their attacker, they are responsible for any harm it causes.  Period.  Additionally, when I'm carrying concealed, I'm not legally alllowed to mention that fact unprompted, lest it be considered a threat.  There is no condition that a nuke or a grenade can be discriminating.  That said, hand grenades & automatic firearms are legal & licensed in this country as well, and beyond the purview of states.  It's called a Class III license, and they are more common than you might imagine.  The ATF makes a point to check every time this event happens...

http://www.knobcreekrange.com/events/featured-events/machine-gun-shoot

It's held very close to where I live, and it's very loud.  The GE Minigun rental is particularly cool, but the ammunition costs about $20 per second.  And yes, there are explosives traded there, under the watchful eye of the ATF.  When was the last time you heard of a legally owned bomb killing anyone?  Never?

This event is also very popular with men at my workplace; which is all union and nearly all Democrat.  Good luck getting those Southern liberals to tow that gun control line.

Quote
Guns are fine for your run of the mill rapist but they won't do shit against a drone strike. They won't help you when criminals on Wall Street decide to repossess your house. They certainly won't protect you from Kremlin Joe. What will protect you is the threat of MAD, those fuckers won't touch you if they know you'll just burn it all down at the first sign of trouble.

The run of the mill rapist is the greater threat, as far as I'm concerned.

Quote

Now obviously I'm being absurd and you can't have a nuclear weapon, even if the threats to your existence are far more likely to come from Wall Street or Washington than they are to be a rapist after your family and even if it'd be a much more useful deterrent for either of those. You can't have a nuclear weapon because if I let you have one then I have to let other people have one and some dumb fuck would sell it to a terrorist and another would get confused in the night and accidentally use it on his neighbour, someone's kid would obliterate a state playing with one and those suicidal people, well, they're gonna take a lot of innocents with them. So even though it is indisputably the most effective tool for dealing with the real threats to your liberty and property on a day to day basis I can't let you have one. And I can't let you have a gun either.


It never was up to you.  I think you might have a coronary if I actually told you what I do own.  I'm listed on a federal register.  For similar reasons, cops in my state don't do 'no knock' swat raids. Too dangerous.

Quote
Your right to self defence does not come without limitations. And you know that, or else you'd want your tactical nuke. It's not some natural, God-given thing that you're born with, it's a negotiation that you make with the people who you share the world with.

It does come with limitations, but not of your choosing.  And yes, my right to self-defense is, most certainly, a natural right.  A God-given one, even.  It is not negotiatable at all, your disagreement does not alter that in any way.  You are free to choose not to own a gun, but you are not free to impose such decisions upon others.  If you think otherwise, you don't understand what natural rights actually are.

[/quote]
 If we agree that tactical nukes aren't a good idea then we agree that there is no basic right to self that means you can own any weapon you like. From there on we only disagree on where the tradeoff between personal freedom and societal good should be. And that's fine by me honestly.
[/quote]

That's not fine by me, honestly.  And no, just because we can agree that nukes are a bad idea; it does not follow that there is not a basic right to self defense.  Nor did I claim that I can own any weapon I like, but certainly any weapon that I can actually use in a discrimatory (and thus, defensive) manner.  (I actually own some, legally, that don't qualify under the above rule)  As far as I'm concerned, the above argument against nukes applies almost as well to whole governments, but particularly the only one that has actually used some to kill civilians during a state of war.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #9070 on: July 07, 2015, 04:33:48 PM »
MOD NOTE: An ongoing  debate over guns is veering way off topic. If you feel the need, start an "off topic" thread and copy over the relevant posts.

Honestly, I'm not that dedicated to this. So I'll drop it if others will.

4alpacas

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1836
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #9071 on: July 07, 2015, 04:34:10 PM »

klystomane

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 179
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #9072 on: July 07, 2015, 04:38:07 PM »
J'mone page 200...!

dsmexpat

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 223
  • Age: 30
  • Location: New Mexico
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #9073 on: July 07, 2015, 04:46:07 PM »
MOD NOTE: An ongoing  debate over guns is veering way off topic. If you feel the need, start an "off topic" thread and copy over the relevant posts.

Honestly, I'm not that dedicated to this. So I'll drop it if others will.
Nor I. Mail me if you want to continue in private but the gist of what I was trying to say was that I don't think it's a matter of absolutes and that while we obviously disagree on the one key issue we're both around the same place in a very long slope from nothing being legal to everything being legal.

