Author Topic: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.  (Read 27584 times)

robartsd

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1093
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #300 on: October 06, 2017, 09:17:32 AM »
I'm still waiting for someone to weigh in on Officer McMillan's proposal to make small changes to already accepted legislation that puts us on better footing and more importantly answers the question "how could this have stopped Las Vegas?"
I like his proposal to expand multiple purchase notification to cover both handguns and rifles (other than non-automatic .22's). This would have triggered a notification of gun purchases for both the shooter in the Florida nightclub and the shooter in Las Vegas.

I think is proposal to computerize sales records (with data identifying persons requiring a warrant) also sounds reasonable. If the fear is that the government might decide to confiscate all guns, it is not important if the records are computerized on on microfilm - someone will read the records and dispatch LEOs to pick up the guns either way (perhaps slightly less efficiently if the records are not computerized). From and ideological standpoint, I understand gun rights arguments against the records to be kept but I don't see the argument against computerizing the records.

Travis

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1844
  • Location: Tempe, AZ
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #301 on: October 06, 2017, 09:51:40 AM »
I'm in favor of "shall issue" type gun permits with testing requirements and costs no more onerous than required to get a driver's license (I'd be OK with making it a bit harder to get a driver's license). I also don't think reasonable waiting periods are a bad idea. I have not heard any compelling arguments of such laws being an infringment on the right to keep and bare arms.

The legal argument boils down to "a random clerk behind a desk saying you don't have their permission to exercise a Constitutional right."  Similar arguments have been used recently to try to convince state governments to relax conceal-carry laws. We have the training and licensing requirements for driving because driving is a privilege, not a right.  Owning a gun is a commandment etched in stone, to borrow someone's earlier analogy.
I think this analogy falls apart on it's own.

The Constitution also has the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  While they are rights, you are not given them, you still need to do things to maintain them.  If I commit a crime, I lose my right of liberty, and if the crime is egregious enough I lose my right of life because I will be executed.  Therefore trying to argue that you cannot put rules into place that boil down to someone not giving you permission to exercise a Constitutional right is patently absurd.  Those laws that remove my right to life and liberty and not in the Constitution, they are in the criminal code.  Having rules for guns codified in other legislation is the exact same thing and does not permit anything different than the other example I cited that we do not have a societal uproar about.  No one if saying "you can pry my liberty from my cold dead hands" and submit themselves to the rule of law when they rob the mini mart and get put in jail.  But yet guns are magically different even though they are not.  Both rights are in the Constitution.  We need to stop thinking the Second Amendment is somehow not subject to the same restrictions and is automatically unassailable.

I wonder if anyone has argued before the courts about going to jail or executions contradicting those phrases in the Constitution?  I imagine someone has done the former if for no other reason than to be a troll in front of a judge.  Death penalty opponents constantly argue about "cruel and unusual punishment," but I haven't heard of a case where violating "life and liberty" are the pretense.  We've managed to place caveats on most of the Bill of Rights for arguably good reasons, but the way our legal system works the arguments you stated above don't "count" unless someone has gone to the courts to challenge them. 

Just to clarify, the argument I made earlier wasn't mine, I was just answering the question thrown out there.  I'm not opposed to electronically searchable (with warrant) database of owners. I think it's a criminal waste of resources to have a little office out there somewhere that must catalog and keep millions of paper records in a deliberate effort to stymy the reason they were created to begin with.
My Journal: http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/will-i-or-won't-i-a-home-run-or-a-base-hit/

Unlike some other tech companies or skilled-labor industries, we're always hiring.

www.goarmy.com

dandarc

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3007
  • Age: 35
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #302 on: October 06, 2017, 10:16:46 AM »
I mean, I suppose you could try to appeal a jail or death sentence because they're depriving you of life or liberty, but you'd lose.  See 5th and 14th amendments.  So smart lawyers find other arguments such as "cruel and unusual punishment" or "was due process of law followed in this case?".

accolay

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 578
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #303 on: October 06, 2017, 11:12:58 AM »
There are a ton of Republicans in California, but they're not the ones making the majority of the decisions for the state (hence why it's called "blue.")

Thank you so much. I couldn't have made that clear for myself without your assistance.

accolay

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 578
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #304 on: October 06, 2017, 11:17:32 AM »
Hypothetical: Say we mustered the intestinal fortitude as a nation to change the second Amendment and gun ownership rights legally with due process and the vast majority of states agreeing that this a rational sound way to reduce our gun problems in this country. Would gun people accept that, or would they see that as tyranny?

Discuss amongst yourselves.

A Definite Beta Guy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 518
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #305 on: October 06, 2017, 11:39:06 AM »
Hypothetical: Say we mustered the intestinal fortitude as a nation to change the second Amendment and gun ownership rights legally with due process and the vast majority of states agreeing that this a rational sound way to reduce our gun problems in this country. Would gun people accept that, or would they see that as tyranny?

Discuss amongst yourselves.
Gun people would see that as tyranny. Hypothetical: a sufficient number of people successfully petition to repeal the 13th Amendment. This would be seen as tyranny.

On the other hand, the government would still have popular support in both situations. So if you want to resist the government, you'd probably get crushed.

Peter Parker

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 165
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #306 on: October 06, 2017, 12:02:59 PM »
Hypothetical: Say we mustered the intestinal fortitude as a nation to change the second Amendment and gun ownership rights legally with due process and the vast majority of states agreeing that this a rational sound way to reduce our gun problems in this country. Would gun people accept that, or would they see that as tyranny?

Discuss amongst yourselves.

As I have said before, we don't need to change the 2nd Amendment to deal with guns.  We need a Supreme Court that interprets the 2nd Amendment the way some scholars do and overturn poor case law.  This is why elections matter.

We tend to think there is only one way to interpret the Constitution.  And we think the Supreme Court Justices all look at the Constitution the same way.  But they don’t.  They are human, come to the bench with bias and prejudices, and read our founding father’s work differently.

The 2nd Amendment states:  A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

What does this mean? For me (and some legal scholars) the second part (....”the right of the people to keep and bear arms”) is solely for the purpose of having the first part (having a “well-regulated militia”  for the “security of a free state.”)

If you read it this way too, then you have to ask yourself, what is a “militia?” According to Blacks Law Dictionary, a militia is “The body of citizens in a state, enrolled for the discipline as a military force, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies.”   Further, “enrolled” according to Black’s means “registered; recorded” and “emergencies” according to Black’s is a “sudden unexpected happening, an unforeseen occurrence or condition.”
 
So, it seems to me that people who wish to be part of a militia should register to do so. They should act as a "military force" rather than a bunch of individuals garnishing weapons.   The type of arms they wish to obtain should be regulated for necessity of securing “a free state.”  Further, these arms should only be employed during “emergencies.”

If you read the 2nd Amendment’s phrase that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” creates an individual right that shall not be infringed (and not limited to the notions of a “militia”) then you also have to believe that right would be unfettered by regulation, thus allowing individuals to “bear any arms they wish…”  Automatic rifles?  Fine.  Grenades?  Fine.  Tank?  Fine.  To me this makes no sense.
 
I come down on the side that the right to bear arms is limited to the sole purpose of a controlled, regulated, militia which is needed only for emergencies.

Travis

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1844
  • Location: Tempe, AZ
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #307 on: October 06, 2017, 12:15:37 PM »
Hypothetical: Say we mustered the intestinal fortitude as a nation to change the second Amendment and gun ownership rights legally with due process and the vast majority of states agreeing that this a rational sound way to reduce our gun problems in this country. Would gun people accept that, or would they see that as tyranny?

Discuss amongst yourselves.

