58 Dead, 500 Plus Wounded

[JudgeRightly]

worth mentioning here that artie is from england, where you can travel the whole country in a day


here in America, the difference between eight hours at a 55 mph speed limit and traveling at, let's say 85 is 240 miles - in other words an extra 4 hours and change on the road at the slower speed.

New York to LA? 51 hours vs 33

The record for the "Cannonball Run" is 26 hours and 28 minutes.

https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2...nutes-gt-r-powered-dual-control-infiniti-q50/

 

[ok doser]

Thurso to Brighton? 725 miles

at 55, 13 hours

at 85? eight and a half hours


so you can see why this discussion takes on a different flavor when you're discussing the tiny country of great britain and comparing it to america

the UK is about a third the size of texas, our second largest state

it's 1/7 the size of our largest state

in fact, eleven of our states are each larger than the UK


overall, the US is about 40 times the size of the UK

 

[ok doser]

The record for the "Cannonball Run" is 26 hours and 28 minutes.

https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2...nutes-gt-r-powered-dual-control-infiniti-q50/

with slaughtered children littering the shoulders of the roads, right?

 

[ok doser]

Why not 1? 1mph is probably not enough to cause physical damage to most objects, so in the interest of safety, let's just limit it to 1mph!

:think:

 

[ok doser]

The difference between 20 and 30mph may not sound like very much but it's significant in terms of the damage inflicted on someone being struck by a car, especially in relation to children, not to mention the increase in reaction time which would improve the chances of people not being hit at all.

and both reaction time and survival rates would be further enhanced by reducing the speed limit even further

or don't you care about all those injured children?

 

[ok doser]

maybe we're missing something here, JR, something cultural

artie keeps referring to all these children who are too clueless to get out of the way of a car in the road - maybe it's a british thing

maybe the brits don't tell their kids it's dangerous to play in the street

maybe british kids aren't smart enough to know that an oncoming car might be dangerous

maybe it's a defining quirk of their society, like poor dental care :idunno:

 

[nikolai_42]

I think the effort is to make every man equal in the exercise of right. So it's not a question of whose rights are paramount, but what is the nature and effect of the exercise.


That presumes an equality of value among rights and exercise that I think is hard to argue for. Take the right to bear arms. The right to bear arms has lost a great deal of the value it had in founding and a problem associated with the right at that time is exponentially worse in present circumstances.

When the right was written into our Constitution the weapons people maintained were incapable of producing the sort of harm they are now, did not represent the threat to neighbor and peace that they do now. When the right was established people used those weapons for livelihood and self-defense, and their possession was necessary for a citizens army absent a standing one. Most of what made the right desirable is no longer true and the danger posed by those weapons, absent significant limits, is overwhelmingly greater.

I'm not for abandoning the right because of its diminished utility and greatly advancing danger, but I think the reasonable limits on its exercise, the cost/benefit analysis that made the right meaningful to begin with has to be reexamined. And we can possess (and I've argued for) weapons that were and remain capable of providing security without providing the means for mass shootings/murders.


You also don't need an assault rifle, a bump stock, or a magazine that holds 30 rounds.

I think we are close to being on the same page (or at least the same chapter), but why should need come into play when talking about rights? Why should the government decide what a private citizen needs (beyond the assessment of how it necessarily will impact the guaranteed rights of other private citizens)? It may well be overkill to have an assault rifle (not knowing a whole lot about weapons details myself, I don't know what that means since in my mind all rifles are for assault of some kind) or a semi-automatic machine gun - but where it doesn't necessitate unreasonable infringement on the rights of others (the reasoning I was going at with the nukes), why should it be restricted? A nuke will certainly affect hundreds, thousands and millions of people beyond the legitimate target. And when the end is stopping a burglary or assault, that's certainly unreasonable. But if someone can properly handle an automatic weapon, then it is reasonable to assume they can use it in the right situation and limit the fallout to the immediate area. Use of it doesn't necessitate affecting innocent bystanders (like the nuke does). It may happen, but it doesn't have to. We have 30 and 40 mile an hour speed limits in residential areas for a reason - as we do (in Texas) 75-85 mph limits on certain freeways. You wouldn't go 75 in a residential area (and should be prosecuted severely if you do) but you don't put a governor on the car to keep someone from going above (for example) 55mph.

My understanding of the way rights are to be looked at is that they are to be curbed only when it can be shown that there is no good reason not to - or the good impact significantly outweighs the bad precedent. So when the government says "We don't think you need a semi-automatic weapon to protect yourself", the only justification I can see for it is overwhelming evidence that use of that weapon will almost inevitably result in notable harm to those who aren't the intended target. So a rocket launcher in an urban townhome development will almost certainly destroy surrounding homes. And since it isn't a necessary weapon, I can see limiting it to military use.

Here's the problem, conceivable and reasonable are often at very different poles. Aliens may well exist and it is conceivable that you might meet one. But it's not reasonable to expect it and it may well be irresponsible for you to prepare a special compound for the chance of that happening.

It may be - but unless building that compound directly infringes on the rights of others in a clear way, why should the government care?

It is conceivable that you might lose your mind and take whatever weapons you can put your hands on to kill as many people as you can. Is it more or less likely, on average, that you will either through malice or mistake harm others with a semi-automatic than it is you will be overrun by a ranging horde of criminals? I think we both know the answer to that.

Again, I think that's too close to legislating based on misuse rather than unacceptable fallout from reasonable use. Should the government get to decide which is more likely in that case? I'm not arguing there shouldn't be considerable training on proper use of the weapon. But saying you can't use a semi-automatic because of possible misuse lumps the criminal with the law abiding citizen. Not so if you limit access (or totally ban access) to a rocket launcher, for example. Legal use is still problematic. Beyond that, the government is painting with too broad a brush, I think.

The weapons considered sufficient to support the right when it was written are far less lethal than the bolt, lever, and cylinder fed weapons I advocate today, though they share one thing in common beyond being able to meet the right and need, neither could be used to kill large numbers of innocent people in seconds.

I would simply add that the government has virtually unlimited resources at their disposal. And part of the reasoning behind the right to bear arms was protection against the government. If a government is not in some way intent on infringing the rights of its citizens to enlarge its own power (which the Founders were constantly suspicious of), then it has nothing to fear from a private militia. And the main reason to restrict firearms (within reasonable limits as I have tried to describe) would be to further subjugate the citizenry. This is where the healthy respect for rule of law is the critical counterbalance to giving more liberty in the "grey areas". And if the suspicion is that the citizen doesn't have that respect, then the government will encroach. And that's one way tyranny begins. So it is that I posted earlier today on Washington and the Rule of Law. Greater liberty and this respect go hand in hand. And this nation's laws were only made for a moral people (bible-adhering, if you believe GW).

Freedom is like a weapon. If used intelligently and with the good in mind it can be a wonderful thing. If used without regard for anyone else it becomes monstrous.

Agreed. And the increase of legislation tends away from freedom. I have to believe that in some ways we have too many laws (and too much reliance on the law itself to protect us) and too little respect for the rule of law as originally intended.

No one should suggest it. But you can limit access to a thing whose utility is suspect except as an instrument to do a thing no one should desire outside of a military application.


We have to have cars at present. We may not always have to have self-driven cars, but the nature of our country, its size and the way populations break down outside of cities necessitate them.


When a car is used to kill someone it is not being used in accord with the purpose for which it was designed.


Enjoyed it. :cheers:

 

[nikolai_42]

the second amendment wasn't written to ensure a well organized militia to defend against criminals breaking into your home

it was written to ensure a well organized militia to resist a tyrannical state

if that ever comes to pass, i'd prefer a howitzer over a shotgun

And honestly...it wouldn't make much difference against the professional military the US employs. So short of disbanding the professional military all together, I can't see allowing the accrual of weapons that - even when used properly - are bound to cause significant harm to those who are not the intended target.

 

[ok doser]

nikolai - current legal restrictions on gun ownership (in New York, for example) reveal that the government considers the citizens to be potential criminals - that it's intent is to prevent the ownership of lethal weapons based on the possibility that legal owners of such weaponry will use them to commit illegal acts. The NYS-SAFE ACT that was crammed through the state legislature in the middle of the night, literally, was a political response to the Sandy Hook shootings.It criminalized ownership of guns that looked like the weapons used by Adam Lanza, regardless of the nature of those citizens of New York state who owned such weapons.

Let me say that again - it created criminals of those who were previously law-abiding.

 

[JudgeRightly]

nikolai - current legal restrictions on gun ownership (in New York, for example) reveal that the government considers the citizens to be potential criminals - that it's intent is to prevent the ownership of lethal weapons based on the possibility that legal owners of such weaponry will use them to commit illegal acts. The NYS-SAFE ACT that was crammed through the state legislature in the middle of the night, literally, was a political response to the Sandy Hook shootings.It criminalized ownership of guns that looked like the weapons used by Adam Lanza, regardless of the nature of those citizens of New York state who owned such weapons.

Let me say that again - it created criminals of those who were previously law-abiding.

Sounds like a bad law to me

 

[ok doser]

And honestly...it wouldn't make much difference against the professional military the US employs.

not the place to discuss this, but the thinking is that if a coup occurs, some portion of the military will rebel, join the state national guards and private militias and act against the illegal usurpation of the constitution

historically speaking, it's not only likely but inevitable - there's no reason to think that our form of government is going to be eternal

and all too easy to dismiss as the stuff of kooks and conspiracy theorists

 

[ok doser]

Sounds like a bad law to me

it plays in new york city, which is all that counts in NYS politics

irritates the heck out of me and a lot of my fellow northern new yorkers

Clinton County's kind of an anomaly (upper right) - not sure why - most of the population is centered around Plattsburg, which is a college town, must be heavy on libs

 

[nikolai_42]

nikolai - current legal restrictions on gun ownership (in New York, for example) reveal that the government considers the citizens to be potential criminals - that it's intent is to prevent the ownership of lethal weapons based on the possibility that legal owners of such weaponry will use them to commit illegal acts. The NYS-SAFE ACT that was crammed through the state legislature in the middle of the night, literally, was a political response to the Sandy Hook shootings.It criminalized ownership of guns that looked like the weapons used by Adam Lanza, regardless of the nature of those citizens of New York state who owned such weapons.

Let me say that again - it created criminals of those who were previously law-abiding.

I don't argue that. The conclusion I'm advancing is that a people who are not wanting to have a healthy respect for the rule of law are going to find themselves legislated into oblivion. The natural governmental response to generalized lawlessness is more laws. This goes back much further than Obama and Bloomberg (though I wouldn't support either one of them, myself) and I think George Washington's example shows how respect for the rule of law as enshrined in the Constitution (which is not an evolving document) can result in better self-government on a large scale. We don't have many people in government like that. But that, in part, is a reaction to government's increasing scope ... which in turn is a response to increased lawlessness...which is partly in response to perceived ills (some of which are legitimate, many of which I don't believe are). While I agree with easing certain gun restrictions, I also don't have any illusions that that is going to do one bit of good for our "social ills". Neither is trying to solve things with political correctness and bigger government.

 

[nikolai_42]

not the place to discuss this, but the thinking is that if a coup occurs, some portion of the military will rebel, join the state national guards and private militias and act against the illegal usurpation of the constitution

historically speaking, it's not only likely but inevitable - there's no reason to think that our form of government is going to be eternal

and all too easy to dismiss as the stuff of kooks and conspiracy theorists

At that point, the constitution will be in shambles anyway (as if it isn't on the path already).

 

[ok doser]

At that point, the constitution will be in shambles anyway (as if it isn't on the path already).

kinda hoping the trump SCOTUS appointees will help mend some of the damage done by the left

 

[nikolai_42]

kinda hoping the trump SCOTUS appointees will help mend some of the damage done by the left

It may help, but I would say the political and spiritual makeup of the country is more of a concern. Even if Trump were to outlaw abortion on demand (which I don't think he will), abolish the Department of Education and return control to the states, liberalize gun laws and open up the Capitol building for public bible studies - the problem we have now is that enough of the populace is against those things that we still won't have the kind of freedom we used to have. If even 1/3rd of the population is against all this and they are vocal enough and rebellious enough (a good chance, today) then they could make life absolutely miserable for everyone in response to the law. And if some of those happen to be on the police force, they will throw more chaos into the mix.

The fix is not right legislation....

NOTE : But with that, it looks like I'm repeating myself, so I'll withdraw into the background for a short while

 

[Town Heretic]

I think we are close to being on the same page (or at least the same chapter), but why should need come into play when talking about rights?

You tell me. You introduced the term as a guide when you said, "I don't need a nuke to protect my family." I simply used your standard to note that you don't need other things, like a clip that holds 30 rounds, or a semi-automatic weapon.

Why should the government decide what a private citizen needs (beyond the assessment of how it necessarily will impact the guaranteed rights of other private citizens)?

I'd couch it differently. One of the things government does is consider the cost/benefit of any thing that impacts the likelihood of our enjoyment of those rights. Frequently that means restricting their exercise in some form or fashion.

It may well be overkill to have an assault rifle (not knowing a whole lot about weapons details myself, I don't know what that means since in my mind all rifles are for assault of some kind) or a semi-automatic machine gun - but where it doesn't necessitate unreasonable infringement on the rights of others (the reasoning I was going at with the nukes), why should it be restricted? A nuke will certainly affect hundreds, thousands and millions of people beyond the legitimate target. And when the end is stopping a burglary or assault, that's certainly unreasonable. But if someone can properly handle an automatic weapon, then it is reasonable to assume they can use it in the right situation and limit the fallout to the immediate area.

Most people aren't trained to handle automatic and semiautomatic weapons. Those who are aren't necessarily trained to use them under fire and great stress. If you've ever been shot at and returned fire you understand. If not...run a 40 yd dash and have your target set up among other targets you don't want to harm at the end of that dash. See how well you do. Now imagine a lot of other people, scared and trying to do the same thing you are. All of you wanting to hit, meaning to hit the one target.

Use of it doesn't necessitate affecting innocent bystanders (like the nuke does).

Arguable at best. Try that sprint and let me know how it turns out.

It may happen, but it doesn't have to. We have 30 and 40 mile an hour speed limits in residential areas for a reason - as we do (in Texas) 75-85 mph limits on certain freeways. You wouldn't go 75 in a residential area (and should be prosecuted severely if you do) but you don't put a governor on the car to keep someone from going above (for example) 55mph.

You can't put that on a car because the top legal speeds in various parts of the country is greater than that. I've long argued there's no reasonable argument for a car that breaks any existing speed limit in the states.

My understanding of the way rights are to be looked at is that they are to be curbed only when it can be shown that there is no good reason not to - or the good impact significantly outweighs the bad precedent.

That would be a cost/benefit. The pointless deaths of hundreds of Americans, most of which could have been prevented by the absence of weapons and supports that only exceed the ability of weapons I favor in one regard, their ability to kill large numbers of people in seconds, is by any rational examination a failure in that analysis.

So when the government says "We don't think you need a semi-automatic weapon to protect yourself", the only justification I can see for it is overwhelming evidence that use of that weapon will almost inevitably result in notable harm to those who aren't the intended target. So a rocket launcher in an urban townhome development will almost certainly destroy surrounding homes. And since it isn't a necessary weapon, I can see limiting it to military use.

I differ. The reasoning should be, "Can we fully protect the right to bear arms in a way that significantly lessens the likelihood of those arms being used to kill large numbers of citizens in violation of our laws?" And the answer is yes, we can. There are any number of models that show us how to do that. None of them involve the status quo or a loosening of gun laws.

It may be - but unless building that compound directly infringes on the rights of others in a clear way, why should the government care?

I didn't say it should. I was illustrating the problem with using "conceivable" as a reasonable standard.

I'm not arguing there shouldn't be considerable training on proper use of the weapon.

What gives the government the right to say you should have to meet their litmus on how proficient you are with your property?

But saying you can't use a semi-automatic because of possible misuse lumps the criminal with the law abiding citizen.

Like suggesting the kick back guard on a chainsaw assumes most people won't use their chainsaw safely. No, it doesn't. But enough people will act recklessly that the guard is required. It's a public safety measure.

Some weapons are simply too dangerous to be put into the stream of commerce, given there are safer alternatives that can meet the needs of the right without coupling that with a pointlessly endangering addition, one that claims hundreds of lives and thousands of additional injuries yearly.

It's a public safety issue. We can dramatically reduce damage and death without losing the right.

Not so if you limit access (or totally ban access) to a rocket launcher, for example. Legal use is still problematic. Beyond that, the government is painting with too broad a brush, I think.

Everyone thinks so at some point. So the question is what's reasonable and why? That's what I'm looking at when it comes to guns.

I would simply add that the government has virtually unlimited resources at their disposal. And part of the reasoning behind the right to bear arms was protection against the government.

With some thinkers, sure. You're talking about the tree of liberty. Well, our system was designed to avoid that outcome, to enable peaceful revolutions and evolutions following the public will writ large. To avoid a thing that was demonstrably possible then and isn't now, violent public upheaval. There is no reasonable scenario today in which the gun owning public would topple our standing army. If we ever got to that point it would be a fairly moot one.

But the main reason for the right was found in its establishment. We lacked a standing army. Beyond that were any number of compelling arguments that were not enumerated but understood. People used weapons for livelihood, for providing food, and for protecting themselves and their families. Especially true along the frontieres. And they could be used as leverage against tyranny.

And the main reason to restrict firearms (within reasonable limits as I have tried to describe) would be to further subjugate the citizenry.

Or, the reasonable restriction would be in response to the pointless, preventable carnage those weapons bring with them to work no rational benefit that could not be produced by the weapons I support.

This is where the healthy respect for rule of law is the critical counterbalance to giving more liberty in the "grey areas". And if the suspicion is that the citizen doesn't have that respect, then the government will encroach. And that's one way tyranny begins. So it is that I posted earlier today on Washington and the Rule of Law. Greater liberty and this respect go hand in hand. And this nation's laws were only made for a moral people (bible-adhering, if you believe GW).

The same reasoned consideration that limits and contextualizes any other right must be applied to every. We are the most heavily armed people on earth. We are the least safe from dying by the violence of guns than any other Western industrial democracy by a mile.

The working definition of a national insanity would be to continue on this road and expect a different result. The models are numerous, varied, and uniformly superior to ours in protecting the public. And in each of those nations the rule of law continues and has for generations.

Agreed. And the increase of legislation tends away from freedom.

I disagree. There isn't a minority in this nation that isn't freer as a result of that increase. It's the thrust of the legislation that defines its value. Fearing it as some uniform thing that brings shackles is as mistaken as believing that all weapons are the same and should be treated the same way.

I have to believe that in some ways we have too many laws (and too much reliance on the law itself to protect us) and too little respect for the rule of law as originally intended.

I think your philosophy insists upon it, but I don't find it inevitable.

 

[The Horn]

No one is calling for the "banning of guns ". Laws regulating guns for safety are not the same thing as "banning guns ". And these laws are no more "gun confiscation : than requiring people to have driver's license is "banning automobiles " .
The second amendment has to do with MILITIAS , something which is totally obsolete today . It has nothing to do with private gun ownership . There is nothing in this amendment who prohibits laws regulating guns for safety .
Most Americans do not need guns for protection . There's nothing wrong with individual people owning guns for hunting etc, as long as they know how to use them safely and keep them safely stored when not in use .
But it's unbelievably stupid to make it easy for deranged individuals to have easy access to dangerous guns which were never intended for recreational use or personal defense . The AK-15 was designed to be used in combat by trained military personnel. No one needs this kind of dangerous firearm fro private use .
Here's the common sense way to handle the problem : If you want to purchase and use guns , you should take a test of your competence in using them . You should not have a criminal record or a history of mental illness . Or currently be suffering from a mental illness .
But the NRA has allowed the situation with guns to get way out of hand and promotes hysterical fear mongering about the non-existent threat of "gun confiscation ". They have fostered an insane gun culture in America which exists nowhere else int he world .
All the world's other civilize nations have strict gun control laws , and their rate of death by guns are only a tiny fraction of this in the US . In America ,more people are killed by guns in one day than are killed by them in one year in Germany .

 

[ok doser]

No one is calling for the "banning of guns ".

governor andrew cuomo did


the rest of your nonsense is crazier than a bag of cats

 

[Stripe]

No one is calling for the "banning of guns ".

Except all the groups that are.