StrangeSox

There is nothing inherently good about a centrist position.

QUOTE (Jake @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 09:14 PM) It's a classic debate, particularly if you apply the "harm" test to governance. If something doesn't harm others, then you should be able to do it -- right? Except...it seems like not buckling your seatbelt only affects you. The potential harm is your own. On the other hand, what about those you leave behind? Your death in that car crash (preventable by wearing a seatbelt) could potentially ruin/harm the lives of the other driver involved, your mom, dad, brother, sister, wife, children, grandmother, etc. This is not just emotionally, but in many cases financially and otherwise. The other driver is likely to have worse insurance payouts or criminal charges if you die, if you want to make it technical. Those people would probably have wished the government had mandated that seatbelt be buckled with the threat of $50 coming out of your pocket. On the other hand, we all have to deal with SOME bad s*** in our lives and the government cannot prevent all of those things or the price paid to prevent every bad thing would be a lack of good things (freedom?). This is also especially relevant when it comes to helmets on motorcycles and drugs as well. Things that seem to concern only you often can be argued to affect others immensely. Not buckling your seat belt affects us all through higher insurance premiums

Jk, i know the same people saying "it's not guns! We don't need gun control! It's mental health!" are also virulently opposed to universal health care, because freedom

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 06:07 PM) 59% less homicides by firearms and 65% less suicides. I'm sure he supports universal mental care.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 05:21 PM) And in one of those situations you can control the entire situation, in the other you can't. You don't control the entire situation with a gun. This false sense of power is part of the distorted psychology

Jenks is literally willing to sacrifice 50% higher body counts to satisfy his gun lust

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 05:16 PM) Fair, but let's be realistic. You ban automatic weapons and even hand guns. You still get rifles and shotguns. In this recent tragedy the shooter now knows that he only has X amount of time to get off shots, so he shoot the adults who pose the biggest threat to him. The kids certainly can't defend themselves. You've done nothing but MAYBE lessen the total number of victims, but in general terms of talking about these tragedies, is there a difference between 20 and 30 victims? I just think there's a deeper societal issue here that gets overlooked by pointing at guns. It's not our gun-toting nature that's causing these events, it's something that makes these people snap and w'ere not doing enough to prevent that from happening. I can't believe the callousness here. Yes there's a big f***ING difference.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 05:10 PM) The other means generally take far more sophistication and intelligence. The reason guns are dangerous is because it allows someone who doesnt have that intelligence to inflict massive damage. You can extrapolate your argument into "Why not let Iran have a nuclear weapon, they can kill people without them." Well that is true, the nuke just makes it a lot easier. They argue that they need it for self defense, too

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 05:10 PM) Oh that's bulls***. In your own home you have the advantage. I'm not talking about a situation where you're in a crowded plaza and someone with a gun starts shooting people and you want to play the hero. I'm talking about you're in your home and feel your life is being threatened. Two completely different scenarios. In your mind it doesn't matter, you should just lie on the ground and pray you don't get shot. I say f*** that, I should have the right to protect myself. I think it's bulls*** that you would judge someone on their actions in what they believe to be a truly life or death situation. I'm sure balts will be happy to provide you with the data on the likelihood of you shooting your child to death.

Also the proliferation of guns means life and death scenarios are more common. These are strongly linked.

You specifically said you'd rather die gunning even if no gun was the statistically better option. I also reject your defeatist attitude that there is simply nothing we can do. Other countries have done something.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 04:56 PM) And that's fine and i've said i'm in favor of some more restrictions and generally making it more difficult to acquire guns. But at some point that restriction starts impeding on my use of guns and my want to have some protection, whether you believe that want of protection is reasonable or not. For example, forcing me to keep my guns locked in a safe with my ammo locked in another safe is a bulls*** restriction to combat the .000000000000001% chance someone will steal that gun and use it. Name me a restriction you actually support.

I have no doubt that Alpha was scared. I don't deny that. But I'll point out that his gun was useless and played zero role in his situation. Had he started firing, he would have then had to deal with several armed assailants. Instead, he called the police and waited and didn't suffer any harm. I also have no doubt that the easy access to guns for "law abiding citizens" also means that the people that Alpha was threatened by also have easy access to guns. My desire to restrict Alpha's guns (though I personally wouldn't care about personal shotgun ownership, which is the best home defense weapon anyway) comes from a desire to keep them out of the hands of people who might commit criminal acts. We can't know ahead of time who those people are, because very few people are "pure evil" criminals that we can screen out. Most people are law-abiding citizens right up to the point that they shoot someone. That means we need to make guns in general less available if we actually want to do something about the prevalence of gun violence in this country. If you feel that the current level of gun violence and these massacres are an acceptable cost to fulfill your desire to be a gun-hero, then okay.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 04:44 PM) Except that's an inaccurate term because being a vigilante is more about revenge and actively seeking out justice as opposed to just defending yourself. What i'm talking about is the natural instinct to survive and to use any means necessary. It's not at all unreasonable to believe that you can do that if you have means to protect yourself. And I would suspect that again, most people would want to feel that way as opposed to being at the mercy of a person intending to do you or others harm. You've admitted that you'd rather die trying to be the gun-toting hero than take the statistically-more-likely-to-live route. That is what is wrong with our "gun culture."

I have a basic instinct of survival. A part of that is "not wanting to be shot at with deadly weapons." Part of what we can do to reduce your odds of being shot at with deadly weapons is to...reduce the availability of deadly weapons. I don't have a basic instinct to shoot back.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 10, 2012 -> 01:27 PM) Disappointed to hear that Zero Dark Thirty perpetuates the awful lie that torture was critical to finding Bin Laden. Some strong and well-reasoned pushback against Glenn Greenwald's criticisms: http://somecamerunning.typepad.com/some_ca...e-anti-art.html although, as one commentor notes, they could have made a better point by showing:

I'll note again that, in Alpha's case, his gun made zero difference in the situation. But I'll also point out that I see the proliferation of guns in the streets as part-and-parcel of the same problem. We allow you and Alpha easy access to handguns, that means 'gangbangers' get easier access, too. I believe that if we had sane gun control laws, you wouldn't have to worry nearly as much about armed gangs roving the streets, or mentally disturbed children stealing their parents' guns and going on killing sprees. I'm not sure how you can say "so what?" to taking the statistically-more-likely-to-survive path of not having a gun, but I'll add that what you're saying seems to be exactly in line with the machismo vigilante mindset that's part of the problem as well. What good is it dying fighting if you could have lived otherwise? What good is it allowing more and more guns and 'mistakes' that lead to more Treyvon Martins and Jordan Davis's?

'Order at Universal Gunpoint' I've talked a lot about the presumption of goodness in our society. For instance, there needs to be some sense that the mere act of arming oneself might invest you with a particular hubris, that there will be side-effects from arming educators, that placing weaponry in our elementary schools affects our broader conception of ourselves as a society. One of the points of a democratic society is to put brakes on our most animal impulses--impulses which are universal across humankind. I think much of our recent firearm legislation -Stand Your Ground for instance--runs in the exact opposite direction. I wonder if Michael Dunn would have said one word to those kids had he not been armed. It assumes, as Jacobs puts it, an "absolute trust" in ourselves. Jacobs cautions against making law out of white elephant events, and I think that's generally correct. But I can not escape the fact that Nancy Lanza was, as far as we know, a responsible gun owner. She was following the theory of "more guns." Those guns were then used to kill her.

The comments are even crazier. Israeli Jews are, literally, the Nazis. I don't even

This is a strong early contender for "craziest s*** you could possibly say about a terrible tragedy," it'll be hard to top http://www.presstv.com/detail/2012/12/18/2...ewtown-carnage/

they're making a lot of dumb assumptions but that is one of them.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 03:05 PM) I said likely have "POTENTIAL" liability. It would depend on the facts. Starbucks isnt going to buy that photo from Instagram without an indemnification statement. That would just be stupid. I was assuming we were talking about the real world where corporations like Starbucks have lawyers and they dont buy anything unless the seller warrants and represents good title. But there's something different between publishing a photo of Tom Cruise doing something in public, which any tabloid can do legally, and some company claiming endorsement of a product. That's where this example is getting really convoluted.

they're not even subtle about the "compensating" angle

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 03:01 PM) Instagram would likely have potential liability to Tom Cruise (unless Tom Cruise was a member of instagram and the tos of instagram states that by being a member you allow us to do anything with your likeness.) You cant bind someone who doesnt have privity of contract. Thats just basic contract law. Instagram could sell whatever photos they want of Tom Cruise to Starbucks' ad agency. What Starbucks' ad agency does with them isn't really relevant to who sold those pictures or where they came from in the first place, which is why the scenario doesn't seem relevant.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 02:59 PM) Wasn't my point that it's limited to that scenario...I'm saying it's saying the CAN do that scenario, and I don't think they can. Instagram's TOS has nothing to do with what Starbucks does with a photo in an ad.