As I have said before, we don't need to change the 2nd Amendment to deal with guns.  We need a Supreme Court that interprets the 2nd Amendment the way some scholars do and overturn poor case law.  This is why elections matter.


If you're trying to stack the Supreme Court with justices who all think in a similar way on one issue you could literally have to wait decades.  You'd have to win numerous presidential elections in a row hoping to catch several retiring at the right time, hope the Senate has the majority you need that is willing to approve them, and then bring a case before the court that applies to this scenario.  That's a lot of stars that have to align.  It would be far easier to amend the Constitution.
My Journal: http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/will-i-or-won't-i-a-home-run-or-a-base-hit/

Unlike some other tech companies or skilled-labor industries, we're always hiring.

www.goarmy.com

Peter Parker

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 165
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #308 on: October 06, 2017, 12:30:13 PM »
Hypothetical: Say we mustered the intestinal fortitude as a nation to change the second Amendment and gun ownership rights legally with due process and the vast majority of states agreeing that this a rational sound way to reduce our gun problems in this country. Would gun people accept that, or would they see that as tyranny?

Discuss amongst yourselves.

As I have said before, we don't need to change the 2nd Amendment to deal with guns.  We need a Supreme Court that interprets the 2nd Amendment the way some scholars do and overturn poor case law.  This is why elections matter.


If you're trying to stack the Supreme Court with justices who all think in a similar way on one issue you could literally have to wait decades.  You'd have to win numerous presidential elections in a row hoping to catch several retiring at the right time, hope the Senate has the majority you need that is willing to approve them, and then bring a case before the court that applies to this scenario.  That's a lot of stars that have to align.  It would be far easier to amend the Constitution.

It takes 2/3 vote in senate and house to amend the constitution. Good luck with that.

In the last significant gun control case  (District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008) it was a 5-4 decision overturning a handgun ban.  It doesn't take much to change the balance of power.  What is considered "constitutional" when it comes to the Supreme Court can be changed with ONE Supreme Court Justice.  I think you have a better chance of getting a majority in the Supreme Court who views the 2nd Amendment differently  than the current majority than you do amending the constitution....

If people care about gun control, it would help to vote for your president accordingly.  Gun control was one (of many) reasons I voted the way I did.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2017, 12:34:24 PM by Peter Parker »

A Definite Beta Guy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 518
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #309 on: October 06, 2017, 12:36:38 PM »
Do you think this applies to the states, and not to individuals?:
Quote
the right of the people peaceably to assemble

This doesn't even make sense. The states have the right to assemble amongst themselves?

what about this one:
Quote
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects
So, again, any cop can enter my house, at any time, for any reason, sans warrant. After all, the right to be secure applies to the state of Illinois, not the residence of ADBG.

Obviously both these interpretations are nonsense.

So why do you think this means:

Quote
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms
I can't have a gun, only the state of Illinois can have guns?


I suppose we can quibble over the definition of "Arms." It obviously should include 16 ft pikes, for one thing.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9508
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #310 on: October 06, 2017, 12:50:18 PM »
I suppose we can quibble over the definition of "Arms." It obviously should include 16 ft pikes, for one thing.

Nothing to quibble about.  The language is quite clear.  It's the right of the people to own any arms.  Nukes, tanks, mortars, land-mines, grenades, missiles, bombs, bio-weapons, etc.

Travis

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1844
  • Location: Tempe, AZ
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #311 on: October 06, 2017, 01:00:35 PM »
Hypothetical: Say we mustered the intestinal fortitude as a nation to change the second Amendment and gun ownership rights legally with due process and the vast majority of states agreeing that this a rational sound way to reduce our gun problems in this country. Would gun people accept that, or would they see that as tyranny?

Discuss amongst yourselves.

As I have said before, we don't need to change the 2nd Amendment to deal with guns.  We need a Supreme Court that interprets the 2nd Amendment the way some scholars do and overturn poor case law.  This is why elections matter.


If you're trying to stack the Supreme Court with justices who all think in a similar way on one issue you could literally have to wait decades.  You'd have to win numerous presidential elections in a row hoping to catch several retiring at the right time, hope the Senate has the majority you need that is willing to approve them, and then bring a case before the court that applies to this scenario.  That's a lot of stars that have to align.  It would be far easier to amend the Constitution.

It takes 2/3 vote in senate and house to amend the constitution. Good luck with that.

In the last significant gun control case  (District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008) it was a 5-4 decision overturning a handgun ban.  It doesn't take much to change the balance of power.  What is considered "constitutional" when it comes to the Supreme Court can be changed with ONE Supreme Court Justice.  I think you have a better chance of getting a majority in the Supreme Court who views the 2nd Amendment differently  than the current majority than you do amending the constitution....

If people care about gun control, it would help to vote for your president accordingly.  Gun control was one (of many) reasons I voted the way I did.

Or 3/4s of the states.

I imagine a case that redefines the actual verbiage of the Amendment would be a little different than overturning an obvious ban.  There are degrees to how "pro-gun" people are getting a judge to reinterpret case law on gun rights is probably more difficult.  Those feelings apply to Congressional and Presidential elections as well.  While a lot of people are single-issue voters, not everybody is which muddies the waters on who they want representing them.  They might have an opinion on guns, but not as strongly as they have an opinion on education or taxes.
My Journal: http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/will-i-or-won't-i-a-home-run-or-a-base-hit/

Unlike some other tech companies or skilled-labor industries, we're always hiring.

www.goarmy.com

A Definite Beta Guy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 518
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #312 on: October 06, 2017, 01:19:51 PM »
I suppose we can quibble over the definition of "Arms." It obviously should include 16 ft pikes, for one thing.

Nothing to quibble about.  The language is quite clear.  It's the right of the people to own any arms.  Nukes, tanks, mortars, land-mines, grenades, missiles, bombs, bio-weapons, etc.
Unfortunately or fortunately, Miller and Heller both say that certain classes of weapons can be banned if they meet certain conditions. Heller's crazy logic is that a weapon in common use cannot be regulated. So, if machine guns were not banned, and everyone had machine guns, then machine guns couldn't be regulated. (at least that's how I am reading it).

That's why handguns cannot be banned, though bumpfire stocks might be.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9508
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #313 on: October 06, 2017, 01:30:03 PM »
I suppose we can quibble over the definition of "Arms." It obviously should include 16 ft pikes, for one thing.

Nothing to quibble about.  The language is quite clear.  It's the right of the people to own any arms.  Nukes, tanks, mortars, land-mines, grenades, missiles, bombs, bio-weapons, etc.
Unfortunately or fortunately, Miller and Heller both say that certain classes of weapons can be banned if they meet certain conditions. Heller's crazy logic is that a weapon in common use cannot be regulated. So, if machine guns were not banned, and everyone had machine guns, then machine guns couldn't be regulated. (at least that's how I am reading it).

That's why handguns cannot be banned, though bumpfire stocks might be.

What defines common use?

WhiteTrashCash

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 822
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #314 on: October 06, 2017, 02:31:16 PM »
I have given up on trying to get gun control in the United States. It's simply not going to happen. No matter how many people get murdered. These days, I just do my best to avoid public places. Less chance of getting shot.

scottish

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 908
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #315 on: October 06, 2017, 03:33:45 PM »
I have given up on trying to get gun control in the United States. It's simply not going to happen. No matter how many people get murdered. These days, I just do my best to avoid public places. Less chance of getting shot.

:-)    I'm doing my best to avoid the United States!