Nevermind: I read through your post and we disagree pretty fundamentally about how rights work within a society. You do believe it's a matter of absolutes and I very much do not. But it's all good, this isn't the topic for it.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2015, 04:54:18 PM by dsmexpat »

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8052
  • Registered member
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #9074 on: July 07, 2015, 05:12:29 PM »
MOD NOTE: An ongoing  debate over guns is veering way off topic. If you feel the need, start an "off topic" thread and copy over the relevant posts.

Honestly, I'm not that dedicated to this. So I'll drop it if others will.
Nor I. Mail me if you want to continue in private but the gist of what I was trying to say was that I don't think it's a matter of absolutes and that while we obviously disagree on the one key issue we're both around the same place in a very long slope from nothing being legal to everything being legal.

Nevermind: I read through your post and we disagree pretty fundamentally about how rights work within a society. You do believe it's a matter of absolutes and I very much do not. But it's all good, this isn't the topic for it.

Good thing you snuck that in under the traditional "mod warning, plus two offending posts" limit

klystomane

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 179
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #9075 on: July 07, 2015, 05:21:32 PM »
So I just stepped out into the back parking lot at work to make a call and I took a look at the cars that were parked there:

Civic Si
Minivan
SUV
SUV
Truck
Truck
Truck

Earlier today, I saw somebody's (presumably) mother drive up in a newish Honda, approach one of the SUV's, and leave a lunchbox inside.

I guess partial points for "bringing" a lunch?

PMG

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 977
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #9076 on: July 07, 2015, 05:49:45 PM »
I'm the project leader, but not the boss. We have a regular Thursday 6pm meeting.  We skipped it last week because a lot of people were out of town.

Frantic text at 5:50 pm:  I don't have gas.  Is it ok if I don't make it to tonights meeting?

Awkward, I'm not the boss, I can't excuse her, but it's irrelevant since there isn't a meeting.

Me: We don't have a meeting this evening.  We sent reminders out on Monday that we not meeting this week, but will next.

Frantic: OH! I haven't checked my email this week.

I did not comment on her facebook addiction, and her dad paying for her smart phone and how you can't hold a conversation with her without her looking at her phone. How does she not check her email?  Work related email, that she's getting paid to check.  A huge part of her job is networking and communicating.  The boss is too generous.   

I'm trying to figure out how to only do my part of the work without letting her sloppiness hurt the project or me.

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 27156
  • Age: -999
  • Location: Traveling the World
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #9077 on: July 07, 2015, 05:53:25 PM »
Good thing you snuck that in under the traditional "mod warning, plus two offending posts" limit

Just barely.

We are two former teachers who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, and now travel the world full time with two kids.
If you want to know more about me, or how we did that, or see lots of pictures, this Business Insider profile tells our story pretty well.
We (occasionally) blog at AdventuringAlong.com.
You can also read my forum "Journal."

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.

dsmexpat

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 223
  • Age: 30
  • Location: New Mexico
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #9079 on: July 07, 2015, 06:51:24 PM »
Not enough red, white and blue. 1/10 possibly French

ShoulderThingThatGoesUp

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2990
  • Location: Emmaus, PA
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #9080 on: July 08, 2015, 04:39:02 AM »
The funny thing is, I even have an "overheard at work" story...

My employer is pretty happy to let the people in my line of work live anywhere they want. This worked out great for me because I greatly lowered my cost of living, but I work with a guy who moved from the Southeast to the Bay Area. Naturally he didn't get a COL increase from a self-initiated move, so now he tries to hoard work so he can get overtime, which makes him unpopular with the bosses and means he likely won't get very good raises or promotions.

Manguy888

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 247
  • Location: Rhode Island
    • EA Mann, Writer
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #9081 on: July 08, 2015, 05:53:26 AM »
Guys, if I want to hear politically charged gun arguments I'll visit literally any news site on the internet.

Please go back on topic and keep this forum a sanctuary for me!

SMP

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 82
  • Age: 35
  • Location: NRW, Germany
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #9082 on: July 08, 2015, 05:57:07 AM »
Guys, if I want to hear politically charged gun arguments I'll visit literally any news site on the internet.

Please go back on topic and keep this forum a sanctuary for me!
+1

Sibley

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3122
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Chicago, IL
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #9083 on: July 08, 2015, 07:40:09 AM »
I'm not touching the politics of this, but the event is relevant. Illinois doesn't have a budget passed, and there was a court ruling yesterday that basically said a bunch of state employees aren't getting paid until there is.

So, on the train to work this morning, there's 2 people near me talking about this. One guy works for the state. The woman has an adult disabled child and gets respite care, and it's state funded, so she's losing the respite. Both are 40s or 50s.

