|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 21 2015 11:35 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2015 11:22 zlefin wrote:On March 21 2015 10:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 21 2015 10:09 zlefin wrote:
Easily, because the two of those are different skillsets, it's entirely possible to have one without the other.
I'm not going to answer with more than that snark, since it's a silly point, whereas the basis for training for gun owners is very clear and ample. gun safety is pretty much common sense. people with common sense dont need training, and people without it, the training wont help. not true. training can help people with less common sense; common sense are learned behaviors as many others are, and can be taught to a degree, they're just so numerous you can't teach them all. And even people with common sense can benefit from basic training; training and reminders help them stick in your mind better, including helping to remember them when it matters. Also, some people's common sense would simply be wrong about guns even if they have common sense in general. you basically have said nothing more than you disagree. the basic safety rules that are taught in gun safety courses are common sense. dont point the gun at things you dont want to shoot dont put your finger on the trigger if you arent ready to shoot unload guns when not using them know what you are shooting at and what you could hit always treat a firearm as if its loaded (i.e, dont point it at your face) these arent surgeon level principles.
I said a little more than I disagree. You're a fool if you think training makes no difference in how well people follow those rules.
|
On March 21 2015 12:01 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2015 11:35 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 21 2015 11:22 zlefin wrote:On March 21 2015 10:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 21 2015 10:09 zlefin wrote:
Easily, because the two of those are different skillsets, it's entirely possible to have one without the other.
I'm not going to answer with more than that snark, since it's a silly point, whereas the basis for training for gun owners is very clear and ample. gun safety is pretty much common sense. people with common sense dont need training, and people without it, the training wont help. not true. training can help people with less common sense; common sense are learned behaviors as many others are, and can be taught to a degree, they're just so numerous you can't teach them all. And even people with common sense can benefit from basic training; training and reminders help them stick in your mind better, including helping to remember them when it matters. Also, some people's common sense would simply be wrong about guns even if they have common sense in general. you basically have said nothing more than you disagree. the basic safety rules that are taught in gun safety courses are common sense. dont point the gun at things you dont want to shoot dont put your finger on the trigger if you arent ready to shoot unload guns when not using them know what you are shooting at and what you could hit always treat a firearm as if its loaded (i.e, dont point it at your face) these arent surgeon level principles. I said a little more than I disagree. You're a fool if you think training makes no difference in how well people follow those rules.
You're a fool if you think training makes a difference in how well people follow those rules. Do you ever say anything of substance?
|
I do and have, if you can't see that, I don't know how to explain it to you any better. It's a lack of your own common sense if you can't see that training people in something tends to make them do it better.
|
United States41117 Posts
An FBI agent said during a Friday news conference that a preliminary autopsy in the death of a black man who was found hanging from a tree in rural Mississippi was expected next week.
He also said the cause of the man's death could not be confirmed.
FBI Special Agent Don Alway said the man's identity had been confirmed by a state medical examiner on Friday as that of Otis Byrd, a convicted killer who was released from prison in 2006 and who was last seen on March 2.
Alway said Byrd's family had been notified and that 30 agents were working on the investigation to determine whether the death was a homicide or suicide.
The Los Angeles Times reported on Friday that an anonymous federal law enforcement official said preliminary results from an autopsy had pointed to suicide. However, Alway's statement at Friday's news conference appeared to indicate that determination had not yet been made.
Source
|
On March 21 2015 12:13 zlefin wrote:
I do and have, if you can't see that, I don't know how to explain it to you any better. It's a lack of your own common sense if you can't see that training people in something tends to make them do it better.
how did "those rules" turn into "something." you're an idiot if you have to be trained not to point a gun at your face. gun safety rules are basic.
|
On March 21 2015 11:40 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2015 09:40 Millitron wrote:On March 21 2015 08:49 Leporello wrote:On March 21 2015 08:25 Millitron wrote:
Does anybody else find it odd that people whine and cry about voter ID's preventing people from voting, but nobody seems to care that you have to spend hundreds of dollars and huge amounts of paperwork to carry a gun? Both voting and bearing arms are constitutional rights, but somehow it's OK to have hundreds of dollars and months of paperwork to exercise one of them.