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1510
  • Age: 185
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #316 on: October 06, 2017, 04:50:17 PM »
In general, I think this is also an issue where people have emotionally-based opinions and then use the arguments that fit their opinion. This is not an uncommon phenomenon. It is interesting in this case because of: the complexity surrounding a rather simply worked constitutional amendment, the abundant statistics both showing ties between gun availability and violence and confounding social factors, the symbolic role of the firearm in the ethos and identity of much of America, the racists and classist overtones of parts of the debate (this applies to arguments to black on black crime and perception of redneck affinity for guns, respectively), the actual practical uses of firearms in hunting and (some would argue) protection/policing, and the grisly impacts of the crimes committed with the firearms. The grisly impact is important because events that are statistical outliers within the broader sobering numbers of gun-deaths have disproportionate social impact due to the broadly shared nature of the experience.

The ultimate problem is that nobody really seems able to change their mind. Thus we remain at a contentious  impasse.

I personally think that, from a safety perspective, training should be a requirement to get a license to buy a gun. Having taken hunter safety courses, there were a lot of people in that room that I would not want to be within miles of if they were also out with a loaded weapon based on their ability to grasp exceptionally simple safety concepts. It was frankly terrifying to think about. And they passed the hunter safety course. Thinking of people with similar or less training attempting to use a gun for home protection or any other purpose is similarly terrifying. And that is before we even get to the issue of what weapons are available for them to purchase relatively easily. I can think of an ex who kept a 44 magnum in a nightstand drawer for home protection in an apartment building. When I asked her if she had thought about how many of the wood-framed walls that bullet would pass through before it stopped and if that was really the best choice for that situation, it drew a blank stare (and not a friendly one).

I think there is plenty of room to point out lack of knowledge about guns in the anti-gun crowd. I have also found shocking lack of care and knowledge on the pro-gun side... and that bothers me a hell of a lot more. ETA: I have also known a lot of people with deep care and proficiency on both sides. This is not intended to paint with too broad a brush. As is often pointed out, those people are not really the problem.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2017, 04:53:25 PM by Glenstache »

Wolfpack Mustacian

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #317 on: October 06, 2017, 06:32:32 PM »
2. Have a voluntary registry of gun owners who are willing to take extensive background checks, register their firearms, take extended safety classes.  These gun owners are allowed to have national concealed carry permit capability, and only they are allowed to carry firearms in most places in the US without legal hassle or worry.  99.99% of these gun owners will most likely be one of the good guys, who will be able to stop an evil person from doing harm or defend themselves if need be.  For everyone else, they will still be subject to the existing patchwork of laws in each jurisdiction, for good or bad.

7.  Look at how well prohibition of alcohol and drugs have worked. Banning guns or severely restricting them may not lead to the panacea many people are so attracted to.  There needs to be better ways to manage gun ownership than just banning evil features or guns.  A gun is merely a tool, that can be used for good or evil.  99.99% of people are good. Give them the chance to use the tools for good, against the 0.01% that is evil.
#2. Why do we need a national concealed carry permit? What's the point of that? Why not just make federal gun laws/background check database to apply across the land. Kinda stupid that you have to check laws when taking firearms across state boarders as it is now. However, I am down with an in depth weapons course every firearms owner should have to complete. While we're at it, why have "voluntary" registration? Should be mandatory along with that firearms course. Once you take the course and pass the federal background check, then you can register the firearm of your choice.

#7. I think alcohol vs weapons is a pretty faulty comparison.

Edit to add...I don't really see that 99% good stopping the 1% evil with all the weapons we already have. One large subset of killers in the US is....toddlers.

First of all, long time reader but my first post. No intention of posting my first post just to stir things up. I’m only posting because I’ve had significant discussions with a friend of mine who has an interesting perspective that I’ve never heard fully fleshed out before. For clarification, he does not drink or own firearms, and I drink, in small amounts and am a supporter of firearms.

Your comment lead to me posting this, because you commented that the alcohol/firearms comparison is not a good one. I wanted to respond, because as I’ve mulled over my friend’s perspective, I’ve actually not been able to think of a better analogy out there (not saying there aren’t any, just that this seems immensely applicable and has shed light on things for me).

The point of view is that alcohol and firearms have a great deal in common but aren't treated remotely similarly.

Alcohol and firearms – Both have ties to significant loss of life, physical harm not directly leading to death, and emotional scarring (fear aspect). The CDC estimates 88,000 alcohol related deaths per year - https://nccd.cdc.gov/DPH_ARDI/Default/Report.aspx?T=AAM&P=f6d7eda7-036e-4553-9968-9b17ffad620e&R=d7a9b303-48e9-4440-bf47-070a4827e1fd&M=8E1C5233-5640-4EE8-9247-1ECA7DA325B9&F=&D, and the number is around 33,000 per year for gun related deaths - https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths/. Both of these include many “self-inflicted” deaths – alcohol consumption hurting the person doing it and suicides via guns, so that part should be remotely comparable. As you can see, alcohol has a greater impact on roughly the order of 2.5 times as many deaths. There are also numerous intangibles (which admittedly, there are with guns as well). These intangibles for alcohol tie into huge issues, such as generational poverty.

The problems if were to ban them. Here, the analogy is slightly different, because we’ve seen how attempting to ban alcohol did not work well but have yet to see how challenging it would be if we were to ban guns (all or a significant subset of guns or guns for a significant subset of people) in America. It would certainly be a tremendous challenge to effectively ban all firearms, as well, so it seems an applicable analogy.

Regulations. This is also a great link between the two to begin to highlight the differences in the ways they are treated. The discussion around guns (with the exception of background checks to see if felonies have been committed and the like) is very much tied into this. People with guns are saying (and rightly so), that they have done nothing wrong and yet restrictions are being placed on them for their guns “for the general good” even though they haven’t done anything in their past to merit being singled out and just because the same generic restrictions will impact some people who do end up using them for ill. This perspective isn’t even remotely taken in regards to alcohol. The only regulations that we have for alcohol are underage, driving, and public intoxication (where they’ve already, to an extent, “abused” it). There are certainly no restrictions on people drinking before they’ve done anything wrong. Even after they have been caught at something (say drunk driving or public intoxication), there are no regulations where they are required not to drink. If they drink and drive, their license to drive may be revoked, but that would not affect the vast majority of the deaths caused by alcohol (roughly 10k out of the 88k). The ability to drink alcohol with the associated death toll tied to it is never curtailed.

The: “I’m a good guy; I don’t hurt anyone.” This is another aspect of both. I can attest that to the best of my knowledge, my drinking has never hurt anyone. I’ve never been intoxicated, never woken up hung over in the morning and thus have not had any of the accompanying problems that are tied to alcohol (drinking and driving, abuse tied to intoxication, etc.). Tons of people drink and never or very rarely hurt others as a result of it (maybe the same can’t be said for themselves). The parallels to guns are obvious. I have never hurt anyone with a firearm as have the vast, vast, number of people who have ever shot a gun much less owned it.

The purpose of each. Firearms are often singled out when compared to other things because “their purpose is to kill.” While this could be debated, the purpose is certainly to cause harm to the thing that you’re shooting at. In “better” circumstances, it’s a deer to eat, a paper target, or someone who breaks into your house intending on harming your family, and of course, it kills innocent people in worse circumstances. Alcohol also has a purpose. The purpose is to be mind altering, as are all drugs. In “better” circumstances, it relaxes you after a hard day with a beer and you enjoy yourself, and of course, it is slow suicide or inhibiting control leading to abuse on the other end. Neither's purpose is really a great thing. Both can and are used in the vast majority of times in a “better” circumstance. Neither is essential for life or happiness.