I chimed in and said hope all works out, and isn't it great to have an emergency fund to get you through stuff like this. The guy laughed and said not with 2 kids and a wife.

All I could think was, seriously? I have an emergency fund, I can get by for 2-3 months and I'm not in great shape yet!

solon

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1353
  • Age: 1817
  • Location: CO
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #9084 on: July 08, 2015, 07:53:19 AM »
I'm not touching the politics of this, but the event is relevant. Illinois doesn't have a budget passed, and there was a court ruling yesterday that basically said a bunch of state employees aren't getting paid until there is.

So, on the train to work this morning, there's 2 people near me talking about this. One guy works for the state. The woman has an adult disabled child and gets respite care, and it's state funded, so she's losing the respite. Both are 40s or 50s.

I chimed in and said hope all works out, and isn't it great to have an emergency fund to get you through stuff like this. The guy laughed and said not with 2 kids and a wife.

All I could think was, seriously? I have an emergency fund, I can get by for 2-3 months and I'm not in great shape yet!

Seems like 2 kids and a wife would make an emergency fund all the more critical.

benjenn

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 284
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Gulf Shores, AL
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #9085 on: July 08, 2015, 08:13:41 AM »
This wasn't really overheard at work since it was actually said TO me by the person who is taking my position when I leave the end of this month. She is going to be gone the last two weeks of the month - my last two weeks here - because of jaw surgery - so I will have no time to train her on anything.  I gave her a 43 page document (my continuity plan, DH calls it) last week when it was first announced she got the job.  It has pretty much everything in it that she will need to know - things that no one else in this office knows a thing about.

This past Monday she came to me to ask about a four-day camp for almost 100 eighth graders the first week in August  that she'll now be completely  in charge of.  I told her I think I've got most everything set... speakers, demonstrations, schedules, cabin assignments, etc.  She listened for a bit and then said "oh, well... I'll just wing it... it's not like the kids will know the difference anyway."

Then she asked about something else and I told her that was explained in detail in the document I gave her last week. (I even added a table of contents that is linked so you just click on the table of contents and it takes you directly to the part of the document you want to go to!)   She said "Yeah, I should probably read that."

Wow and wow.  I'm just shaking my head and repeating to myself over and over again "not my circus, not my monkeys...."

infogoon

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 846
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #9086 on: July 08, 2015, 08:44:21 AM »
Have you considered that overall (nationwide) lax gun laws more or less invalidate local restrictions on their purchase?
I don't know why NYC, SF, etc. even bother trying when you can just drive out into the county and pick up an arsenal.

For whatever reason, this tends to get ignored. The guns used by criminals in places like Chicago and New York come from nearby areas where they're easy to get, like Indiana and Virginia. It's impossible to outlaw something effectively if it's obtainable nearby and there are no checkpoints for contraband in between.

Witness the virtual caravan of cars from Western New York to the fireworks stores in Western Pennsylvania every July 3rd.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11570
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #9087 on: July 08, 2015, 08:58:44 AM »
Most of the guns used by criminals in Canada come from the USA as well.  It's part of why the average Canadian isn't a huge fan of the gun laws south of the border.

Vertical Mode

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 485
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Boston, MA
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #9088 on: July 08, 2015, 10:36:49 AM »
The real question is, are these guns orange or black? And are they effective at dispersing dense foam? ;-)

OT, my workplace is generally not egregiously anti-Mustachian, so I don't usually have much fodder to contribute here. We do often have the parade of people running out to buy expensive lunches, though.

klystomane

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 179
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #9089 on: July 08, 2015, 10:48:02 AM »
The real question is, are these guns orange or black? And are they effective at dispersing dense foam? ;-)

OT, my workplace is generally not egregiously anti-Mustachian, so I don't usually have much fodder to contribute here. We do often have the parade of people running out to buy expensive lunches, though.

What would you consider to be an expensive lunch?

I occasionally go out for lunch (maybe once every 1-2 weeks) and spend <$10, but since joining MMM, I find myself cringing at even having to do that.

MrsPotts

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 133
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #9090 on: July 08, 2015, 10:48:41 AM »
Here, the nut job has a gun.

True, but then so can you.