Making showing any valid ID mandatory to vote is disenfranchising, but somehow hundreds of dollars in fees and months of paperwork to carry a gun isn't. Don't poor people have the right to bear arms? The 2nd Amendment doesn't say "...shall not be infringed, unless you can't afford it in which case fuck you". No, I don't find it odd, because no one has been arguing voter ID is inherently unconstitutional. More that it is unproductive, unnecessary, and political. I'm not sure what your point is, that we should be giving out guns at our DMVs? If you don't see why voter registration is easier than gun registration, I suggest trying common sense. Voting is the process of electing our government. Guns are weapons. Why should those things be completely equivocated, exactly? Our government spends money on the logistical process of elections. Do you think the federal and state government should spend money to help people register guns? Is that what you're proposing? Elections are a necessary service to maintain a representative government. It is not necessary, in the slightest, for our government to do the same with guns. I truly, fully do not care, in the tiniest bit, that it is harder to obtain a gun license than it is to register to vote. MAYBE if I could believe for a second that our government needed the security of your or anyone else's militia, then sure, let's make gun registration as much a priority as that voting thing. You can only hurt a handful of people with a gun. Voting gives you a say in how the entire country is run. Everyone who has died in every US war from Korea to the War on Terror has died because of voting. Everyone who has died from the War on Drugs has died from voting. It's naive to suggest that running the entire country is not dangerous. Voting had very little to do with any of that. Those wars would have happened whoever had been elected to office. The majority of the voting public opposed the Vietnam war, and opposes a number of policies that any number of elected administrations have pursued, but nothing changes because either both parties would pursue it (e.g. support for Israel) or because people think other things outweigh some war aims (abortion, taxes, whatever). If wars were only waged after a general vote you might have a point.
So if voting has no control over something as important as whether to go to war or not, why even do it? In what sense is the voter being represented if he can't even be heard on something as monumental as war?
There's no two ways about it. Either voting has power, and should not be trusted to any random drunken idiot, or it has no power and we're not really a republic/democracy and the whole system is a sham.
On March 21 2015 12:13 zlefin wrote:
I do and have, if you can't see that, I don't know how to explain it to you any better. It's a lack of your own common sense if you can't see that training people in something tends to make them do it better.
How many teenage pregnancies does sex ed stop? How much teen drug use does the DARE program stop? The kids that need the lessons are the same kids who are the least likely to pay any attention.
On March 21 2015 10:39 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2015 10:31 Millitron wrote:On March 21 2015 10:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 21 2015 10:13 Millitron wrote:On March 21 2015 10:09 zlefin wrote:
Easily, because the two of those are different skillsets, it's entirely possible to have one without the other.
I'm not going to answer with more than that snark, since it's a silly point, whereas the basis for training for gun owners is very clear and ample. So is voting effective? Does it really give you a say in your government? If yes, why are you OK with any drunken idiot having a say in how the entire country is run? If no, we aren't really a republic or democracy are we? On March 21 2015 10:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 21 2015 10:03 Millitron wrote:On March 21 2015 09:59 zlefin wrote:
There should definitely be some sort of training/testing program for gun ownership, to ensure they know what they're doing. I'll try to put that in if I ever get into congress. Lets do that for voting too. If you can't trust someone with a gun, how can you trust them with an entire country, especially one that has nuclear weapons? Well if people could vote themselves into office alone that might be a real problem. One voter can't do much, one person with a gun can clear out an entire stadium. Although I wouldn't argue against better educating children and adults in general in both firearms and politics. Sure, one vote's not very dangerous. But there's tons of dumb voters out there. I'd absolutely love a high-school course on firearms though. Kinda like a parallel to the "participation in government" classes they make seniors take. They had archery in my PE class, I don't see why a firearms segment would be ridiculous. I would hope they did a better job with a firearms course than they do with their civics 'classes' though. I would just quit with this voting is like owning (conceal carrying is actually what I think you are talking about mostly) a gun nonsense though. I've never said "own" (though in New York you need a concealed carry license just to own a hand gun). The 2nd Amendment says "keep and bear" though, not just "keep". We had archery at my school too. I don't remember what he did exactly, but some kid snapped the bowstring. The bow whipped him in the face and seriously injured his eye. So needless to say we no longer have an archery program. I think they would do better with firearms, as honestly, they're easier. There's only a handful of major rules to learn, unlike those civics classes where they have to teach how every level of government works. That's only NYC not the state. I personally disagree with it but if shit like voter ID has to be shown in court to be ridiculous for people to accept it, than the same should hold for a law like NYC has. Other than that one city (maybe others I am unaware of) you don't need a permit to own or carry. Yeah, a firearms course wouldn't even need live guns to be sufficient, although some live fire training would be additionally helpful, but would bring liabilities most schools probably can't afford (more on inequity in education later).