What are the differences between firearms and alcohol? Well, the percentage of people who use alcohol is substantial higher than those that have firearms. That certainly has an impact, as it's easier to decry something you are not a part of. Additionally, firearm atrocities are given much more attention in the news, which of course is at least in part because it can affect a larger number of people at once (with the possible exception of drunk drivers). Are these reasons why people don’t take a similar approach to the two? If I were guessing, I’d say the first one plays a very large part in it, but that, of course, is purely speculation.

In summary, I saw a Facebook post saying something like “are you not willing to sacrifice your right to have guns if it saved the life of one child.” Although I did not respond to it, I had quite a few thoughts about such an intentionally emotionally charged question in light of the perspective taken by almost everyone on other issues, and the alcohol issue provided a great focal point for the difference in perspective people take. Of course this perspective, even if wholly accepted, does not mean that there should be no gun regulation. The goal is just to compare two things that, from my perspective are treated totally different despite numerous similarities. It is hard to not see this as a very inconsistent perspective.

Roland of Gilead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1571
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #318 on: October 06, 2017, 06:42:30 PM »
I am rather in favor of some gun control but you could do a lot of damage with other things that I don't see how we can ban.

This same guy could have rented a really big truck (even a semi, he was a multi millionaire) and killed 59 people quite easily.

We need nut control and I do not know how to do that.

Hotstreak

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 756
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #319 on: October 06, 2017, 08:04:41 PM »
A controlling plurality of Americans think this result was the lesser of two evils. Life goes on (for most of us anyway).
Agreed.

Our high rate of gun ownership results in our high gun related death rate and high murder rate.

This the price we pay for our right to own guns.

No sane, law-abiding person wants any of these things to happen, the murders, mass shootings, suicides, accidental killings when a kid picks up an unsecured gun. They are the sacrifices we as a nation are willing to make for our freedom and right to own a gun. Let’s just say it.


Look, we do this all the time.  There are huge numbers of regulations that are basically a balancing act between protecting as many people as possible, and unduly burdening others.  As has been pointed out over and over, far more innocent people are killed by drunk drivers than by mass murderers.  Why don't we all have to blow in to a breathalyzer before starting our cars?  Because 10,000 annual deaths is the sacrifice we as a nation are willing to make to avoid the cost and inconvenience of those devices.


Some folks just get so emotional about gun deaths in a way they don't get emotional about other kinds of deaths.  Many gun owners see that as uninformed irrationality, like how an atheist might look at a devout evangelical and just assume they're a crazy religious nut.  I think we can do better than that level of discourse, but it needs to come from all sides - there are good people on all sides.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2661
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #320 on: October 07, 2017, 02:06:45 AM »

We need nut control and I do not know how to do that.
Castration.
Be frugal and industrious, and you will be free (Ben Franklin)

Leisured

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 430
  • Age: 72
  • Location: South east Australia, in country
  • Retired, and loving it.
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #321 on: October 07, 2017, 05:13:44 AM »

GuitarStv makes good points about the possible results of having militias, as specified in the Second Amendment. Will all militias cooperate? Most of the problems in the Middle East are caused by militias. The Second Amendment implies that gun ownership does not mean much unless gun owners are part of a trained, disciplined militia, as opposed to an undisciplined rabble. When the US Constitution was drafted, there was no US army, and militias, usually anti British, took the place of an army. And in reverse, once the new US state had an army, why does it need militias?

The Second Amendment is a privilege, and with privilege comes responsibility. It is a two way street.




A Definite Beta Guy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 518
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #322 on: October 07, 2017, 07:54:23 AM »
I have given up on trying to get gun control in the United States. It's simply not going to happen. No matter how many people get murdered. These days, I just do my best to avoid public places. Less chance of getting shot.

:-)    I'm doing my best to avoid the United States!

The US is a particularly awesome place to be wealthy, and I mean "wealthy" by MMM standards, not Warren Buffet standards. I've never experienced any mugging, any stranger offering me free candy, any gun violence (hell, I barely even see guns), any personal threats to my life or assault (outside of public schools that is!), any quick-sand (for some reason I got the impression this might be a big problem when I was younger).

Now, I've seen many, many relatives get sick or die from their poor diets and lack of exercise. And I've almost been run by over cars numerous times, or seen friends almost get run over by cars.

So those are definitely your biggest risks here.

Also, some people might be getting the impression that the US is just the Wild West, but that's just not the case. The US is a heterogeneous place with many different cultures. So, I have lived all my life in the North Suburbs of the Chicago. Think Ferris Bueller's Day Off, or Mean Girls for a more modern example. Few people here own guns, and those that do generally own few weapons (no 20-rifle arsenals). In fact, the only guy I know who ever had more than 10 guns was a hardcore redneck from Tennessee, who also happened to be an extreme (D). He just loved guns (probably because he grew up in TN), and has no sense of fear (he was a trained forward observer in the Fulda Gap during the 80s, so his life expectancy was about 15 minutes if the balloon went up. He loved it).

So you can likely find pockets of the US were people have almost entirely your own views. The only difference is that your employer will pay your healthcare premiums and your taxes will be lower. The other things you might notice that are different are IMO endearing, like the extreme amount of patriotism. Like, even the Republicans in this area are of the "lower my taxes" kind. You can look up "Mark Kirk" for an idea of how the few (R)s here tend to be. I'm relatively right-wing for this area, and my attitude on gun control would probably get me a D or F rating from the NRA.

We also have a substantially better sports scene in the US. That boring sport where people kick a ball around has no currency, and we have multiple overlapping seasons for sports. Like, Thursday night was the start of the NHL for the Blackhawks (10-1 win), last night was Game 1 of the Baseball playoffs for the Cubs (3-0 win), today is college football day, tomorrow is football Sunday, and Monday Night has the Bears facing off against the Vikings (new QB premiering!). There's always a reason to have a few guy friends over, eat some wings, and drink some beers.


So, you might quite like living here. :P

We do absolutely suck at public transit. That is extremely frustrating.

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 641
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #323 on: October 09, 2017, 08:04:22 AM »

GuitarStv makes good points about the possible results of having militias, as specified in the Second Amendment. Will all militias cooperate? Most of the problems in the Middle East are caused by militias. The Second Amendment implies that gun ownership does not mean much unless gun owners are part of a trained, disciplined militia, as opposed to an undisciplined rabble. When the US Constitution was drafted, there was no US army, and militias, usually anti British, took the place of an army. And in reverse, once the new US state had an army, why does it need militias?

The Second Amendment is a privilege, and with privilege comes responsibility. It is a two way street.

Lets stop with the revisionism. The accepted definition at the time the constitution was written was that 'militia' was the population of fighting age individuals... not specific established groups. With the correct definition of the time in mind, and supported by numerous letters and recorded discussions, it's clear the 2nd was meant to be an individuals right.



Rightflyer

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 275
  • Location: Herefordshire
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #324 on: October 09, 2017, 11:13:14 AM »

GuitarStv makes good points about the possible results of having militias, as specified in the Second Amendment. Will all militias cooperate? Most of the problems in the Middle East are caused by militias. The Second Amendment implies that gun ownership does not mean much unless gun owners are part of a trained, disciplined militia, as opposed to an undisciplined rabble. When the US Constitution was drafted, there was no US army, and militias, usually anti British, took the place of an army. And in reverse, once the new US state had an army, why does it need militias?

The Second Amendment is a privilege, and with privilege comes responsibility. It is a two way street.

Lets stop with the revisionism. The accepted definition at the time the constitution was written was that 'militia' was the population of fighting age individuals... not specific established groups. With the correct definition of the time in mind, and supported by numerous letters and recorded discussions, it's clear the 2nd was meant to be an individuals right.

Interesting. If what you say is true, that could sway me in at least some of the argument.