An eye for an eye, and soon we will all be blind. I just don't understand this American obsession with defending yourself. I have never had to defend myself against violence or home intrusion and I do not know anyone (even a friend of a friend) who has. Yet y'all seem to be convinced there is an axe murderer round every corner. Sure, criminals can get guns in the UK but most gun crime here is stuff like gang warfare, not guns being turned on strangers. I do not want to live in a world where everyone has a killing machine in their pocket. It's a really sad view of humanity. People are, by and large, law abiding and reasonable. If there is a problem, we have the police. And seriously, unless you have your gun with you all the time, odds are you're going to be in the wrong room when the gun-wielding nut crashes through your front window so won't be able to get it and 'defend' yourself anyway. The only gun-based self-defence I can take seriously is against wild animals, which I know exist in America more than the UK.

Q: Y'all go on about this "inalienable right" to defend yourself. We have the human right to freedom from violence, putting the onus on others to not be violent/the state to protect you, rather than assuming that everyone is out to get you and you need to be prepared for the "evil other". Do any other countries have the right to defend yourself violently in their constitution?

Hi She!

I noticed that you are from the UK.  Is "y'all" RP or Yorkshire?

Vertical Mode

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 485
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Boston, MA
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #9091 on: July 08, 2015, 11:17:42 AM »
The real question is, are these guns orange or black? And are they effective at dispersing dense foam? ;-)

OT, my workplace is generally not egregiously anti-Mustachian, so I don't usually have much fodder to contribute here. We do often have the parade of people running out to buy expensive lunches, though.

What would you consider to be an expensive lunch?

I occasionally go out for lunch (maybe once every 1-2 weeks) and spend <$10, but since joining MMM, I find myself cringing at even having to do that.

Yup, me too :-) I'd say I go out for lunch maybe once every month or two on average.

Judging by the assortment of things they return with, they can't be getting out of there for less than $12-15 a pop. Which isn't too unreasonable, but it's EVERY DAY. That's gotta really add up.

cloudsail

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 263
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #9092 on: July 08, 2015, 12:39:58 PM »
The real question is, are these guns orange or black? And are they effective at dispersing dense foam? ;-)

OT, my workplace is generally not egregiously anti-Mustachian, so I don't usually have much fodder to contribute here. We do often have the parade of people running out to buy expensive lunches, though.

What would you consider to be an expensive lunch?

I occasionally go out for lunch (maybe once every 1-2 weeks) and spend <$10, but since joining MMM, I find myself cringing at even having to do that.

Yeah, same here, lunches in SF downtown are expensive.  $10 is the bare minimum here.  We get catered lunch once a week, and I work from home a lot so thankfully lunch isn't too big an issue, but I used to eat out about once a week.  Since joining MMM if I'm in the office and there's no catered food, I bring lunch or eat the free snacks.  We have things like bread, peanut butter, cheese, humus, salami, avocados, even hard boiled eggs sometimes, so there's no really no need to buy your lunch.

I don't know if it's just workplace culture differences, but it does seem like most of my co-workers are pretty Mustachian too.  We tell each other about free leftover food.  A lot of people eat the free snacks for lunch like me.  A bunch of the engineers were talking about Trunk Club the other day and all of us were flabbergasted by the high price point and a frequent question was: "Who the heck would pay this price for a t-shirt/pair of jeans/swim trunks/etc.??"

shelivesthedream

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3711
  • Location: London, UK
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #9093 on: July 08, 2015, 12:44:42 PM »
Hi She!

I noticed that you are from the UK.  Is "y'all" RP or Yorkshire?

Ha! What a wonderful question! I'm very RP in real life, and while I think of myself as having no particular accent am often roundly ribbed for being 'posh'.

"Y'all" is not English at all and I have never heard anyone use it in real life, expect Texans on TV. However, I spend enough time online to be aware of many Americanisms. Most are degenerate and reprehensible (JOKE) but there are one or two which are quite useful. I studied several Romance languages at school and always appreciated being able to distinguish between the singular 'you' and the plural 'you', especially on the internet where tone fails can result in a lot of fallout. I therefore took to using "y'all" when I mean "you people generally" as it lessens the chance of an individual poster thinking that I am talking about (and possibly insulting) them personally. In this case I used it to distinguish between "you, the poster I am replying to" and "all of you Americans generally".

Another thing I have picked up is the expression "All hat and no cattle" which I think is just FABULOUS but haven't had a chance to use in real life yet!

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3427
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #9094 on: July 08, 2015, 01:12:30 PM »
Another thing I have picked up is the expression "All hat and no cattle" which I think is just FABULOUS but haven't had a chance to use in real life yet!
I agree on the fabulosity.  The distaff English version is of course the rather vulgar "all fur coat and no knickers" - which I may have thought once or twice but have never yet uttered in company.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #9095 on: July 08, 2015, 01:14:34 PM »
Hi She!

