[QUOTE=gonzomax]
The term “gun fetisihist” is a bit slanted. But Argent Towers responded to a story of a man killing his grandson due to poor safety as “a spate of bile” That is slanted.
[/QUOTE]
Point taken, but I think that was Airman Doors referring to the recent surge of gun-related stories (either on the Dope, or in the news).
I noticed no increase of gun related stories.
[QUOTE=gonzomax]
I noticed no increase of gun related stories.
[/QUOTE]
I can’t really speak to that. There may, or may not, have been.
A few years ago Dan Rather used to have a discussion panel that would allow groups to air their problems. In one there were representatives from The Grey Panthers, Black Panthers, Repubs,Dems and a couple others. After the discussion each group was allowed to give their impression of what was accomplished. Each and every group felt they understood the other groups better,but felt that their own stands were under covered and not fairly criticized by the media. That was the only thing in common. It is as natural as saying whose ox is being gored. But I do not feel the gun lovers are getting poor coverage,nor particularly biased.
[QUOTE=Happy Scrappy Hero Pup]
It’s pretty simple from a civics standpoint, actually. The automobile is a necessary part of American life, its use is pervasive, and it is of vital importance to both interstate commerce and to travel. That so many people use it means that government places the onus on the individual drivers- in other words, driving on the highway or on roads does not mean that you assume the risk of another’s negligent conduct.
[/quote]
Apparently living in your own home, doing provocative things like standing on the back porch with an oven mitt in your hand, or driving down the driveway apparently DOES mean you assume the risk of another’s conduct. Because these are both instances of women accidentally killed by hunters.
Ah, but maybe people are being misled en mass by misinformation from some large organization with the initials NRA, and if they DID understand the real issues with gun safety, they would quite happily choose to regulate it.
But the essence of this debate is that such regulations are necessary and good. You’re just saying that because something is status quo, it cannot possibly be changed. This is a very, very, very weak argument, if it can even be classed as an argument. It sounds more like a fallacy than an argument.
I think it’s already been established that hunting is not in any way, shape or form harmless. It’s a bunch of drunk guys staggering through the woods carrying tools designed to kill and main, for God’s sake. So your argument is blown. I’ll bet you deaths caused by bondage are fewer in number than lightning strikes in any given year. Probably a LOT less.
For the record, there HAVE been deaths due to bad bondage practices. I remember there were scandals in some psychiatric care homes where patients were left in improperly applied restraints and suffocated to death. Big scandals, big investigations, charges filed I believe. I’m all for that. I think if someone puts another person in bondage and then carelessly allows them to die, charges SHOULD be filed. I feel the same way about the careless use of weapons. How bout that?
C’mon. “Some” does not equal “same”. Hunting is more dangerous than bondage by several orders of magnitude, I bet.
I don’t think that anyone who practices bondage in a careless or negligent way is protected by the Constitution. I feel the same way about gun owners.
You’ve never heard anyone suggest that the government ought to regulate or somehow involve itself in the bedroom? You’ve never heard of sodomy laws? Really? Where you been?
Your arguments are so weak they are almost funny. OK, that’s not true. They ARE funny. And they remain irrelevant.
[QUOTE= Evil Captor]
Your arguments are so weak they are almost funny. OK, that’s not true. They ARE funny. And they remain irrelevant.
[/QUOTE]
Holy crap, you’re such an idiot. But I’m bored, so let’s indulge you.
[QUOTE= Evil Captor]
Apparently living in your own home, doing provocative things like standing on the back porch with an oven mitt in your hand, or driving down the driveway apparently DOES mean you assume the risk of another’s conduct. Because these are both instances of women accidentally killed by hunters.
[/QUOTE]
What does this have to do with anything? The point is that in certain circumstances, the GOVERNMENT, as directed by the PEOPLE, says, in essence, “these activities are so pervasive that we will impose a higher level of responsibility on those who engage in them.” Your pointing out accidental deaths in an area where no such increased liability exists is factually irrelevant, and you know that. You’re appealing to emotion, you’re doing it like a dumbass, and you probably know that too.
[QUOTE= Evil Captor]
Ah, but maybe people are being misled en mass by misinformation from some large organization with the initials NRA, and if they DID understand the real issues with gun safety, they would quite happily choose to regulate it.
[/QUOTE]
So your counterargument to “hunting is not a pervasive or commercial activity done by so many as to warrant stricter liability” is “it’s a conspiracy.” You’re an idiot.
YOU don’t understand the real issues with gun safety. Of COURSE guns are dangerous. But the logical extension thereof is not nannyism. It is not government’s place to get involved more deeply than it has already. That’s the whole point of individual liberty is that what applies to everything else applies to firearms.
[QUOTE= Evil Captor]
You’re just saying that because something is status quo, it cannot possibly be changed. This is a very, very, very weak argument, if it can even be classed as an argument. It sounds more like a fallacy than an argument.
