How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 shoot the message   [ Page: 1  2  3  ]
 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

shoot the message

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


25 posted 09-22-2011 03:43 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



quote:



Surely you jest, good sir. You only have to go to Missouri for that....not to mention Florida and then Pelosi out west. I would venture to guess that you possibly didn't even know much about her before this last election and now she is elevated in your eyes as a worse looney than ANY democrat in office? Man, she lost to one more ridiculous than she is!



     I don't know which Congress-critters you're talking about in Missouri and Florida.  Nor do I know what you think they've done that's further out there than suggesting we should go for "second amendment solutions" to election disagreements.  In fact, coining the term "second amendment solutions" is pretty far out there...  Perhaps you could specify what these congress-critters have done that's further out than that?

     Also, her calls for dissolution of social security, while perhaps popular with some of the more extreme of her Republican base and with George Bush the Younger, who campaigned on the issue in his congressional run, and who tried to destroy the system during his Presidency by  "privatizing it, were much too far to the right for the public at large.  You would be aware of that because of your occasional criticisms of President Obama for those times when you felt he was saying things that might worry people about the security of the social security pensions should the Republican tactics around the budget in congress continue.  What both of us are aware is a very tough issue was something that Ms. Angle was perfectly willing to take away from the public at large without a qualm.

     And which her State Party felt was fine with them, and which her national party backed, after having backed a president who'd advocated the same position.  It was representative of the party; it simply didn't sell well outside of the party because social security is one of the most popular programs every instituted by the government and continues to be so.

     "Ridiculous" is a change of direction.  I don't happen to think Reid is ridiculous, though he may be ineffectual on occasion.  That wasn't the frame of the discussion as I understood it, though it might be an amusing side-trip at some point.  I thought we were talking about folks who were potential sources of incitement to violence, and  who used the threat of violence as a major thread in their rhetoric.  Ms. Angle, when confronted about exactly what she meant by her language in a couple of attempted interviews that I saw on television walked away without comment, despited repeated attempts by the press to get clarification.

     Clearly she did not wish to have her words understood in an unambiguous fashion in that instance; nor have I seen any attempts on her part to clarify in print on tape exactly what she meant.  This is frequently the case from many of our right wing friends, who would apparently like to have their words taken both ways.  If they would like to have their words taken purely as metaphor, they are free to say so, specifically and for themselves on the record.

     Having others do so "for them," allows the remark to stand, doesn't it, and preserves their reputation as spokesperson for the most radical and dangerous of the organizations on the right; and it allows them to court those votes and essentially say that they give those organizations and their philosophies their support.

     I think you have to ask yourself, for what it's worth, if Senator Reid was the more ridiculous — and I don't think he was — what was there about Ms. Angle that made her lose to a more ridiculous candidate; and what was it about Ms. Angle that made her appealing to the voters in the Republican Primary in Nevada at all that they could actually find  and select a candidate that was so very bad that she would lose to such an unpopular Senator?

     That is, if what you say is somewhat close to the heart of the matter.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


26 posted 09-22-2011 04:06 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

AH, Robert, why bother  going on with this? If you can't understand who I am referring to in Missouri and Florida, then I overestimated your pursuing of the news. You list all of the reasons not to like Angle to a man who didn't care for her either. If you want to claim that she is a spokesperson for the GOP, go ahead. If you wish to paint that picture that anything she says is Bible to Republicans, fine with me. If you feel that Reid is simple "ineffectual on occasion", enjoy the feeling. What was it about her to cause her to lose to a more ridiculous opponent? It is telling to know that, even someone like her, made the race against the sitting president of the Senate as close as it was. The democrat mucksters had to work overtime to avoid an embarrassing defeat. Since they are good at that sort of thing, they pulled it off.

So you enjoy your thoughts and I'll remain happy that Reid and Pelosi are not MY spokespeople.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


27 posted 09-22-2011 08:37 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



    So who are the Democratic folks in Florida and Missouri that you believe are further off the charts than wishing to destroy social security and advocating "second amendment solutions" to election problems, then?  And who are courting the votes of people who are armed and who make you feel uncomfortable owning Mr. Breitbart as one of the Republican party faithful on what seems to me to be clearly other than gender identity issues?

     My personal point of view, though I currently own no guns, is that I think they're fun to shoot and collect but very difficult to protect and maintain.  For me.  For the purposes that I have in mind for them, they're simply too much of a pain.

     People who speak of settling differences with them don't understand the nature of civil society and the need to participate in it.  The second amendment is about the need to raise a militia, which the country now does by having a national guard, funded jointly by the country and by the states.  "Under arms" and "bearing arms" in the seond amendment" are phrases that speak about bodies of troops.

     If one talks about the right to bear arms against one's fellow countrymen, one is talking about declaring another civil war, in case you hadn't thought that through, and that is what the discomfort around these issues appear to me to be about.

     It is my opinion, and I don't want to rope anyone else into sharing that opinion, so I won't claim that anybody actually does, that we have something like this going on in the country right now.  The far right is arming itself in fear of or in preparation for a civil war.  There is language that they use to talk about this that borrows from biblical language about the end of days and about nuclear oblivion.  There is a survivalist movement.  The usual messianic language is bandied about.

     The left doesn't much believe in weapons gathering and militias, and they don't quite understand the hysteria.  I think the left is at a disadvantage because they don't understand or believe the amount of irrationality that is powering this whole drive to arm one's self against one's neighbor.

