Comments by equus_posteriori
Page 1 of 52 | Next
Posted on May 16 at 11:22 a.m.
@willy88
"Removing the right of law abiding people to have automatic weapons and high capacity clips will do and has done (where there are these laws already in place) nothing to reduce this type of violence."
Actually, I think you are mostly wrong in particular regards to the Newtown (Sandy Hook) shooting. The guns used (Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle with a 30 round magazine, a 10mm Glock handgun, and a 9mm SIG Sauer P226--source, Wikipedia) were legally purchased and owned by the shooter's mother. If she had either been unable to purchase a Bushmaster and/or the large mag, then the damage caused may have been less or non-existent. I will concede, however, that limited capacity of individual magazines may not make much difference, should multiple ones be available for use, but a few seconds of reload time might have actually made a difference in the ability of someone to escape the immediate firezone.
Anyway, the point is, that disallowing the purchase of a military-spec weapon (colloquially, "assault rifle") may very well have saved lives, by preventing, or limiting, the ability/efficiency of the shooter.
Stretching the logic, it might even be possible to say that had the Bushmaster not been in the mother's collection, then perhaps the shooting would not have occurred at all--if one allows for the combination of the shooter's fondness of Call of Duty [military style video game--a First Person Shooter (FPS)], and his desire to use such a weapon, to be a motivational factor. [NOTE: I said "stretching the logic", and don't submit this as much more than unsupportable speculation.]
Posted on April 16 at 12:46 p.m.
"Sorry if I responded to what you said rather than what you would have said had you said something else." _pk
Submitted for consideration as Independent Online Comment of the Year, 2013.
Posted on April 3 at 7:48 a.m.
OT @howgreenwasmyvalley
"I remember talking to my daughter, if she dated, in college and her reply was that they didn't even bother to buy you dinner these days, so why bother."
Welcome, to gender/sexual equality--where women are supposed to be independent, and pay there own way. The woman paying for everything even happens once in awhile!
"Going Dutch" is still an option as well. :)
On The Jogger
Posted on March 8 at 11:19 a.m.
"...don't the families still have rights to meaningful contact?"
Possibly not, although prisoners should still retain the rights of contact, unless their visitation privileges are rescinded. That in itself is illustrative of what the difference is in what jail-time is supposed to be--it's meant to be for Rehabilitation, not Punishment. If everyone connected to the prison system (prisoners, guards, administration) respected that, then they might respect each other, and laws/rules such as those to impede communication would not be necessary. However, I understand that there are those people who are very much "bad eggs", and a quite possibly beyond rehabilitation, which may also explain recidivism rates and the like.
Unfortunately, I've got no real answers to the question of how to determine which felons are able to be rehabilitated and which can't, or won't.
Posted on March 8 at 11:09 a.m.
@loonpt
"Some of the most successful music bands of all time have taken to the strategy of giving away their music to fans and subsequently touring sold-out shows."
I agree with your point, although I'm not sure this is a good example. Bands signed to big labels almost always make their money by selling show tickets and merchandise. It's the record companies/labels that profit from direct music sales on media (or downloaded-for-pay). The intellectual property/copyright protects the interest of corporations and their executives...and there is of course benefit to shareholders.
On the other hand, there are a few bands that are truly independent and follow the model you describe, although they usually never reach the heights attainable by being promoted by a large record company. And, you will likely never hear them on a Top-40...or Top-Anything...radio staion.
Posted on February 15 at 7:40 a.m.
@italiansurg, @passagerider
The author even specifically writes: "This has nothing to do with free speech, or personal beliefs and values. People making that argument are missing the point; Santa Barbara dollars are now directly helping to finance anti-gay organizations."
The opinion of the CEO of CFA brought scrutiny to the company, but the issue itself is not one about him expressing his personal views on gay lifestyles. It's about the corporate policy of CFA, and the *actions* taken, donating money to groups/issues that take part in actively seeking to harm people who are gay.
Posted on February 15 at 7:10 a.m.
@spacey
It's "precedent". And, I feel that playing Spelling Police on this one is okay, since the joke hinges on the homophonics....
Posted on January 22 at 2:05 p.m.
@JAnderton
"How will limiting the types of guns or capacity of magazines prevent mentally ill or criminally evil people from doing horrible things?"
Taking you literally--such limits would not stop anyone from "doing horrible things" (assuming them to be gun-related). However, the idea is to mitigate the damage possible, by limiting the "types of guns or capacity of magazines". It's simple logic: the limits are based on the design of the firearms, in relation to power and capacity/cycle rate.
I think you are also overlooking the idea that you as an idividual may be a "responsible gun owner", but as you have mentioned, there are "mentally ill" and "criminally evil people" who may not be. In such, you would be affected by any firearms law which would restrict those people--short of a world where the mentally ill and criminally evil would simply shy away from gun ownership! [Laws have a tendency to be of the type that punish a non-guilty majority, due to the actions of a minority of outlaws, because they are reactive.]
Sidebar, the WW1 rifle, the .30-06 semi-auto M1 Garand--an early "assault weapon", if you will--only had an 8 round capacity. Furthermore, it replaced a bolt-action model. [I'm mentioning this just to illustrate that while deadlier weapons are desirable in a war zone, I believe that a compromise must be made when it comes to the 2nd Amendment and the "home front".]
Btw, if a legal, semi-automatic weapon has the capacity/ability to kill a group of people as large or larger than an rocket-propelled grenade (RPG), then why is one legal but the other isn't? When comparing the damage possible *per projectile*, the RPG would be on top. However, considering the slow cycle rate, and likely limited carryable ammo, one might be able to argue that it's actuall *safer* than a high-powered, semi-automatic rifle with a few hundred rounds? (Note: This is mostly a joke--an RPG is proably considered an explosive device, and as such would not be available to the general public.)
Posted on January 15 at 11:30 a.m.
@JohnLocke
Thanks, for the reply--Was muzzle caliber never considered at all? I think I could understand why it might be overlooked, specifically, but I'm guessing that it might also be possible that an *air-powered* rifle is not counted as a *fire*arm, and so the pellet rifle would not be included in a ban.
"Gun safety or HIPAA?"---Unfortunately, that's a good example of a prickly issue, weighing "Private Rights" vs. "Public Safety". It's even more complicated, when considering that we might curtail the rights of the "mentally ill", but then what do we do if they are "cureable" (or at least manageable)?--Sorry, that's a tangent....
I agree with the LA Times article (and I assume your point, by proxy) that more laws are not (necessarily) the answer--especially in light of what is/isn't already being enforced.
Overall, I think a large problem is that "stupid lawmaking" is done by "lawmakers", and not experts in anything else. Even allowing for the consultation of experts, I doubt reason ever truly prevails!
Page 1 of 52 | Next
Previous Month
Posted on May 20 at 12:06 p.m.
@JohnLocke
I agree with you about the background checks not doing anything in the Sandy Hook case, but I was *specifically* addressing willy88's comment of, "Removing the right of law abiding people to have automatic weapons and high capacity clips...."---which is why I included the quote in the first case. (You are actually providing a strawman argument--although that term does get thrown around a lot, and I do not believe that it was purposefully intended by you, here.)
As for the Bushmaster being "military spec". I was basing the description on the cartridge, more so than the fully-automatic vs. semi-automatic. Your argument is technically correct, but I would submit that it makes little difference when open shooting into a crowd, or targeting children that are small, but not very fast<--apologies, if anyone finds it offensive to describe kids that way.
On Guns, Congress, and the Commander-in-Chief