[/QUOTE]
No, I’m saying that the fact that it remains unchanged is because, for every idiot like you that goes into shrill-betty attack mode whenever an accidental death results from a potentially dangerous modality, there are for or five more level-headed people saying, “this was user error, not inherent harm,” and four more people than that saying “this is not an activity so pervasive that the government should be overregulating.” It’s not an argument at all. It’s a statement of fact that government does not impose stricter liability on firearms- that the government does not criminally punish nonblameworthy behavior by rule because the vast majority of the American public understands that criminally punishing nonblameworthy behavior is and should be reserved for only those things that absolutely cannot be made safer by their very nature.
Get someone to read that paragraph to you and explain it in smaller words. You might learn something.
Oh, wait, I forgot, it’s all a conspiracy.
[QUOTE= Evil Captor]
I think it’s already been established that hunting is not in any way, shape or form harmless. It’s a bunch of drunk guys staggering through the woods carrying tools designed to kill and main, for God’s sake. So your argument is blown. I’ll bet you deaths caused by bondage are fewer in number than lightning strikes in any given year. Probably a LOT less.
[/QUOTE]
None of this has been established. You’re an idiot. Are you seriously attempting to argue any of this as fact?
And it’s not number of deaths we’re arguing, remember? It’s the nature of the activity. Oh, wait, you conveniently forgot that. Or maybe it’s a conspiracy again.
[QUOTE= Evil Captor]
For the record, there HAVE been deaths due to bad bondage practices. I remember there were scandals in some psychiatric care homes where patients were left in improperly applied restraints and suffocated to death. Big scandals, big investigations, charges filed I believe. I’m all for that. I think if someone puts another person in bondage and then carelessly allows them to die, charges SHOULD be filed. I feel the same way about the careless use of weapons. How bout that?
[/QUOTE]
Tying someone up and leaving them there: affirmative act.
Putting ball gag in mouth and duct tape over entire head: affirmative act.
Forgetting to engage safety: omission.
You’re not dumb, you can figure this out. Oh, wait. You ARE dumb.
[QUOTE= Evil Captor]
You’ve never heard anyone suggest that the government ought to regulate or somehow involve itself in the bedroom? You’ve never heard of sodomy laws? Really? Where you been?
[/QUOTE]
I’ve actually been in law school finding out all about how regulating conduct in the bedroom is unconstitutional.
And, as you so amusingly have pointed out in your little screed above, any idiot can demand that the government regulate something. It takes a whole LOT of idiots to actually make that happen, and thankfully, even then we have the Supreme Court in your… errr… their… way.
You’re an idiot. You’re trying to pass off your own prejudices as facts and attempting to debate safety by making ad hominem attacks (hunters as drunks) appeals to emotion (women killed in their driveways), and shrilly trumpeting your ignorance of law and constitutional theory and then trying to argue from authority based on that.
You’ve got nothing.
Or, to put it in terms of your own personal predilections and this thread,
“Next time, don’t bring a whip to a gunfight.”
Well…as to the OP…
Texas doesnt require permits to own a gun. so there are no premits to strip.
The gun should have been pointed up or down, not towards the grandchild
I once missed a shot hunting because the safety was on…it depends on what you are hunting and terain. There often is NOT enough time to load when hunting…critters dont sit around waiting for you to get ready, and loading is noisy will scare them off if they are close enough.
While he could have been been charged with reckless misconduct with a firearm under Texas law, or something more severe, there really isn’t anything the state could do to the grandfather to punish him more for his stupidity than actually having to live out the rest of his life knowing he’d killed his grandson.
And yes, AK Variants are quite usefull for hunting.
[QUOTE=E-Sabbath]
I’m intending, actually, to write Obama’s campaign a long, encouraging, and involved letter about gun control and the AWB, and why it might be a better idea to be more nuanced about it.
[/QUOTE]
More nauanced how? The thing is nonsense through and through.
[QUOTE=gonzomax]
But I do not feel the gun lovers are getting poor coverage,nor particularly biased.
[/QUOTE]
You’ve got to be kidding. Gun ownership has what may be the most biased news coverage of all. Positive stories relating to guns are never told at all. You’ll hear about Virginia Tech 24/7 for weeks, but incidents where mass killings were prevented by legal gun owners don’t get any coverage at all. They treat anti-gun propoganda like truth, and scoff at pro-gun arguments if they’re even allowed to be made. Stories are often worded in a way that suggests that the guns, rather than criminals, were to blame for crimes. Gun control advocates get quoted or invited to speak on shows far more often than gun rights advocates.
Examples of reports on the bias:
http://www.wmsa.net/people/john_lott/030822_bias_star.htm
http://hematite.com/dragon/mediawatch.html
You can google “media gun bias” to get a lot more.
[QUOTE=gonzomax]
The term “gun fetisihist” is a bit slanted. But Argent Towers responded to a story of a man killing his grandson due to poor safety as “a spate of bile” That is slanted.
[/QUOTE]
It was the Airman who said “spate of bile,” not me. And anyway, he was right.
Nuanced: read, “deceptive.”