Can you point me to the evidence backing your claims?

Thanks
Six is having problems adjusting to his clone status.

Travis

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1844
  • Location: Tempe, AZ
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #325 on: October 09, 2017, 11:51:06 AM »

GuitarStv makes good points about the possible results of having militias, as specified in the Second Amendment. Will all militias cooperate? Most of the problems in the Middle East are caused by militias. The Second Amendment implies that gun ownership does not mean much unless gun owners are part of a trained, disciplined militia, as opposed to an undisciplined rabble. When the US Constitution was drafted, there was no US army, and militias, usually anti British, took the place of an army. And in reverse, once the new US state had an army, why does it need militias?

The Second Amendment is a privilege, and with privilege comes responsibility. It is a two way street.

Lets stop with the revisionism. The accepted definition at the time the constitution was written was that 'militia' was the population of fighting age individuals... not specific established groups. With the correct definition of the time in mind, and supported by numerous letters and recorded discussions, it's clear the 2nd was meant to be an individuals right.

Interesting. If what you say is true, that could sway me in at least some of the argument.

Can you point me to the evidence backing your claims?

Thanks

Rightflyer, here is the summary of the Heller decision from 2008.  In this decision's majority opinion, "militia" is any able-bodied male capable of providing for the common defense.  This goes back to a 1939 Court decision backed by laws and interpretations as early as 1811.  He also goes into detail that the operative clause of the 2nd Amendment and a few other places in the Constitution make it clear that those laws are directed at individual rights and nothing requiring a collective of people.  He cited an 1825 Court case where the majority opinion equated that a person is responsible for abuses of the 1st Amendment in the same way he is responsible for abuses of the 2nd Amendment.  The implication there is that you can't be individually responsible for abusing a right unless it's an individual right to begin with.  He admits the wording of the Amendment is a bit odd, but grammatically it would be the same as to say "the individual right to bear arms shall not be infringed so that we can have a well-regulated militia."  The militia is not a requirement to keep and bear arms, but rather a benefit of that right.



https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/07-290P.ZO
My Journal: http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/will-i-or-won't-i-a-home-run-or-a-base-hit/

Unlike some other tech companies or skilled-labor industries, we're always hiring.

www.goarmy.com

hoping2retire35

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1194
  • Location: UPCOUNTRY CAROLINA
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #326 on: October 10, 2017, 06:14:03 AM »
I have noticed this about current SC state law. Every male over the age of 18 is considered part of the militia.

partgypsy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1523
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #327 on: October 10, 2017, 09:08:35 AM »
2. Have a voluntary registry of gun owners who are willing to take extensive background checks, register their firearms, take extended safety classes.  These gun owners are allowed to have national concealed carry permit capability, and only they are allowed to carry firearms in most places in the US without legal hassle or worry.  99.99% of these gun owners will most likely be one of the good guys, who will be able to stop an evil person from doing harm or defend themselves if need be.  For everyone else, they will still be subject to the existing patchwork of laws in each jurisdiction, for good or bad.

7.  Look at how well prohibition of alcohol and drugs have worked. Banning guns or severely restricting them may not lead to the panacea many people are so attracted to.  There needs to be better ways to manage gun ownership than just banning evil features or guns.  A gun is merely a tool, that can be used for good or evil.  99.99% of people are good. Give them the chance to use the tools for good, against the 0.01% that is evil.
#2. Why do we need a national concealed carry permit? What's the point of that? Why not just make federal gun laws/background check database to apply across the land. Kinda stupid that you have to check laws when taking firearms across state boarders as it is now. However, I am down with an in depth weapons course every firearms owner should have to complete. While we're at it, why have "voluntary" registration? Should be mandatory along with that firearms course. Once you take the course and pass the federal background check, then you can register the firearm of your choice.

#7. I think alcohol vs weapons is a pretty faulty comparison.

Edit to add...I don't really see that 99% good stopping the 1% evil with all the weapons we already have. One large subset of killers in the US is....toddlers.

First of all, long time reader but my first post. No intention of posting my first post just to stir things up. I’m only posting because I’ve had significant discussions with a friend of mine who has an interesting perspective that I’ve never heard fully fleshed out before. For clarification, he does not drink or own firearms, and I drink, in small amounts and am a supporter of firearms.

Your comment lead to me posting this, because you commented that the alcohol/firearms comparison is not a good one. I wanted to respond, because as I’ve mulled over my friend’s perspective, I’ve actually not been able to think of a better analogy out there (not saying there aren’t any, just that this seems immensely applicable and has shed light on things for me).

The point of view is that alcohol and firearms have a great deal in common but aren't treated remotely similarly.

Alcohol and firearms – Both have ties to significant loss of life, physical harm not directly leading to death, and emotional scarring (fear aspect). The CDC estimates 88,000 alcohol related deaths per year - https://nccd.cdc.gov/DPH_ARDI/Default/Report.aspx?T=AAM&P=f6d7eda7-036e-4553-9968-9b17ffad620e&R=d7a9b303-48e9-4440-bf47-070a4827e1fd&M=8E1C5233-5640-4EE8-9247-1ECA7DA325B9&F=&D, and the number is around 33,000 per year for gun related deaths - https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths/. Both of these include many “self-inflicted” deaths – alcohol consumption hurting the person doing it and suicides via guns, so that part should be remotely comparable. As you can see, alcohol has a greater impact on roughly the order of 2.5 times as many deaths. There are also numerous intangibles (which admittedly, there are with guns as well). These intangibles for alcohol tie into huge issues, such as generational poverty.

The problems if were to ban them. Here, the analogy is slightly different, because we’ve seen how attempting to ban alcohol did not work well but have yet to see how challenging it would be if we were to ban guns (all or a significant subset of guns or guns for a significant subset of people) in America. It would certainly be a tremendous challenge to effectively ban all firearms, as well, so it seems an applicable analogy.

Regulations. This is also a great link between the two to begin to highlight the differences in the ways they are treated. The discussion around guns (with the exception of background checks to see if felonies have been committed and the like) is very much tied into this. People with guns are saying (and rightly so), that they have done nothing wrong and yet restrictions are being placed on them for their guns “for the general good” even though they haven’t done anything in their past to merit being singled out and just because the same generic restrictions will impact some people who do end up using them for ill. This perspective isn’t even remotely taken in regards to alcohol. The only regulations that we have for alcohol are underage, driving, and public intoxication (where they’ve already, to an extent, “abused” it). There are certainly no restrictions on people drinking before they’ve done anything wrong. Even after they have been caught at something (say drunk driving or public intoxication), there are no regulations where they are required not to drink. If they drink and drive, their license to drive may be revoked, but that would not affect the vast majority of the deaths caused by alcohol (roughly 10k out of the 88k). The ability to drink alcohol with the associated death toll tied to it is never curtailed.

The: “I’m a good guy; I don’t hurt anyone.” This is another aspect of both. I can attest that to the best of my knowledge, my drinking has never hurt anyone. I’ve never been intoxicated, never woken up hung over in the morning and thus have not had any of the accompanying problems that are tied to alcohol (drinking and driving, abuse tied to intoxication, etc.). Tons of people drink and never or very rarely hurt others as a result of it (maybe the same can’t be said for themselves). The parallels to guns are obvious. I have never hurt anyone with a firearm as have the vast, vast, number of people who have ever shot a gun much less owned it.

