Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (Jake @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 10:03 PM) Alcohol requires a second step to be dangerous. A bottle of beer is not dangerous. Being drunk is not dangerous (there is a limit here, sure). Being drunk AND driving is dangerous. Being drunk AND wielding a gun is dangerous. People have been drinking beer for about as long as human civilization has existed. Guns are a relatively new invention and particularly, the modern semi-automatic weapon is new -- significantly, it post-dates our constitution. It is rather difficult, comparatively, to use a gun for mere private use. Every time you fire a weapon, there is significant risk. Nobody sits at home on the weekend and fires off their gun, there's almost no place you can live in which it makes sense for you to fire your gun in your home or on your property. This is why you have to go to a club (or Little Caesar's apparently) to shoot your gun. This is why if you go to a gun range and someone unconsciously waves their gun around, everyone in the place ducks for cover. Becoming drunk and dangerous requires a series of calculated decisions and, often, neglect on part of your peers. A gun becomes dangerous the second you're near it. This is why you have to take a class in the state of IL to legally own a firearm or hunt. One unconscious pull of a trigger can be the death of somebody. If I'm simply demented or perhaps even just angry to an unprecedented extent, I can use the gun out of malice and kill people, perhaps many people. There aren't many good uses for alcohol in that situation, save self-medication. They're both dangerous, but they're totally different. One's function is death -- it can be avoided and in most cases is, thanks to so many conscientious gun owners like myself. However, when it functions properly it kills or performs an action that would be lethal if pointed in the right place. Beer's function, primarily, is a beverage and its original use was a matter of nutrition. It was a way to eat barley. You can have too much, which is bad like most things. You can then drive, which is yet another calculated decision that is separate from your drinking too many beers. We should also add that the maximum lethality of a drunk driver is not all that impressive compared to the well-armed gunman. See, this is the disconnect for me in this discussion. There are people who have guns, who have grown up with guns and don't live on top of someone else because they have land and space. They DO use guns on the weekends for kicks. I grew up with land and I would routinely go out and shoot at cans or clay pigeons or whatever. I wasn't killing anything. I wasn't shooting someone because I needed to wait for a pizza, I shot at a plastic or tin object because it was FUN to do. Surprisingly i'm not some deranged individual that might shoot someone at any moment! Shocking! Edit: bolded the wrong part. fixed.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 04:06 PM) GMAFB, let's reduce the number and availability of guns and where they can be carried while loaded so that we don't have more "overreactions" like this. You yourself said you'd rather go down shooting, damn the statistics and any 'mistakes' or flawed judgement be damned Because defending myself in life or death situation is TOTALLY the same as shooting a guy at a Little Ceasars because I have to wait 5 minutes for a pizza. I love how you've turned anyone with a gun into a crazed lunatic that can go off at any moment. Let's ignore the fact that there are 300+ million guns and tens of millions of gun owners out there, let's focus on the less than 1% that does stupid s***.