     I am reminded of Georg Groddick, The author of "The Book of The It," who said, "We are lived by unknown and unknowable forces."  I would add that we may also be sometimes killed by them.

     Remind me to get my anti-depressant prescription refilled early this month, please.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


28 posted 09-22-2011 11:46 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

The far right is arming itself in fear of or in preparation for a civil war.

I see that you don't express that as an opinion, but as a fact. They are obviously facts that you cannot verify with any degree of certainty.

(when you refill that anti-depressant, adding a little lithium might not be a bad idea)
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


29 posted 09-22-2011 11:56 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Having a national guard, funded jointly by the country and by the states.  "Under arms" and "bearing arms" in the seond amendment" are phrases that speak about bodies of troops. ......BobK


In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two Second Amendment decisions. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

It appears the Supreme Court doesn't agree with you, Bob.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


30 posted 09-23-2011 02:56 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


     The Supremes are free to interpret the constitution as they see fit.  There is no appeal from them except a revision of the constitution or another later interpretation, as I understand it, Mike.  Their current interpretation is in line with the current conservative doctrine, in much the way that the interpretations of the Warren Court were in line with the then current liberal philosophies.  This doesn't mean that that was the way the framers intended the second amendment to be read; it simply means that the current court reads it that way.

     I believe the supremes have every right to read the amendment the way they choose; and I'm aware their interpretation is legally binding.  As you point out, accurately enough, I don't agree with it for reasons I sketched out above.  Having guns in the home may be a great idea but, as I said, was too much trouble for me; and, I thought, they made my home a target for thieves.  It also made it a more dangerous place to get into a dispute with friends and relatives.  If I'd had atomic weapons hanging around, it would have been even more difficult a place to have barbeques on scales that would have required planning for guest lists smaller than whole cities.  It might have been difficult distinguishing between guest and menu, for that matter.

     While I haven't taken a swing or a stab at anybody in my house, I'd rather there be no firearms here in case a visitor might have a flare-up and might care to reach for a weapon.  I have on occasion had patients in the house, and some of them have been psychotic on occasion.  I've tried successfully to steer them away from sharp objects.

     I would like to get some sort of light rifle at some point and see if I've overcome my childhood tremor from asthma medcication.  When I shot, I was lucky if my bullets ever managed to hit the ground, even when I aimed at the sky.  It was very discouraging.

     No lithium, Mike; I don't have any bipolar  problems, only a tendency to get a bit down.  Ever see Detective Munch on any of the Special Victim's Unit shows, or on Homicide, Life on The Streets?  I weigh a lot more, but the attitude is much the same, and the politics as well.

     And no, the far right arming itself for a civil war is a theory, as I think I made clear.  I cannot imagine any way of proving it, and the quotation I offered was from what the Freudians would call a "wild" analyst who was talking about the way we tend to explain behavior of our own as though it were rational when in fact we don't have the least idea what the reason for it may be.  We explain ourselves as though we understood ourselves when in fact there may be an explanation or there may not be; and we may not even know what the explanation is, even if there is one.

     Opinion, in other words.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


31 posted 09-23-2011 09:25 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Their current interpretation is in line with the current conservative doctrine, in much the way that the interpretations of the Warren Court were in line with the then current liberal philosophies

The last time I checked, the liberals  held the edge in both 2008 and 2010 in the Supreme Court, with a Democrat at the helm. I won't swear to that but I believe it's so. Anyway, the supremes will be happy to know you grant them the right to interpret it as they see fit.     

Having guns in the home may be a great idea but, as I said, was too much trouble for me; and, I thought, they made my home a target for thieves.

I have a hard time following that logic. A gun in your house makes you more of a target for thieves? Well, I suppose if you advertise in the local paper BOB K HAS GUNS IN HIS HOUSE HIDDEN IN THE DESK BY HIS BED that might be true. I know a lot of people and I cannot begin to tell you who has guns in their house and who doesn't. Walk around like Mister T with a fortune in gold around your neck and I'll be more inclined to agree you make it enticing for someone to relieve you of it. Actually, what is making you more of a target for thieves these days (and why I have a gun in my house) is the economy. Too many people out of work, too many people hurting, too many people willing to do whatever it takes to provide for  themselves, one one hand......and too many people who know the court system  better than the police who arrest them and know they will probably only get a slap on the wrist for something as minor as home invasion or burglary. THOSE  things are what make your home more of a target for thieves.

It also made it a more dangerous place to get into a dispute with friends and relatives.

You worry about a shoot-out with friends and relatives? When they come  over do you hide the knives in the kitchen drawers, the hatchet in the garage and remove all sharp objects from the house? Atomic weapons?? Bob, your barbeques must be legendary, even for California!!

No, Bob, I don't believe the Right, even the far Right, are stockpiling their weapons for the coming war they plan to initiate with the government. They are simply people taking steps to protect their own, and their family's, safety. Interestingly enough, one of the best ways to get someone to do something is to tell them they can't. I'll wager that many people have gone out and gotten guns for their house for the additional reason that they believe the government is on the road to taking away the right to do so. Certainly that thesis must exist in one of the psychology books you have read, since I know you are a professional in studies of human behavior.

You mentioned in the other thread about the wrongness of judging groups of people in pure black or white terms, friend-foe, good-evil, etc. I would suggest you do the same for conservatives and, yes, even tea-partiers and even gun owners. It's sad that so many people feel they have the need to protect themselves but, as the saying goes....WHEN GUNS ARE OUTLAWED, ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS.


Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


32 posted 09-23-2011 10:17 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

The last time I checked, the liberals  held the edge in both 2008 and 2010 in the Supreme Court, with a Democrat at the helm. I won't swear to that but I believe it's so



Thats the thing about faith Mike, it's so not dependent on knowledge.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


33 posted 09-23-2011 11:34 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

And that is why, when not sure, it is wise to acknowledge that one may be mistaken. I see that the conservative nominees had a slight edge, 5 to 4.

The 2008 case is interesting..

Because of the controversial nature of the case, it garnered much attention from many groups on both sides of the gun rights issue. Many of those groups filed amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs, about 47 urging the court to affirm the case and about 20 to remand it.[22]

A majority of the members of Congress[23] signed the brief authored by Stephen P. Halbrook advising that the case be affirmed overturning the ban on handguns not otherwise restricted by Congress.[24] Vice President Dick Cheney joined in this brief, acting in his role as President of the United States Senate, and breaking with the George W. Bush administration's official position.[23] Then Republican candidate for President and Arizona Senator John McCain also signed the brief. Democratic candidate and then Illinois Senator Barack Obama did not.[25]

In a dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens stated that the court's judgment was "a strained and unpersuasive reading" which overturned longstanding precedent, and that the court had "bestowed a dramatic upheaval in the law".[49] Stevens also stated that the amendment was notable for the "omission of any statement of purpose related to the right to use firearms for hunting or personal self-defense" which was present in the Declarations of Rights of Pennsylvania and Vermont.[49]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller


This reads to me that Cheney and McCain went against Bush's official position, Obama went with it, and Stevens, appointed by Ford, filed a dissenting position.

So, with the president of the senate and a major Republican congressman like McCain going against it, and a conservative judge filing a dissent against it, it certainly doesn't seem to me that it followed any kind of conservative agenda. Of course I could be reading that wrong...am I?

Of course, it's also interesting that Obama supported Bush's position on it. Does that mean that the current position of Obama agrees with that supreme court decision?

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


34 posted 09-23-2011 11:50 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

With regards to the 2010 case...

Thirty-three amici curiae ("friends of the court") briefs for this case were filed with the Clerk of the Supreme Court.[23]

One of these briefs was filed by U.S. senators Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R, TX) and Jon Tester (D, MT) and U.S. representatives Mark Souder (R, IN) and Mike Ross (D, AR) asking the Supreme Court to find in favor of the petitioners and rule that the Second Amendment does apply to the states.[24] The brief was signed by 58 senators and 251 representatives, more members of Congress than any amicus curiae brief in history.[25] Furthermore, thirty-two states under the aegis of Texas (and California independently) also filed amici curiae.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago

Once again, that doesn't seem to me to be following standard conservative rubber-stamping.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


35 posted 09-24-2011 01:07 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Mike, the last Chief Justice appointed by a Democratic president was Vinson, appointed by Harry Truman.  You old news hound you.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


36 posted 09-24-2011 01:11 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

That's nice...and means what in relation to the posts I added?
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


37 posted 09-24-2011 01:11 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


quote:

The last time I checked, the liberals  held the edge in both 2008 and 2010 in the Supreme Court, with a Democrat at the helm. I won't swear to that but I believe it's so. Anyway, the supremes will be happy to know you grant them the right to interpret it as they see fit. 



     The chief Justice has been Mr. Justice Roberts since at least 2006, a Bush appointee, and the court has been conservative since well before that time.  It is understandable that you would have some confusion on the matter, since some of the early conservative appointments, such as Justice O’Connor, were actually starting to look like left wingers  by the time Justice Roberts was appointed.  These folks haqd not particularly changed their political opinions, near as I can tell, so much as the appointing Republican party had taken a very sharp turn to the right.  The Burger court, lest you forget, was also considered a conservative court, and was one.  It’s simply that the word conservative has now been redefined to describe a position that is much further to the right than it once was.

     The conservative memory for history about this sort of this seems highly selective to me.

     I believe that the Supremes have the right to interpret the constitution in the light of  current political understandings, and that these change as the country changes.

     Unlike many of the functions of the branches of the government, such as those of the executive branch and the electoral branch, however, the supremes are not a functyion that is vested with the sort of authority which they have assumed.  They assumed much of it under Chief Justice Marshalll, so they might well be appreciative of my acceptance.  Conservatives have not always been so accepting, and you should note that at no point did I indicate that I did not accept their right to make their decisions or say that their decisions overstepped their bounds, as in fact Republicans said virtually en masse about the Warren Court, when Republican opinion differed.

     My opinion differs here, and I haven’t suggested inpeachment for the Roberts Court.  

     Well, swell for me.

quote:
  
Having guns in the home may be a great idea but, as I said, was too much trouble for me; and, I thought, they made my home a target for thieves.

I have a hard time following that logic. A gun in your house makes you more of a target for thieves? Well, I suppose if you advertise in the local paper BOB K HAS GUNS IN HIS HOUSE HIDDEN IN THE DESK BY HIS BED that might be true. I know a lot of people and I cannot begin to tell you who has guns in their house and who doesn't.  ... what is making you more of a target for thieves these days (and why I have a gun in my house) is the economy.



     I might agree with you if I thought that it were true.  In fact, I may not know some of the people who have guns in their homes, but some people can’t seem to keep their mouths shut and seem to want to take out advertisements in the national media.  I can be pretty sure that Bob K, doesn’t have any guns amd that Mike actually does, and that if I want to make some dough by getting a firearm to sell at the risk of doing a burglery, well, guys, I guess I’d be completely puzzled where to go.