It's not just NYC, it's the whole state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_New_York#Handgun_licensing
"The purchase of a handgun in New York State is limited to only those individuals who hold a valid Pistol Permit issued by a county or major city within New York State..."
|
+ Show Spoiler +On March 21 2015 12:10 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2015 12:01 zlefin wrote:On March 21 2015 11:35 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 21 2015 11:22 zlefin wrote:On March 21 2015 10:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 21 2015 10:09 zlefin wrote:
Easily, because the two of those are different skillsets, it's entirely possible to have one without the other.
I'm not going to answer with more than that snark, since it's a silly point, whereas the basis for training for gun owners is very clear and ample. gun safety is pretty much common sense. people with common sense dont need training, and people without it, the training wont help. not true. training can help people with less common sense; common sense are learned behaviors as many others are, and can be taught to a degree, they're just so numerous you can't teach them all. And even people with common sense can benefit from basic training; training and reminders help them stick in your mind better, including helping to remember them when it matters. Also, some people's common sense would simply be wrong about guns even if they have common sense in general. you basically have said nothing more than you disagree. the basic safety rules that are taught in gun safety courses are common sense. dont point the gun at things you dont want to shoot dont put your finger on the trigger if you arent ready to shoot unload guns when not using them know what you are shooting at and what you could hit always treat a firearm as if its loaded (i.e, dont point it at your face) these arent surgeon level principles. I said a little more than I disagree. You're a fool if you think training makes no difference in how well people follow those rules. You're a fool if you think training makes a difference in how well people follow those rules. Do you ever say anything of substance? lol The rule you put last (it's always first) basically has 'training' written into it in any extended explanation. The point of training is to make it a habit. Meaning one does it without having to think about it. Saying "training yourself in the safety rules doesn't make a difference" would be as ignorant as saying that training to block a jab doesn't make a difference. You're too smart to be this ignorant about gun safety. On March 21 2015 12:23 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2015 11:40 IgnE wrote:On March 21 2015 09:40 Millitron wrote:On March 21 2015 08:49 Leporello wrote:On March 21 2015 08:25 Millitron wrote:
Does anybody else find it odd that people whine and cry about voter ID's preventing people from voting, but nobody seems to care that you have to spend hundreds of dollars and huge amounts of paperwork to carry a gun? Both voting and bearing arms are constitutional rights, but somehow it's OK to have hundreds of dollars and months of paperwork to exercise one of them.
Making showing any valid ID mandatory to vote is disenfranchising, but somehow hundreds of dollars in fees and months of paperwork to carry a gun isn't. Don't poor people have the right to bear arms? The 2nd Amendment doesn't say "...shall not be infringed, unless you can't afford it in which case fuck you". No, I don't find it odd, because no one has been arguing voter ID is inherently unconstitutional. More that it is unproductive, unnecessary, and political. I'm not sure what your point is, that we should be giving out guns at our DMVs? If you don't see why voter registration is easier than gun registration, I suggest trying common sense. Voting is the process of electing our government. Guns are weapons. Why should those things be completely equivocated, exactly? Our government spends money on the logistical process of elections. Do you think the federal and state government should spend money to help people register guns? Is that what you're proposing? Elections are a necessary service to maintain a representative government. It is not necessary, in the slightest, for our government to do the same with guns. I truly, fully do not care, in the tiniest bit, that it is harder to obtain a gun license than it is to register to vote. MAYBE if I could believe for a second that our government needed the security of your or anyone else's militia, then sure, let's make gun registration as much a priority as that voting thing. You can only hurt a handful of people with a gun. Voting gives you a say in how the entire country is run. Everyone who has died in every US war from Korea to the War on Terror has died because of voting. Everyone who has died from the War on Drugs has died from voting. It's naive to suggest that running the entire country is not dangerous. Voting had very little to do with any of that. Those wars would have happened whoever had been elected to office. The majority of the voting public opposed the Vietnam war, and opposes a number of policies that any number of elected administrations have pursued, but nothing changes because either both parties would pursue it (e.g. support for Israel) or because people think other things outweigh some war aims (abortion, taxes, whatever). If wars were only waged after a general vote you might have a point. So if voting has no control over something as important as whether to go to war or not, why even do it? In what sense is the voter being represented if he can't even be heard on something as monumental as war? There's no two ways about it. Either voting has power, and should not be trusted to any random drunken idiot, or it has no power and we're not really a republic/democracy and the whole system is a sham. Show nested quote +On March 21 2015 12:13 zlefin wrote:
I do and have, if you can't see that, I don't know how to explain it to you any better. It's a lack of your own common sense if you can't see that training people in something tends to make them do it better. How many teenage pregnancies does sex ed stop? How much teen drug use does the DARE program stop? The kids that need the lessons are the same kids who are the least likely to pay any attention. Show nested quote +On March 21 2015 10:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 21 2015 10:31 Millitron wrote:On March 21 2015 10:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 21 2015 10:13 Millitron wrote:On March 21 2015 10:09 zlefin wrote:
Easily, because the two of those are different skillsets, it's entirely possible to have one without the other.