QUOTE (daa84 @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 04:37 PM) i actually think what he said is very plausible - the whole thing about quinn saying "I kill bad guys" had to have more meaning to it Doesn't the released tape of brody make it a sure fire thing that he was set up? I'm not saying he had 0 involvement, but someone knew this tape existed, and used brody as the patsy (ie the Lee harvey oswald was just a patsy argument). I mean, as far as i know, only a hand full of members in the CIA knew the tape existed, and those that did know it existed all knew it pertained to the first bombing, not the most recent one. The thing I don't really like so far - is that with all the twists and all the turns, nothing has ever really changed. Since episode 1, you wonder "Is brody a terrorist? or isn't he? Did he get turned? Is he now turned back? Is Carrie nuts or isn't she? Is there a CIA Mole or isn't there? In some respects it feels a bit like Lost where nothing ever really gets answered, except where Lost answered one question with a different question, this answers one question with the exact same question again. Also the last episode felt to me like they were trying hard to force some watchers to at least consider the possibility that Saul is somehow behind this. Oh he happens to be the only one not at the CIA when it blows up? oh and he is the most senior person in the CIA now (like lennin said, look to the one who benefits and ....i am the walrus)? Oh he happens to be praying in arabic (at least i presume) over all the dead bodies? I don't think he at all that he was involved, but it seems like the show wants you to at least have to consider it The prayer at the end was Jewish I think.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 03:56 PM) And who knows if the law flashed through his mind when deciding to pull the trigger while we're at it. Above anything...this is the gun culture of this America. People shot over an argument about slow Pizza. GMAFB. Let's overreact a little more, please?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 03:28 PM) Florida man gets angry at Little Caesar's over late pizza, gets into shoving match with the guy in front of him. Shoots the guy in front of him. Has used the stand your ground defense. Police have charged him, SYG hearing could knock that out. Making a defense because the defense is available in law =/= legalization of murder, no matter how many times you try this argument.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 12:04 PM) Interesting post over at poly-sci blog Monkey Cage, putting forth the case that Heller could actually make it easier to enact gun control laws as it provides a strong backstop on any slippery slope. Yeah I don't buy that and the Supreme Court isn't held to technical readings of their opinions like that. Heller stands for the fact that you have a constitutional right to have a gun but that no constitutional right is absolute. They're not going to allow a back door restriction that still limits your right to own a gun unless it meets that strict scrutiny standard. That was the importance and one of the reasons the 7th circuit just overturned Illinois' law - banning guns to anywhere but your home is unconstitutional.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 11:13 AM) so then why are there 20 dead kids and not 20 wounded kids? Didn't he shoot them all 6-7 times?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 09:54 AM) I should clarify that there's a difference between what has to be done in any given political climate to get something passed versus what is actually the best policy. If the 'fiscal cliff' is largely a crisis of our own making and any of the 'compromise' positions currently being floated out there would actively hurt our economy and the most vulnerable members of our society, then it shouldn't be enacted. Hardliners holding to either extreme and preventing a bad deal from being made can be a positive thing, even if I don't agree with that hardline position (see: what the WH was offering over the debt ceiling and the tea party hardliners refusing to vote for it because it included tax increases on the wealthy). On the other hand, as I said before, if one side A stands pat and the other B becomes increasingly extreme, then the definition of what's a centrist compromise and what becomes "extreme" shifts. Suddenly, what might have been perfectly good and reasonable policy from party A gets treated as one end of the extreme, and whatever 'centrist compromise' is reached is driven mainly by extremists in party B. Or, maybe A and B were close originally, but that was bad policy, and now B's extreme shift is to good policy. Kinda like immigration, which has now shifted so far to the left anything but blanket amnesty is "you hate brown people!"

I dunno, I think with issues like immigration or even this fiscal cliff, taking the extreme positions of both parties and finding that middle ground is really the best for everyone. Issues like abortion, perhaps not, but even then you have SOME compromise in the middle from most people (i.e., abortion ok in cases of rape/incest/health concerns).

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 09:52 PM) There is nothing inherently good about a centrist position. I'm such a huge fan of your position against Republicans stonewalling everything Democrats have tried to do the last decade. If you're a liberal - never give up on your ideals! Everything conservatives believe is f***ing crazy! If you're a conservative - god, stop being a dick and compromise!

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 09:29 AM) The United States is surrounded by other countries with stricter gun laws and many of the guns used in Mexico are smuggled from the US. Most of the ones seized there are from here. Or just provided by the US government.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 09:22 AM) We enact sane gun control and significantly reduce the gun violence in this country? Yeah, I'm done complaining about guns at that point. You do remember that I was arguing against Balta about guns just last week after the 7C ruling, right? Yeah I realize you're not for an all-out ban. But at the end of the day your arguments to ban certain types of guns apply logically to all guns. So apparently even you seem to believe that 10 people dead with a shotgun is acceptable. 26 people dead from an automatic rifle is not. How callous of you.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 09:20 AM) Twenty 6 and 7 year olds get killed in a shooting spree and your response is basically "Oh well, s*** happens. No need to change anything." Go read my posts in this thread. You're ignoring what I've said.