     And If I were living down south, I guess I’d be puzzled about where to find a gun to steal.  I’d overlook all those pickup trucks with gun-racks in the back windows with three or four shotguns or hunting rifles obscuring the rear view, and I’d just be reduced to breaking into  random places..  

     If people thought to put gun safes in the trunks of their cars, they might be a b it better off.

quote:

It also made it a more dangerous place to get into a dispute with friends and relatives.

You worry about a shoot-out with friends and relatives?



     You have worked as a part-time police officer, haven’t you, Mike?  Since you have, why are you giving me a Republican answer rather than an answer based on police experience and police statistics that most police officers are trained in?  Are you trying to tell me that most people shot in homes are  not family members or friends and acquaintances of the family?

     Even the NRA training makes a special point of gun safety at home for this particular reason; and they want people to have firearms for sporting, hunting and personal protection .  Simply because they’re gun adsvocates, doiesn’t make them idiots or foopls; they make a real effort to do things responsibly.  They encourage gun safes and gun locks and everyt piece of gun responsibility they can think of to cut down on accidental discharges and accidental woundings and deaths.  It’s unfair of you to suggest that they do this for non-existant reasons.  As somebody who does or did some sort of p[olice work, you should and probably do know better.  It’s disrespectful of you to imagine that I don’t know it too.

     I worry about friends and relatives getting hurt by firearms.  I worry about guns and alcohol.  I worry about guns and tempers.  I worry about guns and kids.  I worry about guns and people who aren’t fire-arms trained.  I worry about guns and fools and I worry about guns and accidents; and if you don’t, you shouldn’t have any of them in your house, either, unless you’ve made plans to protect yourself and others from these things.  Plans that are workablke and dependable.  Slogans are not a life-saving substitute; they only make you feel self-righteous, they don’r make you safe.

quote:

“Bob, your barbeques must be legendary, even for California!!”



     Ever since that last shindig I threw in 1982 on Mt. St. Helens, people have been discouraging me from throwing any more bar-be-ques.  They say I loose all sense of proportion.  

     What do they know?  There wasn’t enough beer, and the BBQ sauce wasn’t fiery enough.  That’s what I say.

quote:

No, Bob, I don't believe the Right, even the far Right, are stockpiling their weapons for the coming war they plan to initiate with the government. They are simply people taking steps to protect their own, and their family's, safety.



     Well. Mike, you’re probably right about the intentions here.  I’m cautious about ascribing malign intentions to people on the whole.  The problem comes when you have other people  who react to the original — quite possibly well meaning — behavior.  It becomes very difficult to continue to hold the notion of well meaning intentions in mind through several rounds of back and forth exchanges like this, each one of them open to misinterpretation.  At some point what happens is that folks on both sides will tend to forget the assumption of  well-meaningness and good intentions.

     Look back on the history of some of our own exchanges about poilitics and the assumptions that we can fall into very quickly about the meanings and intentions of the other person.  

     In many cases, the perception gets substituted for reality very quickly as the conflict gfets larger.  Think middle east or cold war, and how difficult it is even today to separate assumprion from reality from paranoia.

quote:

Interestingly enough, one of the best ways to get someone to do something is to tell them they can't. I'll wager that many people have gone out and gotten guns for their house for the additional reason that they believe the government is on the road to taking away the right to do so.



     Yes, youre right about that.

     One of the interesting ways of addressing bed wetting, for example, described in the literature (Check out Jay Haley’s book of case studies on Milton Erickson, Uncommon Therapy)  is a prescription for the child to get showered and dressed for bed, climb onto the fresh sheets, and urinate on them under the supervision of the parents.  The problem behavior often ceases within a week or two.  The parents often have some difficulty showing the proper approval, by the way.  You might find the write up interesting.  

     It falls under the rubric “Paradoxical Intention.”

     When urination is encouraged, only oulaws will urinate.
  
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


38 posted 09-24-2011 01:23 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I see, Bob. We have now gone from pistols to pee, and from changing banned to encouraged. I disagree with so many of your points I wouldn't know where to begin...so I won't. It really wouldn't matter anyway since I'm one of those pesky conservatives with that "selective memory" who is being "disrespectful" to you. Sleep well.....
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


39 posted 09-24-2011 01:35 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

AH, Robert, why bother  going on with this? If you can't understand who I am referring to in Missouri and Florida, then I overestimated your pursuing of the news



Sorry Mike, I was just having a little fun with you regarding the above comment and your own deficits of US history.   Of course, this is not new.  Conservatives have been running against the supreme court (which has had 9 Republican appointed Chiefs, and only 4 Democratic) as a meme (judicial activism!) for the last 30+ years.

What I really find interesting though...... nah.... nuther thread
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


40 posted 09-24-2011 08:41 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Nothing wrong with having a little innocent fun, LR.

Actually, I certainly wrong about the amount of conservatives on the Supreme Court but when I wrote about the Democrat "at the helm", I was referring to Obama as president, making a note to the fact that there was a liberal supreme court along with a liberal president when these rulings were made. Not specifying it the way I didn't was my bad.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


41 posted 09-24-2011 05:45 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Apparently you haven't gone so far that you can't avoid dealing with specifics.  Did you think I would allow that to pass unchallenged?  If you disagree with something, out with it!  If you disagree with my understanding of the stance of the NRA, for example, then say so, and tell me how and where I'm wrong on their stance about firearm safety.