I noticed that you are from the UK.  Is "y'all" RP or Yorkshire?

Ha! What a wonderful question! I'm very RP in real life, and while I think of myself as having no particular accent am often roundly ribbed for being 'posh'.

"Y'all" is not English at all and I have never heard anyone use it in real life, expect Texans on TV. However, I spend enough time online to be aware of many Americanisms. Most are degenerate and reprehensible (JOKE) but there are one or two which are quite useful. I studied several Romance languages at school and always appreciated being able to distinguish between the singular 'you' and the plural 'you', especially on the internet where tone fails can result in a lot of fallout. I therefore took to using "y'all" when I mean "you people generally" as it lessens the chance of an individual poster thinking that I am talking about (and possibly insulting) them personally. In this case I used it to distinguish between "you, the poster I am replying to" and "all of you Americans generally".

Another thing I have picked up is the expression "All hat and no cattle" which I think is just FABULOUS but haven't had a chance to use in real life yet!

Born in Texas, went to school in Boston. Without fail, the first time people from New England or the west coast heard me say "y'all" they would immediately ask if I was from Texas. True story. I didn't know it was so region-specific.

It's not.  I'm from Kentucky, and a lot of conversational contractions are in common use here, including Y'all.  In fact, the Florence, Ky water tower that can be seen from I71 Southbound is painted with a huge "Florence Y'all" even though Florence is an exurb of Cincinnati, Ohio.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3131
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #9096 on: July 08, 2015, 01:15:09 PM »
"all fur coat and no knickers"

That is not without its appeal, actually.  The visual, not the phrase....

Phenix

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 67
  • Location: Ohio
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #9097 on: July 08, 2015, 01:38:16 PM »
Been slowly making my way through this thread since discovering this forum back in October.  I almost gave up during the orange/black box discussion, but I fought through it and here I am today completely caught up and ready to make my contribution for my first post on the forum!

I'm a federal employee working in a finance office full of employees at the GS-12 level and above.  GS-12 employees in my location start out at $71k, but the employee in this post is making around $81k with step increases over the years.  Her husband probably makes around $40k-$50k.  So, household income over $100k, kids are out of the house, and no kids in college.  They have very little saved for retirement, go out for lunch every day (Panera would be a cheap lunch to them so probably >$20/day), constantly give their kids money (both kids have jobs making enough to support themselves), and she constantly complains about their finances.
-They recently built a $200k house because they deserved it, giving them a longer commute in their full size V8 Chevy Trailblazer that might get 16 MPG on a good day (they do ride together to "save money").
-They can't sell their old house that they purchased when they moved here 20+ years ago.  They owe more on it now than what it cost when they bought it (refinanced more than once to pay off CC debt).  The old house is in a slum lord neighborhood.  Most of the houses on their street have recently sold for half of their asking price.  Since it has been up on the market, they have spent close to $20k fixing the place up instead of just dropping the price down $20k as I suggested.
-Her husband smokes a pack a day, orders multiple beers when they go out to eat in the evenings, and has to have the $200/month cable plan.
-Just the other day she was whining about how her husband wants her to pick up a second job (since she has a desk job that is less labor intensive than his) to help foot the bill of the two mortgages.
-Their cell phone bill is in excess of $300/month because their grown kids wanted new smartphones and they put them on the monthly installment plan.

The list goes on and on.  You can tell her what she needs to do, but all she wants is pity and to hear that everything she is doing is okay.  She can't fathom how my wife and I will be able to make it on just my income once we have kids and how outrageous she thinks it is that I "allow" my wife to be a SAHM when "things" are so expensive.  She seems so shocked when I say it was always my intention for my wife to be a SAHM and "things" aren't expensive for us because we don't buy "things" we don't need.

Phenix

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 67
  • Location: Ohio
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #9098 on: July 08, 2015, 01:48:28 PM »
It's not.  I'm from Kentucky, and a lot of conversational contractions are in common use here, including Y'all.  In fact, the Florence, Ky water tower that can be seen from I71 Southbound is painted with a huge "Florence Y'all" even though Florence is an exurb of Cincinnati, Ohio.

It used to say Florence Mall but was changed for legal reasons.  Y'all seems to be a good substitute.  We always stop at that exit on our way down to the lake.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florence_Y'all_Water_Tower

Jouer

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 315
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #9099 on: July 08, 2015, 02:05:44 PM »
I love the Florence Y'all water tower. Ever since driving through a couple of summers ago, I can't say "Florence" without adding the "y'all". Even if talking about Florence, Italy.