I'm not going to answer with more than that snark, since it's a silly point, whereas the basis for training for gun owners is very clear and ample. So is voting effective? Does it really give you a say in your government? If yes, why are you OK with any drunken idiot having a say in how the entire country is run? If no, we aren't really a republic or democracy are we? On March 21 2015 10:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 21 2015 10:03 Millitron wrote:On March 21 2015 09:59 zlefin wrote:+ Show Spoiler +There should definitely be some sort of training/testing program for gun ownership, to ensure they know what they're doing. I'll try to put that in if I ever get into congress. Lets do that for voting too. If you can't trust someone with a gun, how can you trust them with an entire country, especially one that has nuclear weapons? Well if people could vote themselves into office alone that might be a real problem. One voter can't do much, one person with a gun can clear out an entire stadium. Although I wouldn't argue against better educating children and adults in general in both firearms and politics. Sure, one vote's not very dangerous. But there's tons of dumb voters out there. I'd absolutely love a high-school course on firearms though. Kinda like a parallel to the "participation in government" classes they make seniors take. They had archery in my PE class, I don't see why a firearms segment would be ridiculous. I would hope they did a better job with a firearms course than they do with their civics 'classes' though. I would just quit with this voting is like owning (conceal carrying is actually what I think you are talking about mostly) a gun nonsense though. I've never said "own" (though in New York you need a concealed carry license just to own a hand gun). The 2nd Amendment says "keep and bear" though, not just "keep". We had archery at my school too. I don't remember what he did exactly, but some kid snapped the bowstring. The bow whipped him in the face and seriously injured his eye. So needless to say we no longer have an archery program. I think they would do better with firearms, as honestly, they're easier. There's only a handful of major rules to learn, unlike those civics classes where they have to teach how every level of government works. That's only NYC not the state. I personally disagree with it but if shit like voter ID has to be shown in court to be ridiculous for people to accept it, than the same should hold for a law like NYC has. Other than that one city (maybe others I am unaware of) you don't need a permit to own or carry. Yeah, a firearms course wouldn't even need live guns to be sufficient, although some live fire training would be additionally helpful, but would bring liabilities most schools probably can't afford (more on inequity in education later). It's not just NYC, it's the whole state. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_New_York#Handgun_licensing"The purchase of a handgun in New York State is limited to only those individuals who hold a valid Pistol Permit issued by a county or major city within New York State..."
I'm not touching the other stuff, as it's way too out there to explain all the parts you are getting wrong. But I thought I edited the other post (before your post) to show I recognized I misread the wiki. I didn't though so I'll say here it's not just NY there are at least 13 states with sketchy laws.
Some are worse than others but I don't have a problem calling them what they are.
The politicization of gun safety has gotten people so wacked, we can't even see the stupidity of fighting sane laws...
A picture from an open carry protest inside the state capitol building in Washington.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/5c0VUtv.jpg)
|
i dont think either of you should own a gun since you need to be trained not to point guns at your face. thats been made pretty clear.
|
re: millitron last question on pregnancies prevented by sex ed,
I haven't found the detailed numbers yet, may not bother, but what I have found points to a clear and significant effect.
studies cited:
4.Kirby D. Emerging Answers: Research Findings on Programs to Reduce Teen Pregnancy. Washington, DC: National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, 2001.
5.Kirby D et al. Impact of Sex and HIV Education Programs on Sexual Behaviors of Youth in Developing and Developed Countries. [Youth Research Working Paper, No. 2] Research Triangle Park, NC: Family Health International, 2005.
6.Alford S. Science and Success: Sex Education and Other Programs that Work to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, HIV & Sexually Transmitted Infections. Washington, DC: Advocates for Youth, 2003.