The purpose of each. Firearms are often singled out when compared to other things because “their purpose is to kill.” While this could be debated, the purpose is certainly to cause harm to the thing that you’re shooting at. In “better” circumstances, it’s a deer to eat, a paper target, or someone who breaks into your house intending on harming your family, and of course, it kills innocent people in worse circumstances. Alcohol also has a purpose. The purpose is to be mind altering, as are all drugs. In “better” circumstances, it relaxes you after a hard day with a beer and you enjoy yourself, and of course, it is slow suicide or inhibiting control leading to abuse on the other end. Neither's purpose is really a great thing. Both can and are used in the vast majority of times in a “better” circumstance. Neither is essential for life or happiness.

What are the differences between firearms and alcohol? Well, the percentage of people who use alcohol is substantial higher than those that have firearms. That certainly has an impact, as it's easier to decry something you are not a part of. Additionally, firearm atrocities are given much more attention in the news, which of course is at least in part because it can affect a larger number of people at once (with the possible exception of drunk drivers). Are these reasons why people don’t take a similar approach to the two? If I were guessing, I’d say the first one plays a very large part in it, but that, of course, is purely speculation.

In summary, I saw a Facebook post saying something like “are you not willing to sacrifice your right to have guns if it saved the life of one child.” Although I did not respond to it, I had quite a few thoughts about such an intentionally emotionally charged question in light of the perspective taken by almost everyone on other issues, and the alcohol issue provided a great focal point for the difference in perspective people take. Of course this perspective, even if wholly accepted, does not mean that there should be no gun regulation. The goal is just to compare two things that, from my perspective are treated totally different despite numerous similarities. It is hard to not see this as a very inconsistent perspective.

Hmm. There are regulations on alcohol. It is illegal to drink or purchase it before a certain age (21 in most states). You have to show your ID to purchase. Cannot give to children. Most places, cannot drink in public or at work. You cannot drink and drive, both cars and a number of vehicles, even bicycles. I'm not going into all the laws and regulations say if you were caught drinking and driving, even before getting into an accident. A 12 year old can be taken to a shooting range and shoot a machine gun, while a 15 year old cannot have a glass of wine with their family.
I think the main thing to remember, is that totally banning guns, as totally banning alcohol is not feasible. But it is entirely feasible to have enforced restrictions on the use of that item. I think perfect is the enemy of good in this situation. In the same way, less restrictions are on some drugs, while thers is an outright ban on other drugs which are harmful and have no medical benefit. In the same way some types of guns can be legal and restricted, while other types of weapons are banned and not allowed for consumer use.   
« Last Edit: October 10, 2017, 09:10:08 AM by partgypsy »

TexasRunner

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 463
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #328 on: October 10, 2017, 09:28:54 AM »
Hmm. There are regulations on alcohol. It is illegal to drink or purchase it before a certain age (21 in most states). You have to show your ID to purchase. Cannot give to children. Most places, cannot drink in public or at work. You cannot drink and drive, both cars and a number of vehicles, even bicycles. I'm not going into all the laws and regulations say if you were caught drinking and driving, even before getting into an accident. A 12 year old can be taken to a shooting range and shoot a machine gun, while a 15 year old cannot have a glass of wine with their family.
I think the main thing to remember, is that totally banning guns, as totally banning alcohol is not feasible. But it is entirely feasible to have enforced restrictions on the use of that item. I think perfect is the enemy of good in this situation. In the same way, less restrictions are on some drugs, while thers is an outright ban on other drugs which are harmful and have no medical benefit. In the same way some types of guns can be legal and restricted, while other types of weapons are banned and not allowed for consumer use.

I'm just gonna bold that statement and see if it sticks out to you.

That is in a controlled environment.  Also note, in Texas the law is that a minor CAN drink at a restaurant (or anywhere except a bar that limits entry to age 21+) if they are with their parent guardian.

I'll leave the rest of your comparisons moot because I really don't see how the analogy plays out in any manner except age.  (IE-  What does drunk driving relate to in gun terms, or are you just making the point about regulation?...)

As far as regulation is concerned...  See attached.
"The mathematical formula for the number of motorcycles you need is   x+1, where x is the number of motorcycles you currently have."

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2611
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #329 on: October 10, 2017, 09:37:10 AM »
Hmm. There are regulations on alcohol. It is illegal to drink or purchase it before a certain age (21 in most states). You have to show your ID to purchase. Cannot give to children. Most places, cannot drink in public or at work. You cannot drink and drive, both cars and a number of vehicles, even bicycles. I'm not going into all the laws and regulations say if you were caught drinking and driving, even before getting into an accident. A 12 year old can be taken to a shooting range and shoot a machine gun, while a 15 year old cannot have a glass of wine with their family.
I think the main thing to remember, is that totally banning guns, as totally banning alcohol is not feasible. But it is entirely feasible to have enforced restrictions on the use of that item. I think perfect is the enemy of good in this situation. In the same way, less restrictions are on some drugs, while thers is an outright ban on other drugs which are harmful and have no medical benefit. In the same way some types of guns can be legal and restricted, while other types of weapons are banned and not allowed for consumer use.

I'm just gonna bold that statement and see if it sticks out to you.

That is in a controlled environment.  Also note, in Texas the law is that a minor CAN drink at a restaurant (or anywhere except a bar that limits entry to age 21+) if they are with their parent guardian.

I'll leave the rest of your comparisons moot because I really don't see how the analogy plays out in any manner except age.  (IE-  What does drunk driving relate to in gun terms, or are you just making the point about regulation?...)

As far as regulation is concerned...  See attached.

The second picture is... kind of ridiculous.

You could apply that to almost any regulation. One chooses a number on a continuum to establish a limit.

BAC of .04? Still legal. BAC of .05? Driving while impaired. (Depending on the state. Which addresses another aspect of that picture. I'm totally fine with national laws about gun control. I'm guessing you are not, though.)

Seventeen years old? A minor. Eighteen? An adult.

Twenty years old and 364 days and drinking a beer? Illegal! Twenty-one years old? Legal.

« Last Edit: October 10, 2017, 09:39:51 AM by Kris »
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

Roland of Gilead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1571
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #330 on: October 10, 2017, 09:57:27 AM »
The really fun one I like is that at 18 years old you can gun down an entire village on orders from your commanding officer but if you were then to celebrate with a drink, it would be illegal because you are not mature enough to handle alcohol for another three years.

Who comes up with this shit? 

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9508
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #331 on: October 10, 2017, 10:00:06 AM »
The really fun one I like is that at 18 years old you can gun down an entire village on orders from your commanding officer but if you were then to celebrate with a drink, it would be illegal because you are not mature enough to handle alcohol for another three years.

Who comes up with this shit? 

Don't ask me.  We can drink at 19 . . . and are currently debating if the legal age to buy weed should be 18.  :P

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1211
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #332 on: October 10, 2017, 10:09:11 AM »
The really fun one I like is that at 18 years old you can gun down an entire village on orders from your commanding officer but if you were then to celebrate with a drink, it would be illegal because you are not mature enough to handle alcohol for another three years.

Who comes up with this shit? 

Don't ask me.  We can drink at 19 . . . and are currently debating if the legal age to buy weed should be 18.  :P

Our activist population got the drinking age raised to 21 and the BAC lowered to .08 and moved on to gun control. 

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9508
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #333 on: October 10, 2017, 10:12:29 AM »
The really fun one I like is that at 18 years old you can gun down an entire village on orders from your commanding officer but if you were then to celebrate with a drink, it would be illegal because you are not mature enough to handle alcohol for another three years.

Who comes up with this shit? 

Don't ask me.  We can drink at 19 . . . and are currently debating if the legal age to buy weed should be 18.  :P

Our activist population got the drinking age raised to 21 and the BAC lowered to .08 and moved on to gun control.

You think BAC should be higher than .08?