     If you think I'm wrong about the way that firearm deaths are distributed, then out with it, and give me some reasons for your disagreement.  I made any number of solid points in my posting.  If you can't respond to them, or if your response is different as a part time police officer than it is as a Republican stalwart. then say so!  Trying to dismiss solid points and solid reasoning out of hand doesn't fly.

   And you know as well as I do that the business about outlaws and guns is rhetoric more than reality; I don't know anybody who's advocating repeal of the second amendment or advocating taking guns away from gun owners.  If there were such a movement afoot, I'd probably be against it myself, though I disagree with a lot of the carry regulations.  Even in Dodge City they thought it was stupid to walk into a bar with a gun.  Guns and booze do not mix, and you can bet that most of the time when a cop eats his gun, there's booze involved, just as there's booze involved in a high proportion of accidental shootings.  Do you think the NRA defending drinking and shooting?

     I don't think so.

     Please don't throw out perfectly reasonable comments as though they were pure idiocy.  It suggests that we're not actually talking here in an effort to sort things out but in an effort to defend political positions and postures.  I'm already pretty sure what your political positions and postures are, just as you're probably pretty sure about mine.    If I were talking purely political postures, I wouldn't bother talking about my fondness for guns as art, as sport, as pure fun.  It would be a waste of time.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


42 posted 09-24-2011 09:05 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Bob, I would like to know why you refer to my past as being a "part-time police officer". Have I ever said anything to indicate that or is it a slur for some reason I can't imagine?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


43 posted 09-24-2011 09:57 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Ok, Bob, I'll play, if you insist. I will give you my reason for finding your arguments faulty and then you can respond as to why my conclusions are faulty and insist that I respond, along with accusations that, if I don't, it must show that I'm afraid to make my points, which will be points that you will show me how much you disagree with.

If you think I'm wrong about the way that firearm deaths are distributed, then out with it, and give me some reasons for your disagreement.

You have worked as a part-time police officer, haven t you, Mike?  Since you have, why are you giving me a Republican answer rather than an answer based on police experience and police statistics that most police officers are trained in?  Are you trying to tell me that most people shot in homes are  not family members or friends and acquaintances of the family?

Bob, I would like for you to show me where the number of shooting done in homes are performed by  the home owners. We are speaking of guns in homes, therefore, whatever argument you are proposing would have to mean that the gun in the home was used. Surely, if I were to come  over to my Uncle Bob K's house and I was armed and we got into an argument and I shot him, that certainly would have no connection to a gun  being in the house, would it? You claim to know about police statistic so how about checking that out, Bob, and presenting it? How many shooting are performed by homeowners in their homes against friends, family members, or acquaintenances?

In fact, I may not know some of the people who have guns in their homes, but some people can t seem to keep their mouths shut and seem to want to take out advertisements in the national media.

Some people, Bob? How many? How many people do you know walk around talking about the guns in their houses? How many have taken out ads? Your comment is, at best, silly.

  And If I were living down south, I guess I d be puzzled about where to find a gun to steal.  I d overlook all those pickup trucks with gun-racks in the back windows with three or four shotguns or hunting rifles obscuring the rear view, and I d just be reduced to breaking into  random places..

Another bit of silliness. Yes, I recognize it as an small attempt at sarcasm but you don't do it that well. I would bet a paycheck that the number of burglaries of guns in those ole redneck towns would be considerably less than in cities like Chicago or New York. Would you want to break into someone's house who drives around with a gunrack on their pickup? Not much of a future there.

Even the NRA training makes a special point of gun safety at home for this particular reason; and they want people to have firearms for sporting, hunting and personal protection .  Simply because they re gun adsvocates, doiesn t make them idiots or foopls; they make a real effort to do things responsibly.  They encourage gun safes and gun locks and everyt piece of gun responsibility they can think of to cut down on accidental discharges and accidental woundings and deaths.  It s unfair of you to suggest that they do this for non-existant reasons.

Ok, I'm lost here. I don't know where I said they do this for non-existant reasons. What I did say was....

No, Bob, I don't believe the Right, even the far Right, are stockpiling their weapons for the coming war they plan to initiate with the government. They are simply people taking steps to protect their own, and their family's, safety.

I have no problem with gun safes, gun locks and all gun responsibility. I encourage it. What have I said to make you think otherwise? That should qualify me as not being an idiot or a fool, the caveat you give to the NRA. I certainly don't advocate having guns just laying around the house, visible and accessible to anyone. Mine certainly isn't, nor is anyone I know....so what's your point?

WHEN GUNS ARE OUTLAWED, ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS.
WHEN URINATION IS ENCOURAGED, ONLY OUTLAWS WILL URINATE.


That is, by far, the silliest part of your response, which makes absolutely no valid comparison at all.

Ok, Bob, you wanted my response and you have it. Feel free to dissect it any way you like. I'm losing interest.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


44 posted 09-24-2011 10:09 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.

Mike,

Zero tolerance.
I feel that any object one of which has ever been used in a murder
should be either banned or strictly licensed and regulated.

I also feel that anyone conscious of the danger, (which is a matter of public knowledge),
who knowingly serves another fried chicken should be investigated to the purpose of criminal
indictment.