7.Alford S. Science and Success, Second Edition: Programs that Work to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, HIV & Sexually Transmitted Infections. Washington, DC: Advocates for Youth, 2008
another link:
http://depts.washington.edu/hserv/articles/71
|
On March 21 2015 12:23 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2015 11:40 IgnE wrote:On March 21 2015 09:40 Millitron wrote:On March 21 2015 08:49 Leporello wrote:On March 21 2015 08:25 Millitron wrote:
Does anybody else find it odd that people whine and cry about voter ID's preventing people from voting, but nobody seems to care that you have to spend hundreds of dollars and huge amounts of paperwork to carry a gun? Both voting and bearing arms are constitutional rights, but somehow it's OK to have hundreds of dollars and months of paperwork to exercise one of them.
Making showing any valid ID mandatory to vote is disenfranchising, but somehow hundreds of dollars in fees and months of paperwork to carry a gun isn't. Don't poor people have the right to bear arms? The 2nd Amendment doesn't say "...shall not be infringed, unless you can't afford it in which case fuck you". No, I don't find it odd, because no one has been arguing voter ID is inherently unconstitutional. More that it is unproductive, unnecessary, and political. I'm not sure what your point is, that we should be giving out guns at our DMVs? If you don't see why voter registration is easier than gun registration, I suggest trying common sense. Voting is the process of electing our government. Guns are weapons. Why should those things be completely equivocated, exactly? Our government spends money on the logistical process of elections. Do you think the federal and state government should spend money to help people register guns? Is that what you're proposing? Elections are a necessary service to maintain a representative government. It is not necessary, in the slightest, for our government to do the same with guns. I truly, fully do not care, in the tiniest bit, that it is harder to obtain a gun license than it is to register to vote. MAYBE if I could believe for a second that our government needed the security of your or anyone else's militia, then sure, let's make gun registration as much a priority as that voting thing. You can only hurt a handful of people with a gun. Voting gives you a say in how the entire country is run. Everyone who has died in every US war from Korea to the War on Terror has died because of voting. Everyone who has died from the War on Drugs has died from voting. It's naive to suggest that running the entire country is not dangerous. Voting had very little to do with any of that. Those wars would have happened whoever had been elected to office. The majority of the voting public opposed the Vietnam war, and opposes a number of policies that any number of elected administrations have pursued, but nothing changes because either both parties would pursue it (e.g. support for Israel) or because people think other things outweigh some war aims (abortion, taxes, whatever). If wars were only waged after a general vote you might have a point. So if voting has no control over something as important as whether to go to war or not, why even do it? In what sense is the voter being represented if he can't even be heard on something as monumental as war? There's no two ways about it. Either voting has power, and should not be trusted to any random drunken idiot, or it has no power and we're not really a republic/democracy and the whole system is a sham.
The whole system is a sham.
|
On the one hand having decisions of war in the hand of the general population seems a little adventurous, on the other it's obviously bad if the decision is in the hands of an irresponsible government. I don't think there is an easy solution to this, but I don't think some direct democratic controlled army is realistic or makes a lot of sense, as even justified military operations can be hugely unpopular.
|
On March 21 2015 12:50 dAPhREAk wrote:
i dont think either of you should own a gun since you need to be trained not to point guns at your face. thats been made pretty clear.
lol, it's not about not pointing the gun at your face? Are you just being flippant or really that ignorant? Plus, I'd bet I'm better with mine than you are with yours.
|
On March 21 2015 13:01 zlefin wrote:re: millitron last question on pregnancies prevented by sex ed, I haven't found the detailed numbers yet, may not bother, but what I have found points to a clear and significant effect. studies cited: 4.Kirby D. Emerging Answers: Research Findings on Programs to Reduce Teen Pregnancy. Washington, DC: National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, 2001. 5.Kirby D et al. Impact of Sex and HIV Education Programs on Sexual Behaviors of Youth in Developing and Developed Countries. [Youth Research Working Paper, No. 2] Research Triangle Park, NC: Family Health International, 2005. 6.Alford S. Science and Success: Sex Education and Other Programs that Work to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, HIV & Sexually Transmitted Infections. Washington, DC: Advocates for Youth, 2003. 7.Alford S. Science and Success, Second Edition: Programs that Work to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, HIV & Sexually Transmitted Infections. Washington, DC: Advocates for Youth, 2008 another link: http://depts.washington.edu/hserv/articles/71
Yeah I'm just going to second this. I strongly suspect that abstinence only sex education is pretty useless at preventing teen pregnancies, but actual real sex education prevents a lot of pregnancies.