Frankly, I don't believe there's ever a need to drink and drive and would be happy to see it at .00 .  :P

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1211
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #334 on: October 10, 2017, 10:42:07 AM »
The really fun one I like is that at 18 years old you can gun down an entire village on orders from your commanding officer but if you were then to celebrate with a drink, it would be illegal because you are not mature enough to handle alcohol for another three years.

Who comes up with this shit? 

Don't ask me.  We can drink at 19 . . . and are currently debating if the legal age to buy weed should be 18.  :P

Our activist population got the drinking age raised to 21 and the BAC lowered to .08 and moved on to gun control.

You think BAC should be higher than .08?

Frankly, I don't believe there's ever a need to drink and drive and would be happy to see it at .00 .  :P

Ours was .10 and reduced to .08.  There was little if any evidence produced that the change improved public safety materially.  I'm sure it has resulted in more DUI's and revenue however.

I don't drive autos after more than 2 beers or equivalents.  I also choose my routes accordingly (avoid the interstate) if having a drink.  I despise drunk drivers.  I'm just not convinced .08/.09 is a "drunk" driver.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2017, 10:45:47 AM by Midwest »

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9508
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #335 on: October 10, 2017, 10:52:13 AM »
The really fun one I like is that at 18 years old you can gun down an entire village on orders from your commanding officer but if you were then to celebrate with a drink, it would be illegal because you are not mature enough to handle alcohol for another three years.

Who comes up with this shit? 

Don't ask me.  We can drink at 19 . . . and are currently debating if the legal age to buy weed should be 18.  :P

Our activist population got the drinking age raised to 21 and the BAC lowered to .08 and moved on to gun control.

You think BAC should be higher than .08?

Frankly, I don't believe there's ever a need to drink and drive and would be happy to see it at .00 .  :P

Ours was .10 and reduced to .08.  There was little if any evidence produced that the change improved public safety materially.  I'm sure it has resulted in more DUI's and revenue however.

I don't drive autos after more than 2 beers or equivalents.  I also choose my routes accordingly (avoid the interstate) if having a drink.  I despise drunk drivers.  I'm just not convinced .08/.09 is a "drunk" driver.

Levels of intoxication are tricky to quantify.  You don't go from sober to drunk at the flip of a switch, you lose sobriety bit by bit and it's very hard to quantify exactly where the line should be drawn.  I guess I'm wondering why someone would feel the need to drive at all after drinking though.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1211
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #336 on: October 10, 2017, 11:04:38 AM »
The really fun one I like is that at 18 years old you can gun down an entire village on orders from your commanding officer but if you were then to celebrate with a drink, it would be illegal because you are not mature enough to handle alcohol for another three years.

Who comes up with this shit? 

Don't ask me.  We can drink at 19 . . . and are currently debating if the legal age to buy weed should be 18.  :P

Our activist population got the drinking age raised to 21 and the BAC lowered to .08 and moved on to gun control.

You think BAC should be higher than .08?

Frankly, I don't believe there's ever a need to drink and drive and would be happy to see it at .00 .  :P

Ours was .10 and reduced to .08.  There was little if any evidence produced that the change improved public safety materially.  I'm sure it has resulted in more DUI's and revenue however.

I don't drive autos after more than 2 beers or equivalents.  I also choose my routes accordingly (avoid the interstate) if having a drink.  I despise drunk drivers.  I'm just not convinced .08/.09 is a "drunk" driver.

Levels of intoxication are tricky to quantify.  You don't go from sober to drunk at the flip of a switch, you lose sobriety bit by bit and it's very hard to quantify exactly where the line should be drawn.  I guess I'm wondering why someone would feel the need to drive at all after drinking though.

I occasionally go to dinner and have a beer (2 at most).  The risk/reward on the equation is acceptable to me and the law.  In my particular state, you don't have to be over the limit to be charged "if" you are impaired.  Being over the limit is proof you "are" impaired.

Similar to gun laws, I think we should do a risk/reward assessment passing new laws/limits.

Hotstreak

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 756
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #337 on: October 10, 2017, 07:13:17 PM »
The really fun one I like is that at 18 years old you can gun down an entire village on orders from your commanding officer but if you were then to celebrate with a drink, it would be illegal because you are not mature enough to handle alcohol for another three years.

Who comes up with this shit? 

Don't ask me.  We can drink at 19 . . . and are currently debating if the legal age to buy weed should be 18.  :P

Our activist population got the drinking age raised to 21 and the BAC lowered to .08 and moved on to gun control.

You think BAC should be higher than .08?

Frankly, I don't believe there's ever a need to drink and drive and would be happy to see it at .00 .  :P

Ours was .10 and reduced to .08.  There was little if any evidence produced that the change improved public safety materially.  I'm sure it has resulted in more DUI's and revenue however.

I don't drive autos after more than 2 beers or equivalents.  I also choose my routes accordingly (avoid the interstate) if having a drink.  I despise drunk drivers.  I'm just not convinced .08/.09 is a "drunk" driver.

Levels of intoxication are tricky to quantify.  You don't go from sober to drunk at the flip of a switch, you lose sobriety bit by bit and it's very hard to quantify exactly where the line should be drawn.  I guess I'm wondering why someone would feel the need to drive at all after drinking though.


.08 isn't more dangerous than other factors that produce a similar level of impairment, such as fatigue, in-car distractions, etc.  People drive after small amounts of drinking because they recognize it as an acceptable level of risk.

TexasRunner

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 463
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #338 on: October 11, 2017, 09:55:57 AM »
So back to the main discussion.....

Any particular reason we don't have government mandated breathalyzers, government-accessible 'Shut downs' systems and tracking devices in all of our cars?

Cars do kill more people in this country than guns after all, and we seem to all be ok with that.
"The mathematical formula for the number of motorcycles you need is   x+1, where x is the number of motorcycles you currently have."

A Definite Beta Guy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 518
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #339 on: October 11, 2017, 10:11:55 AM »
The really fun one I like is that at 18 years old you can gun down an entire village on orders from your commanding officer but if you were then to celebrate with a drink, it would be illegal because you are not mature enough to handle alcohol for another three years.

Who comes up with this shit?

Mothers Against Drunk Driving. States had been lowering their drinking ages, but there was a strong anti-drunk driving push in the 70s that led to the ages going back up, with the federal government making it a requirement to be 21 or else lose some road funding.

Probably a healthy development on net...people seemed to not take drunk driving very seriously back in that age.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2611
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #340 on: October 11, 2017, 10:16:36 AM »
So back to the main discussion.....

Any particular reason we don't have government mandated breathalyzers, government-accessible 'Shut downs' systems and tracking devices in all of our cars?

Cars do kill more people in this country than guns after all, and we seem to all be ok with that.

The beverage lobby and the automobile lobby. Both of which rely on the same kinds of fallacious "slippery slope" arguments that the NRA does. Because, profits.

http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1907493,00.html

"Opponents of the MADD push for stricter laws warn that a federal interlock requirement would serve as a Trojan horse, opening the way for even more sophisticated interlock technology that would be required on every car sold in the U.S., according to Sarah Longwell, managing director of the American Beverage Institute, which lobbies on behalf of taverns and restaurants. "If you go to the ball game and happen to have a beer you wouldn't be able drive home," she says."

« Last Edit: October 11, 2017, 10:21:28 AM by Kris »
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

acroy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1488
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Dallas TX
    • SWAMI
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #341 on: October 11, 2017, 10:47:30 AM »
We tend to think there is only one way to interpret the Constitution.  And we think the Supreme Court Justices all look at the Constitution the same way.  But they don’t.  They are human, come to the bench with bias and prejudices, and read our founding father’s work differently.

The 2nd Amendment states:  A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

What does this mean? For me (and some legal scholars) the second part (....”the right of the people to keep and bear arms”) is solely for the purpose of having the first part (having a “well-regulated militia”  for the “security of a free state.”)

If you read it this way too, then you have to ask yourself, what is a “militia?” According to Blacks Law Dictionary, a militia is “The body of citizens in a state, enrolled for the discipline as a military force, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies.”   Further, “enrolled” according to Black’s means “registered; recorded” and “emergencies” according to Black’s is a “sudden unexpected happening, an unforeseen occurrence or condition.”
 
So, it seems to me that people who wish to be part of a militia should register to do so. They should act as a "military force" rather than a bunch of individuals garnishing weapons.   The type of arms they wish to obtain should be regulated for necessity of securing “a free state.”  Further, these arms should only be employed during “emergencies.”

If you read the 2nd Amendment’s phrase that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” creates an individual right that shall not be infringed (and not limited to the notions of a “militia”) then you also have to believe that right would be unfettered by regulation, thus allowing individuals to “bear any arms they wish…”  Automatic rifles?  Fine.  Grenades?  Fine.  Tank?  Fine.  To me this makes no sense.
 
I come down on the side that the right to bear arms is limited to the sole purpose of a controlled, regulated, militia which is needed only for emergencies.

Read federalist papers especially #84
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._84

The Constitution is a set of limits on the government. If you read the Constitution with a mind to limit/disparage the rights of individuals, you can do so and will arrive at erroneous conclusions - as above, where you have talked yourself into limiting rights.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2017, 10:49:08 AM by acroy »
SWAMI (Satisfied Working Advanced Mustachian Individual) 1 stash, 1 DW, 7 Mini MM's...
God, Family, Country. Everything else is details.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9508
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #342 on: October 11, 2017, 11:00:21 AM »
So back to the main discussion.....

Any particular reason we don't have government mandated breathalyzers, government-accessible 'Shut downs' systems and tracking devices in all of our cars?

Cars do kill more people in this country than guns after all, and we seem to all be ok with that.


Short range cell phone signal jammers should also be standard equipment on running automobiles.

TexasRunner

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 463
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #343 on: October 11, 2017, 01:37:28 PM »
So back to the main discussion.....

Any particular reason we don't have government mandated breathalyzers, government-accessible 'Shut downs' systems and tracking devices in all of our cars?

Cars do kill more people in this country than guns after all, and we seem to all be ok with that.


Short range cell phone signal jammers should also be standard equipment on running automobiles.

I was actually referring to a government/police controlled "shut down button" of any automobile, similar to what was discussed in length above regarding guns.

Is that acceptable?
"The mathematical formula for the number of motorcycles you need is   x+1, where x is the number of motorcycles you currently have."

TexasRunner

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 463
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #344 on: October 11, 2017, 01:38:15 PM »
So back to the main discussion.....

Any particular reason we don't have government mandated breathalyzers, government-accessible 'Shut downs' systems and tracking devices in all of our cars?

Cars do kill more people in this country than guns after all, and we seem to all be ok with that.

The beverage lobby and the automobile lobby. Both of which rely on the same kinds of fallacious "slippery slope" arguments that the NRA does. Because, profits.

http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1907493,00.html

"Opponents of the MADD push for stricter laws warn that a federal interlock requirement would serve as a Trojan horse, opening the way for even more sophisticated interlock technology that would be required on every car sold in the U.S., according to Sarah Longwell, managing director of the American Beverage Institute, which lobbies on behalf of taverns and restaurants. "If you go to the ball game and happen to have a beer you wouldn't be able drive home," she says."

So are you OK with or not OK with having interlocks on all cars?
"The mathematical formula for the number of motorcycles you need is   x+1, where x is the number of motorcycles you currently have."

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9508
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #345 on: October 11, 2017, 01:42:59 PM »
So back to the main discussion.....

Any particular reason we don't have government mandated breathalyzers, government-accessible 'Shut downs' systems and tracking devices in all of our cars?

Cars do kill more people in this country than guns after all, and we seem to all be ok with that.


Short range cell phone signal jammers should also be standard equipment on running automobiles.

I was actually referring to a government/police controlled "shut down button" of any automobile, similar to what was discussed in length above regarding guns.

Is that acceptable?

Sure, why not?  Police already have the power to stop and arrest you when you break the law.  Giving them a chance to disable a car rather than risk many lives in a high speed chase seems pretty reasonable.

dandarc

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3007
  • Age: 35
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #346 on: October 11, 2017, 01:49:55 PM »
Y'all have a lot of faith in the computers . . .

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9508
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #347 on: October 11, 2017, 02:11:38 PM »
Y'all have a lot of faith in the computers . . .

Do you keep all of your money in a pillowcase, or put your faith in a combination of bank accounts (fully computerized) and the market (fully computerized)?  Have you flown in a large passenger aircraft in the past 20 years?  You've put your faith in a fully comptuerized autopilot that did everything on the trip other than land.  Ever used energy from a grid connected to a nuclear reactor?  Yep, they're fully computerized too.  Nearly everything in the modern fighter jets that the US military flies are computerized (I used to work on them).  I worked with a team responsible for automating large scale train control systems around the world . . . because the computers we were replacing the drivers have an exponentially better safety record.

I have a lot of faith in computers because it's not the 1950s any more.  Reliable, fail-safe, and dependable computing isn't just theoretically possible . . . it's the norm.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2611
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #348 on: October 11, 2017, 02:18:19 PM »
So back to the main discussion.....

Any particular reason we don't have government mandated breathalyzers, government-accessible 'Shut downs' systems and tracking devices in all of our cars?

Cars do kill more people in this country than guns after all, and we seem to all be ok with that.

The beverage lobby and the automobile lobby. Both of which rely on the same kinds of fallacious "slippery slope" arguments that the NRA does. Because, profits.

http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1907493,00.html

"Opponents of the MADD push for stricter laws warn that a federal interlock requirement would serve as a Trojan horse, opening the way for even more sophisticated interlock technology that would be required on every car sold in the U.S., according to Sarah Longwell, managing director of the American Beverage Institute, which lobbies on behalf of taverns and restaurants. "If you go to the ball game and happen to have a beer you wouldn't be able drive home," she says."

So are you OK with or not OK with having interlocks on all cars?

That wasn't the question you asked.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

dandarc

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3007
  • Age: 35
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #349 on: October 11, 2017, 02:29:31 PM »
Y'all have a lot of faith in the computers . . .

Do you keep all of your money in a pillowcase, or put your faith in a combination of bank accounts (fully computerized) and the market (fully computerized)?  Have you flown in a large passenger aircraft in the past 20 years?  You've put your faith in a fully comptuerized autopilot that did everything on the trip other than land.  Ever used energy from a grid connected to a nuclear reactor?  Yep, they're fully computerized too.  Nearly everything in the modern fighter jets that the US military flies are computerized (I used to work on them).  I worked with a team responsible for automating large scale train control systems around the world . . . because the computers we were replacing the drivers have an exponentially better safety record.

I have a lot of faith in computers because it's not the 1950s any more.  Reliable, fail-safe, and dependable computing isn't just theoretically possible . . . it's the norm.
I mean, I am a programmer - I know all of this.  I'm also working on a problem today at one of our vendors that was fixed a year ago and has suddenly reappeared, so I'm in the thick of a "not reliable or fail-safe computing" situation.  And yes, I know this is not a failing of the computers per-se - it is a failing of the people charged with designing and implementing the systems that the computers run.

As a life-critical system, I'd hope the necessary resources would go into developing the "disable the car via police remote control" feature, but is that really just a given?