.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


45 posted 09-24-2011 11:07 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


“Defensive gun uses

NSPOF estimates. Private citizens sometimes use
their guns to scare off trespassers and fend off
assaults. Such defensive gun uses (DGUs) are
sometimes invoked as a measure of the public
benefits of private gun ownership. On the basis of
data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics'
National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) data,
one would conclude that defensive uses are rare
indeed, about 108,000 per year. But other surveys
yield far higher estimates of the number of DGUs.
Most notable has been a much publicized estimate of
2.5 million DGUs, based on data from a 1994
telephone survey conducted by Florida State
University professors Gary Kleck and Mark
Gertz.[13] The 2.5 million figure has been picked
up by the press and now appears regularly in
newspaper articles, letters to the editor,
editorials, and even Congressional Research Service
briefs for public policymakers.

The NSPOF survey is quite similar to the Kleck and
Gertz instrument and provides a basis for
replicating their estimate. Each of the respondents
in the NSPOF was asked the question, "Within the
past 12 months, have you yourself used a gun, even
if it was not fired, to protect yourself or someone
else, or for the protection of property at home,
work, or elsewhere?" Answers in the affirmative
were followed with "How many different times did
you use a gun, even if it was not fired, to protect
yourself or property in the past 12 months?"
Negative answers to the first DGU question were
followed by "Have you ever used a gun to defend
yourself or someone else?" (emphasis in original).
Each respondent who answered yes to either of these
DGU questions was asked a sequence of 30 additional
questions concerning the most recent defensive gun
use in which the respondent was involved, including
the respondent's actions with the gun, the location
and other circumstances of the incident, and the
respondent's relationship to the perpetrator.

Forty-five respondents reported a defensive gun use
in 1994 against a person (exhibit 7). Given the
sampling weights, these respondents constitute 1.6
percent of the sample and represent 3.1 million
adults. Almost half of these respondents reported
multiple DGUs during 1994, which provides the basis
for estimating the 1994 DGU incidence at 23
million. This surprising figure is caused in part
by a few respondents reporting large numbers of
defensive gun uses during the year; for example,
one woman reported 52!

A somewhat more conservative NSPOF estimate is
shown in the column of exhibit 7 that reflects the
application of the criteria used by Kleck and Gertz
to identify "genuine" defensive gun uses.
Respondents were excluded on the basis of the most
recent DGU description for any of the following
reasons: the respondent did not see a perpetrator;
the respondent could not state a specific crime
that was involved in the incident; or the
respondent did not actually display the gun or
mention it to the perpetrator.

Applying those restrictions leaves 19 NSPOF
respondents (0.8 percent of the sample),
representing 1.5 million defensive users. This
estimate is directly comparable to the well-known
estimate of Kleck and Gertz, shown in the last
column of exhibit 7. While the NSPOF estimate is
smaller, it is statistically plausible that the
difference is due to sampling error. Inclusion of
multiple DGUs reported by half of the 19 NSPOF
respondents increases the estimate to 4.7 million
DGUs.

Some troubling comparisons. If the DGU numbers are
in the right ballpark, millions of attempted
assaults, thefts, and break-ins were foiled by
armed citizens during the 12-month period.
According to these results, guns are used far more
often to defend against crime than to perpetrate
crime. (Firearms were used by perpetrators in 1.07
million incidents of violent crime in 1994,
according to NCVS data.)

Thus, it is of considerable interest and importance
to check the reasonableness of the NSPOF estimates
before embracing them.”


https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/165476.txt
.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


46 posted 09-25-2011 02:16 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K

    
     I intend nothing derrogatory by talking about being a part time police officer.  If I have my information wrong, of course I am sorry, but I recall your speaking about having been a part-time officer during a few of your postings, and I was making reference to data that you offered.  I see nothing wrong and a lot right with that sort of experience.  I am puzzled why you’d see my reference to it in any sort of negative light at all.  I didn’t and don’t.  

     I found this article very helpful in looking at data about firearms use and the problems that folkks run into when they have firearms at home.  I’ve included a section from the text.  There is a very very extensive bibliography for you to look at, the gist is generally given in the text where the articles are cited.  
http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNREFS.html


     I’ll offer you a short section that has some information directly related to our earlier discussion first, as a sort of short intro:

“The issue of "home defense" or protection against intruders or assailants may well be misrepresented. A study of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides (Kellermann et al, 1998). Over 50% of all households in the U.S. admit to having firearms (Nelson et al, 1987). In another study, regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and suicide in the home (Dahlberg, Ikeda and Kresnow, 2004).”

     Now I excerpt the section of the tutorial on Statistics, Gun Control and Safety, below, which will include the above section as a small part, further down:

quote:

Statistics, Gun Control Issues, and Safety
Gunshot wounds inpact severely on the criminal justice as well as health care systems. Some basic statistics are important in understanding the magnitude and severity of the social and economic burden to the U.S. The subject remains contentious. (Glantz and Annas, 2009)
In the U.S. for 2006, there were 30,896 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 16,883; Homicide 12,791; Accident 642; Legal Intervention 360; Undetermined 220. This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S. The number of firearms-related injuries in the U.S., both fatal and non-fatal, increased through 1993, declined to 1999, and has remained relatively constant since. However, firearms injuries remain a leading cause of death in the U.S., particularly among youth (CDC, 2001) (CDC, 2006).
The number of non-fatal injuries is considerable--over 200,000 per year in the U.S. Many of these injuries require hospitalization and trauma care. A 1994 study revealed the cost per injury requiring admission to a trauma center was over $14,000. The cumulative lifetime cost in 1985 for gunshot wounds was estimated to be $911 million, with $13.4 billion in lost productivity. (Mock et al, 1994) The cost of the improper use of firearms in Canada was estimated at $6.6 billion per year. (Chapdelaine and Maurice, 1996)
The rates of firearms deaths in the U.S. vary significantly by race and sex. The U.S. national average was 10.3 deaths per 100,000 population in 2001. The highest rate was 34.5/100,000 for African-American males, more than double the rate of 16.3/100,000 for white males and well above the rate of 2.7/100,000 for white females. (CDC, 2004)
A study of firearm deaths in high income countries (Australia, Austria, Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom (England and Wales), United Kingdom (Northern Ireland), United Kingdom (Scotland), and the United States) was conducted with data from the World Health Organization assembled by the WHO from the official national statistics of each individual country from 2003 by Richardson and Hemenway, 2011. The total population for the United States for 2003 was 290.8 million while the combined population for the other 22 countries was 563.5 million. There were 29,771 firearm deaths in the US and 7,653 firearm deaths in the 22 other countries. Of all the firearm deaths in these 23 high-income countries in 2003, 80% occurred in the US. In the US the overall firearm death rate was 10.2 per 100,000, the overall firearm homicide rate 4.1 per 100,000, and the overall homicide rate 6.0 per 100,000, with firearm homicide rates highest persons 15 to 24 years of age. For the US the overall suicide rate was 10.8 per 100,000, and slightly over half of these deaths were firearm suicide (5.8 per 100,000). Firearm suicides rates increased with age. In the other high income countries 2003 the overall firearm death rate was 1.4 per 100,000, the overall firearm homicide rate 0.2 per 100,000, and the overall homicide rate 0.9 per 100,000. Firearm homicide rates were highest in the 25 year old to 34 year old age group. The overal suicide rate was 14.9 per 100,000 with a overall firearm suicide rate of 1.0 per 100,000.
A comparison across countries for an earlier time period is shown below.
Firearms Death Rate (per 100,000, age adjusted) for Selected Countries in one year between 1990 and 1995 (Krug, Powell and Dahlberg, 1998)

Gun Control Issues, Public Health, and Safety
The number of firearms injuries remains high in the United States, compared with most of the rest of the world. Firearm suicide rates are strongly impacted by the rate of gun ownership. (Kaplan and Geling, 1998) There is a positive correlation between homicide rates and availability of guns in developed nations. (Hemenway and Miller, 2000) The number of firearms in the hands of private citizens continues to grow each year at a rate far exceeding that of the population as a whole. It might even be said that Americans live in a "gun culture" based upon traditions and behaviors well-entrenched in our society. This is reflected in our constitution, whose second amendment guarantees that "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." Though the application of this amendment applied to maintenance of a militia, and not private gun ownership, the second amendment has been consistently interpreted to protect private ownership of many types of guns.
Thus, the laws of our Federal government as well as the states do not as yet severely restrict the manufacture, sale, and use of firearms by ordinary citizens. "Gun control" is a sensitive issue that evokes strong emotions in persons both for and against control. Politicians find it difficult to deal with this issue. There is disagreement as to whether a reduction in access to or numbers of firearms will have a measurable effect upon crime. The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act passed in 1994 in the U.S. established a nationwide requirement that licensed firearms dealers observe a waiting period and initiate a background check for handgun sales (but the law does not apply to secondary markets). So far, this law has not been associated with overall reductions in homicide rate or suicide rate.(Ludwig and Cook, 2000) Perhaps our attitudes--and our tolerances--are reflected in the high visibility of firearms and firearms-inflicted injuries that are portrayed in the media: newspapers, magazines, books, films, and television. (Price et al, 1992) One thing remains certain, despite laws for or against gun control, a lack of care and concern regarding one's fellow human beings, whether in war or through domestic violence, will continue to promote firearms injuries.
Child safety is an important issue. Firearms injuries are the second leading cause of non-natural death in childhood and adolescence. (CDC, 2004) Accidental shooting deaths are most commonly associated with one or more children playing with a gun they found in the home. (Choi, et al, 1994) The person pulling the trigger is a friend, family member, or the victim. (Harruff, 1992) In the period from 1979 to 2000, accidental firearms deaths involving children declined in the U.S., aided by child access prevention laws and felony prosecution of offenders. (Hepburn et al, 2006) A study of nonnatural deaths in a large American city revealed that half of such deaths in persons from 10 to 19 years of age were due to homicide, and firearms were involved in 88% of them. (Heninger and Hanzlick, 2008)
The table below indicates mode of death for firearms injuries in the ten countries with the most reported deaths from firearms for children less than 15 years of age. (CDC, 1997)
Firearms Deaths by Mode of Death for Children <15 Years of Age
Top 10 Countries - Rate per 100,000

In one survey, 10% of families admitted to having unlocked and loaded firearms within easy reach of children (Patterson and Smith, 1987). Another study showed that two-thirds of accidental firearms injuries occured in the home, and one-third involved children under 15. 45% were self-inflicted, and 16% occurred when children were playing with guns. (Morrow and Hudson, 1986) A study from 1991-2000 showed that twice as many people died from unintentional firearm injuries in states in the U.S. where firearm owners were more likely to store their firearms loaded. (Miller, et al, 2005)
The issue of "home defense" or protection against intruders or assailants may well be misrepresented. A study of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides (Kellermann et al, 1998). Over 50% of all households in the U.S. admit to having firearms (Nelson et al, 1987). In another study, regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and suicide in the home (Dahlberg, Ikeda and Kresnow, 2004). Persons who own a gun and who engage in abuse of intimate partners such as a spouse are more likely to use a gun to threaten their intimate partner. (Rothman et al, 2005). Individuals in possession of a gun at the time of an assault are 4.46 times more likely to be shot in the assault than persons not in possession (Branas et al, 2009). It would appear that, rather than beign used for defense, most of these weapons inflict injuries on the owners and their families.
Hunting accidents with firearms, despite the large gun ownership in the U.S. and numerous game seasons in most states, remain relatively rare and do not appear to be increasing. (Huiras, et al, 1990) A study in Sweden indicated a rate of 0.074/100,000 and that, when hunting big game, most accidents resulted from a mistaken target. When hunting small game, accidents occurred most frequently as a result of mishandling the gun. Hunting accidents did not increase with increasing gun ownership or numbers of hunters. (Ornehult and Eriksson, 1987)