A 30 second googling brought up this page, which supposedly summarizes the findings of a research article listed below:
http://www.siecus.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Feature.showFeature&featureID=1041
Quote:
"Young people who received comprehensive sex education were significantly less likely to report a teen pregnancy compared to those who received no sex education. "
and
"Abstinence-only programs were not significantly associated with a risk reduction for teen pregnancy when compared with no sex education. "
Pamela Kohler, et al., “Abstinence-Only and Comprehensive Sex Education and the Initiation of Sexual Activity and Teen Pregnancy,” Journal of Adolescent Health 42.4 (March 2008); 344–351.
Interestingly enough they found no link to education and STDs, which is a bit counter-intuitive, but there you go.
Training works.
|
Wait, are you trying to tell me that the relative promiscuity of minorities compared to white people is due in part to things other than their "cultural problems?" Get outta here!
|
On March 21 2015 12:50 dAPhREAk wrote:
i dont think either of you should own a gun since you need to be trained not to point guns at your face. thats been made pretty clear.
People are stupid. The fact that you think that some things are "common sense" means that everyone is going to know them and follow them shows us you are either 1) willfully ignorant or 2) hopelessly sheltered from the real world.
People are really that stupid. Combine that with the fact that, at least in this country, owning a gun is a right (and therefore you can't completely prohibit someone from owning one just because they're stupid, but only if they pose a clear danger to others), then it makes sense that people should have to go through gun safety courses.
Seriously, it fucking blows my mind that you're actually trying to argue that the average person is smart enough to follow gun safety rules without being educated on them. Just Google or Youtube ANYTHING and you'll find limitless testimonials to the incredible lack of intelligence in our species. Fuck man, people still drink/text/put on makeup/change clothes while driving, which is one of the most dangerous things you could possibly do in everyday life, and yet you think that the average person is smart enough to properly handle a gun without education? People are even required to go through education to drive and they still do stupid shit!
And yes, Millitron, it's been pretty well-documented that Sex Ed and D.A.R.E. programs do help educate youth and therefore reduce drug problems/teen pregnancies.
|
On March 21 2015 12:44 GreenHorizons wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 21 2015 12:10 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2015 12:01 zlefin wrote:On March 21 2015 11:35 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 21 2015 11:22 zlefin wrote:On March 21 2015 10:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 21 2015 10:09 zlefin wrote:
Easily, because the two of those are different skillsets, it's entirely possible to have one without the other.
I'm not going to answer with more than that snark, since it's a silly point, whereas the basis for training for gun owners is very clear and ample. gun safety is pretty much common sense. people with common sense dont need training, and people without it, the training wont help. not true. training can help people with less common sense; common sense are learned behaviors as many others are, and can be taught to a degree, they're just so numerous you can't teach them all. And even people with common sense can benefit from basic training; training and reminders help them stick in your mind better, including helping to remember them when it matters. Also, some people's common sense would simply be wrong about guns even if they have common sense in general. you basically have said nothing more than you disagree. the basic safety rules that are taught in gun safety courses are common sense. dont point the gun at things you dont want to shoot dont put your finger on the trigger if you arent ready to shoot unload guns when not using them know what you are shooting at and what you could hit always treat a firearm as if its loaded (i.e, dont point it at your face) these arent surgeon level principles. I said a little more than I disagree. You're a fool if you think training makes no difference in how well people follow those rules. You're a fool if you think training makes a difference in how well people follow those rules. Do you ever say anything of substance? lol The rule you put last (it's always first) basically has 'training' written into it in any extended explanation. The point of training is to make it a habit. Meaning one does it without having to think about it. Saying "training yourself in the safety rules doesn't make a difference" would be as ignorant as saying that training to block a jab doesn't make a difference. You're too smart to be this ignorant about gun safety. On March 21 2015 12:23 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2015 11:40 IgnE wrote:On March 21 2015 09:40 Millitron wrote:On March 21 2015 08:49 Leporello wrote:On March 21 2015 08:25 Millitron wrote:
Does anybody else find it odd that people whine and cry about voter ID's preventing people from voting, but nobody seems to care that you have to spend hundreds of dollars and huge amounts of paperwork to carry a gun? Both voting and bearing arms are constitutional rights, but somehow it's OK to have hundreds of dollars and months of paperwork to exercise one of them.
Making showing any valid ID mandatory to vote is disenfranchising, but somehow hundreds of dollars in fees and months of paperwork to carry a gun isn't. Don't poor people have the right to bear arms? The 2nd Amendment doesn't say "...shall not be infringed, unless you can't afford it in which case fuck you". No, I don't find it odd, because no one has been arguing voter ID is inherently unconstitutional. More that it is unproductive, unnecessary, and political. I'm not sure what your point is, that we should be giving out guns at our DMVs? If you don't see why voter registration is easier than gun registration, I suggest trying common sense. Voting is the process of electing our government. Guns are weapons. Why should those things be completely equivocated, exactly? Our government spends money on the logistical process of elections. Do you think the federal and state government should spend money to help people register guns? Is that what you're proposing? Elections are a necessary service to maintain a representative government. It is not necessary, in the slightest, for our government to do the same with guns. I truly, fully do not care, in the tiniest bit, that it is harder to obtain a gun license than it is to register to vote. MAYBE if I could believe for a second that our government needed the security of your or anyone else's militia, then sure, let's make gun registration as much a priority as that voting thing. You can only hurt a handful of people with a gun. Voting gives you a say in how the entire country is run. Everyone who has died in every US war from Korea to the War on Terror has died because of voting. Everyone who has died from the War on Drugs has died from voting. It's naive to suggest that running the entire country is not dangerous. Voting had very little to do with any of that. Those wars would have happened whoever had been elected to office. The majority of the voting public opposed the Vietnam war, and opposes a number of policies that any number of elected administrations have pursued, but nothing changes because either both parties would pursue it (e.g. support for Israel) or because people think other things outweigh some war aims (abortion, taxes, whatever). If wars were only waged after a general vote you might have a point. So if voting has no control over something as important as whether to go to war or not, why even do it? In what sense is the voter being represented if he can't even be heard on something as monumental as war? There's no two ways about it. Either voting has power, and should not be trusted to any random drunken idiot, or it has no power and we're not really a republic/democracy and the whole system is a sham. Show nested quote +On March 21 2015 12:13 zlefin wrote:
I do and have, if you can't see that, I don't know how to explain it to you any better. It's a lack of your own common sense if you can't see that training people in something tends to make them do it better. How many teenage pregnancies does sex ed stop? How much teen drug use does the DARE program stop? The kids that need the lessons are the same kids who are the least likely to pay any attention. Show nested quote +On March 21 2015 10:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 21 2015 10:31 Millitron wrote:On March 21 2015 10:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 21 2015 10:13 Millitron wrote:On March 21 2015 10:09 zlefin wrote:
Easily, because the two of those are different skillsets, it's entirely possible to have one without the other.
I'm not going to answer with more than that snark, since it's a silly point, whereas the basis for training for gun owners is very clear and ample. So is voting effective? Does it really give you a say in your government? If yes, why are you OK with any drunken idiot having a say in how the entire country is run? If no, we aren't really a republic or democracy are we? On March 21 2015 10:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 21 2015 10:03 Millitron wrote:On March 21 2015 09:59 zlefin wrote:+ Show Spoiler +There should definitely be some sort of training/testing program for gun ownership, to ensure they know what they're doing. I'll try to put that in if I ever get into congress. Lets do that for voting too. If you can't trust someone with a gun, how can you trust them with an entire country, especially one that has nuclear weapons? Well if people could vote themselves into office alone that might be a real problem. One voter can't do much, one person with a gun can clear out an entire stadium. Although I wouldn't argue against better educating children and adults in general in both firearms and politics. Sure, one vote's not very dangerous. But there's tons of dumb voters out there. I'd absolutely love a high-school course on firearms though. Kinda like a parallel to the "participation in government" classes they make seniors take. They had archery in my PE class, I don't see why a firearms segment would be ridiculous. I would hope they did a better job with a firearms course than they do with their civics 'classes' though. I would just quit with this voting is like owning (conceal carrying is actually what I think you are talking about mostly) a gun nonsense though. I've never said "own" (though in New York you need a concealed carry license just to own a hand gun). The 2nd Amendment says "keep and bear" though, not just "keep". We had archery at my school too. I don't remember what he did exactly, but some kid snapped the bowstring. The bow whipped him in the face and seriously injured his eye. So needless to say we no longer have an archery program. I think they would do better with firearms, as honestly, they're easier. There's only a handful of major rules to learn, unlike those civics classes where they have to teach how every level of government works. That's only NYC not the state. I personally disagree with it but if shit like voter ID has to be shown in court to be ridiculous for people to accept it, than the same should hold for a law like NYC has. Other than that one city (maybe others I am unaware of) you don't need a permit to own or carry. Yeah, a firearms course wouldn't even need live guns to be sufficient, although some live fire training would be additionally helpful, but would bring liabilities most schools probably can't afford (more on inequity in education later). It's not just NYC, it's the whole state. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_New_York#Handgun_licensing"The purchase of a handgun in New York State is limited to only those individuals who hold a valid Pistol Permit issued by a county or major city within New York State..." I'm not touching the other stuff, as it's way too out there to explain all the parts you are getting wrong. But I thought I edited the other post (before your post) to show I recognized I misread the wiki. I didn't though so I'll say here it's not just NY there are at least 13 states with sketchy laws. Some are worse than others but I don't have a problem calling them what they are. The politicization of gun safety has gotten people so wacked, we can't even see the stupidity of fighting sane laws... A picture from an open carry protest inside the state capitol building in Washington.
Not sure what's so bad about that open carry protest. They aren't aiming their guns at anyone or gunning people down. They all even have good trigger discipline.
|
United States41117 Posts
Secretary of State John Kerry says there has been "genuine progress" on talks with Iran over its nuclear program, but he has acknowledged that gaps still remain as the negotiations go on a brief hiatus before resuming next week.
Speaking with reporters in Lausanne, Switzerland, where the so-called "P5+1" nations — the U.S., Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany — were meeting to hammer out a deal before the end of the month, Kerry insisted that "we are not rushing" on an agreement.
NPR's Peter Kenyon, reporting from Lausanne, remarks that "critics say the negotiators are too eager for a deal, but this week a European diplomat described the sides as 'not close' to an accord."
However, Kerry, who was ready to depart for London, said: "This has been a two and a half-year process. But we recognize that fundamental decisions have to be made now and they don't become easier as time goes by."
The U.S. secretary of state will return to Lausanne on Wednesday "to determine whether or not an agreement is possible."
Source
|
On March 22 2015 01:49 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Secretary of State John Kerry says there has been "genuine progress" on talks with Iran over its nuclear program, but he has acknowledged that gaps still remain as the negotiations go on a brief hiatus before resuming next week.
Speaking with reporters in Lausanne, Switzerland, where the so-called "P5+1" nations — the U.S., Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany — were meeting to hammer out a deal before the end of the month, Kerry insisted that "we are not rushing" on an agreement.
NPR's Peter Kenyon, reporting from Lausanne, remarks that "critics say the negotiators are too eager for a deal, but this week a European diplomat described the sides as 'not close' to an accord."
However, Kerry, who was ready to depart for London, said: "This has been a two and a half-year process. But we recognize that fundamental decisions have to be made now and they don't become easier as time goes by."
The U.S. secretary of state will return to Lausanne on Wednesday "to determine whether or not an agreement is possible." Source
Anybody else think its funny we preach about nuclear disarmament and yet we have more nuclear weapons than anyone and are the only nation to ever use one on people? Like a nation-wide case of "Do as I say, not as I do."
|
who's talking about disarmament? the topic I hear is non-proliferation. I mean, disarmament doesn't make sense except for nations that already have them.
|
On March 21 2015 22:50 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2015 12:50 dAPhREAk wrote:
i dont think either of you should own a gun since you need to be trained not to point guns at your face. thats been made pretty clear. People are stupid. The fact that you think that some things are "common sense" means that everyone is going to know them and follow them shows us you are either 1) willfully ignorant or 2) hopelessly sheltered from the real world. People are really that stupid. Combine that with the fact that, at least in this country, owning a gun is a right (and therefore you can't completely prohibit someone from owning one just because they're stupid, but only if they pose a clear danger to others), then it makes sense that people should have to go through gun safety courses. Seriously, it fucking blows my mind that you're actually trying to argue that the average person is smart enough to follow gun safety rules without being educated on them. Just Google or Youtube ANYTHING and you'll find limitless testimonials to the incredible lack of intelligence in our species. Fuck man, people still drink/text/put on makeup/change clothes while driving, which is one of the most dangerous things you could possibly do in everyday life, and yet you think that the average person is smart enough to properly handle a gun without education? People are even required to go through education to drive and they still do stupid shit! And yes, Millitron, it's been pretty well-documented that Sex Ed and D.A.R.E. programs do help educate youth and therefore reduce drug problems/teen pregnancies.
i dont need to google or youtube anything, i can just read your post.
On March 21 2015 10:56 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2015 10:09 zlefin wrote:
Easily, because the two of those are different skillsets, it's entirely possible to have one without the other.
I'm not going to answer with more than that snark, since it's a silly point, whereas the basis for training for gun owners is very clear and ample. gun safety is pretty much common sense. people with common sense dont need training, and people without it, the training wont help.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