Read a couple of the interviews/summaries with Homeland's writer yesterday (Sepinwall, Greenwald). As to some of the issues raised in the last couple of pages: (1) they purposefully kept Brody's involvement with the bombing vague (not showing the Brody/Nazir scene for example). He all but admitted the show doesn't know if he did it or not. (2) they have no idea what they're doing next season. Brody is expected to come back at some point, but no guarantee on next year. Same with Brody's family. He also admitted the whole Dana story line with Fin was basically thrown together because they liked the actress so much. They thought of the angle to make Walden appear more despicable (paying off the family his kid ruined) (3) the good news - the whole point of season 2 was to show the forbidden love between Carrie and Brody, that ultimately two damaged people found each other but can never be together. He made a mention to Greenwald that he felt as though that story was basically all told. So hopefully no more Carrie-Brody romance scenes. (4) Quinn will definitely be back (5) I wondered how Carrie and Brody got away after the bombing - he said there was so much chaos it's assumed they were able to sneak away unnoticed as others tried to figure out what happened.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 09:16 AM) So we reduce the casualties in mass shootings by 50%+ and reduce the widespread availability of handguns, reducing the non-mass-shootings as well. Sounds good to me. That happens and then you're done complaining about guns right?

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 09:12 AM) And yet you ignore the article from Australia where homicide and suicides plummeted significantly and there were no more mass shootings after the laws changed. Our society is unique so I don't really think that would apply like you think it would.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 05:29 PM) Yes you can. You can almost perfectly prevent gun accidents involving children under 11. If children under 11 do not have access to guns...you have controlled the problem. That's my point. It's 100% avoidable but for a f*** up of some irresponsible parent/adult. In the other situation, you're at the mercy of the criminal trying to do you harm. YOUR personal ability to control the situation goes away.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 05:24 PM) I can't believe the callousness here. Yes there's a big f***ING difference. My point was if you ban all of these weapons you want to ban - assault weapons and handguns - but still allow shotguns or rifles, the number might be 10, 15 20, whatever. It's still going to be more than a couple which would put in the same terrible massacre category you're trying to prevent.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 05:17 PM) Like I've said...successful self-defenses happen ~200 times per year. ~200 kids age 11 and under die in gun related accidents per year. They're subequal. For every successful self-defense with a gun recorded by the FBI, a kid 11 or under dies in a gun accident. And in one of those situations you can control the entire situation, in the other you can't.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 05:16 PM) The things I think are bulls**t include: 1. Basing national policy decisions on events that happen ~200 times per year, when gun deaths total ~30,000 or so per year. 2. The fact that Congress is so scared of finding out that you're better off not having a gun in the house during a home invasion that they won't allow research into the question. 3. The fact that how you want to feel about yourself is used to make policy rather than actual data. 4. The fact that you feel you get to look down on someone who would just give up their wallet or their jewelry box rather than get shot at if doing so makes it much more likely that you will live, because you're sure that you'd want to go down fighting and anyone who just wants to "Lie on the ground and pray you don't get shot" is not deserving of respect. I don't look down on you for thinking that. I'm just saying you have no right to tell me I have to think like you. You're trying to restrict what I can do. You can do whatever you want.

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. 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.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 05:03 PM) Name me a restriction you actually support. Read about page 2-3 of this thread. I laid out what i'm ok with. I've just been arguing I think your fooling yourself if you think that'll stop this stuff from happening.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 05:01 PM) I said I can't say that specifically about the case you're citing. You can't either...but that's not the point. The point is...you don't care. You explicitly said you wouldn't care if it made the situation worse. You'd rather go down fighting. I can site specific data for the case of a crime on the street. In that case there's at least one solid, recent study out there from Pennsylvania that says if you're carrying a gun and someone tries to rob you, you're more likely to be hurt/killed than if you're not carrying the gun by several times. That sort of standard could easily apply to home invasion cases... But you specifically said you don't care. Nothing will convince you. 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.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 04:57 PM) 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. I think there will always be these types of massacres and there's nothing you can do to prevent them. So, to some extent my answer is yes. You take away guns, these crazies will just find another means of achieving their goal. I still think it's bulls*** to label my desire for protection in a life or death moment a "gun hero," but whatever.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 04:54 PM) Again, the CDC is explicitly prohibited by Congress from doing research into that question, and consequently no one else in the government will fund that research. So why are you saying it's a fact that you're increasing the risk of death when you have nothing to back that up?