     Not wanting to overload you, I’ll stop here for now before taking another shot at your attempt to respond to me.  I do appreciate your efforts here, and I want you to know that.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


47 posted 09-25-2011 02:37 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     I'm not interested in trying to kick all the happy drinkers off their bar stools, John.  I do think that when their happiness kills my kids and my friends through accident, misadventure, carelessness or grandiosity that there ought to be consequences and some attempt at regulation should be made.  If their fun ends up destroys or curtails of has serious negative impact on another person's life, then there's something wrong with the product.

     If it's heroin or cocaine, we've gone too far in the way we manage them.  We've developed and encouraged a black market that has evils of its own that may be as bad as the substance we're trying to regulate.  It would surely be a matter of equal stupidity if we tried to do the same thing with guns, don't you think?

     Yet some societies, such as Switzerland, seem to have a much more   workable relationship with guns than we do.  They have a freer relationship with automatic weapons with far fewer adverse events in consequence.  I don't want to stop having guns in our society; I want to understand what societies that have fewer gun deaths and still have easy access to fire-arms are doing to make things work more safely.

     Perhaps there's something about that goal that makes me a figure of fun for you.  I'd like to know what that is?  Is it that think guns are a good thing to have around?  Is it that I want fewer people to get killed by them than we already have getting killed by them?  Do you think I'm a wuss for not wanting more Americans to die than absolutely have to?  I mean, what's the deal here, John?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


48 posted 09-25-2011 06:43 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Bob, most of your data seems to be about firearms in the house that cause injuries or death due to mishandling, accidents or misuse. As with the NRA, I condemn those who do not have their weapons locked up or placed in areas where children or others can find them or get access to them. Having said that, we can equally apply your reasoning to cars or having prescription drugs in houses. Haow many deaths or injuries occur due to mishandling of automobiles? Do we then insist that cars be taken off the roads? How many accidental overdoses occur or injuries by children getting into the medicine cabinet? Do we ban drugs in the home? No, in both instances, and the third with firearms, we preach intelligence, common sense, and prudence, and education. All of this is far from the point, however, which got us off on this tangent, which was the ridiculous belief by some on the left that citizens are arming themselves in preparation of a civil war.

If I have my information wrong, of course I am sorry, but I recall your speaking about having been a part-time officer during a few of your postings, and I was making reference to data that you offered.

Your recall is in error. I offered no such data and wore the uniform proudly, day after day. We don't have part-time police officers down here. I accept your apology.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


49 posted 09-25-2011 07:15 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K

     Then I must apologize about my recollection.  I had thought that it was part-time, which I find worthy as well.  I don't see why that would be offensive, though I take the correction and say I'm sorry for getting my facts wrong.

     Certainly, your comments about drugs and cars are interesting.  You might have noted my comments on the same subject, above, and noted that I am not in favor of banning fire-arms, though you continue to address me as though that was the position I was supporting.  That may be because it is a position which it is simpler to address than the one I advocate.

     You will notice the problem with your position on guns as opposed to cars and drugs, however, if you think about it.

     The expressed purpose in this case — self defense — of gun use  that is given for keeping guns in the house is far far far outweighed by the uses the guns find in producing wounds and fatalities from suicides, murders, accidental discharges and other uses detailed in the report I quoted.  Any drug that produced a record like that would not be allowed on the market; it would be considered too unsafe for human use.  Any car that produced a driving record like that would be removed from the market, and the law-suites brought against it would ensure that its maker would have to, at a minimum, redesign it substantially before permitting it to see the light of day again.  It would likely be recalled to install some major product modifications before the public would be allowed to use it again.

     Your analogy is one that you have doubtless heard bandied about in gun industry and gun ownership circles before, but, as you can see, a slightly closer examination of the analogy shows it to be fatally flawed.  I am sorry, because it does sound so crushing.

     If you'll check, you'll find that a lot of the firearm incidents are not from mishandling, or from misuse, but come from folks who try to be careful about the way they keep and use them.  I am sorry to point this out, because I've been thinking a lot in recent years how nice it would be to pick up a Woodsman or some relatively inexpensive .22 long-rifle carbine and go join a range and go target shooting again.   The things really are dangerous to keep around the house, even if you're a fanatic about them and the way to keep them.  That doesn't mean I won't try anyway. Eventually, mind you.  I have had friends who've ended up putting a round into themselves — a thigh, by accident — and I know it's not an uncommon event.  I'm reasonably sure you know the same thing.

     There are places where there aren't as many gun deaths.  I mentioned Switzerland before.

     What are they doing in Switzerland that we could do here?  I don't think that their laws are very different from ours, but their deaths are much lower, and there are a lot more automatic weapons around than there are here.  What's the difference?  Why are they so unsafe here and so (reasonably) safe there?

     What do you hear, Balladeer?
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> shoot the message   [ Page: 1  2  3  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors