9/29/2006

Click Here: For A Primer On Youth Hunting In Colorado

40 comments:

Cato said...

That's pretty sick there Off the Wire.

MURDER has nothing to do with gun ownership. While some of the laws should not be there (the Federal ones... the ones invlving sawed off shotguns (the same one the Feds used as an impitus to massacre a family at Ruby Ridge)) the muderers broke 18 gun laws. MORE LAWS wouldn't help. Plus they broke some other laws. For one, they committed murder. So please, why don't you actually use your brain before posting things like this. Posting this only makes you out to be a sick individual. Youth hunting. Dispicable.

Cato said...

Of course, the movie actually after watching it, is not the Columbine shootings. But it doesn't matter, the intent on your part was to show it as the Columbine shootings to show how guns are bad and evil and having a gun in your hand just makes peoplewant to MURDER. Despicable.

AndyRand said...

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. With Guns!!

Off The Wire said...

Cato:

It is pretty sick to see where guns and a culture of violence leads to. I believe you are mistaken about this not being Columbine.

Did I mention anything about more laws?

What do you think would help fix this obvious problem? Less laws? More responsible media? More conscientious parenting?

Have you watched any of the videos games available to anyone of the self at Best Buy?

Likewise, if that doesn't like youth hunting, I don't know what does. Yes it is despicable. Is saddening and it is a terribly sick reminder of a serious problem that exists in this country.

Cato said...

Columbine was on 4/20; this was not the tape.

"But it's on the internet it must be true!"

Video games, TV shows, books -- these things don't make kids use other things to murder other people. The fault lies with the murderers, not the inanimate objects in their lives.

AndyRand said...

CATO:

"The fault lies with the murderers, not the inanimate objects in their lives."

Your little Ayn Rand flash video on the meaning of life inplied that those "inanimate objects" were your life, since they are property and come from the "fruits of your labor". Now they are just things?

Off the Wire is Right. We are seeing the results of a culture of violence. The video games are training programs for violence. You can't watch a prime time TV show without multiple gruesome murders each competing to be more graphic and outrageous than the other. "Son of a bitch" and "Bitch slap" are more commonly heard than Mom or Dad.
And what's the Bush admin. response?
Big fines of a little titty at the Super Bowl.
What's the solution? Take away the guns? I never advocated that. But do we need to stockpile more and more? Should we shoot for 2 guns for every American man women and child? (No pun intended)
More Laws? I doubt it. How about we encourage an economic system that emphasizes unregulated "competition"
and promote that as a value over cooperation. Let's make families more economically desperate so they will become more productive.
How about we promote fame and celebrity and personal prosperity over community well being and promote public policy to achieve that end and send media messages that indoctrinate the populous that these are the things we value.
And let's scoff at the liberal whiners and wooses who dare to mention peace and cooperation as methods of resovling conflict over annihilation of those that don't agree with you.

Oh, and let's sell more guns.

Guns don't kill people, Murderers kill people and people become murderers with guns.

Kalvyn Clean said...

"Guns don't kill people, Murderers kill people and people become murderers with guns."

Knives, baseball bats, and broken bottles also kill people. Are you planning on banning them, too?

I don't remember where I saw the statistic, but I remember reading that more children (0-12 yrs. old) drown in pools and beaches each year than are killed by guns. Should we ban water?

Anonymous said...

Government protection of life and property is a post de facto process. Fire departments are activated after a fire has started; ambulances are called to a scene after the accident has occurred; and police are summoned after a crime has been committed. Government protection thus becomes somewhat of a misnomer. Furthermore, the notion that government can prevent crime is illogical, at least in a society which believes in freedom. In reality, the term prevention means removing the criminal from society so future crimes as per that specific individual will not be committed; or a fire once ignited is contained from spreading to other parts of the structure.

The legal code therefore does not prevent or guarantees protection against harm. This point is illustrated when you consider the great sums of money spent on law enforcement in the United States each year and the volumes of codes and ordinances which restrict our daily movements. Despite all these actions taken by government to protect us, this country experienced 16,692 murders, over two million burglaries totaling approximately $366,000,000 in property loss, 43,443 traffic fatalities and nearly two million fires [which causes over eight billion dollars in property destruction plus four thousand lives].

The fact is laws cannot stop the acts of an immoral mind or accidents caused by negligence or stupidity. The logic which is prevalent on most issues found here would conclude that we need to make automobiles illegal. I saw a bumper sticker which sums it up simple and neat: Guns no more kill people than forks make Rosie O’ Donnell fat!

Cato said...

Andy -- yes they are part of your life if you labored to get them. But NO they are just things and they do not determine your life. You determine your things. People should beheld responsible for their actions. Inanimate objects are not responsible for people's actions.

People with guns are a free people, that's what people with guns are.

AndyRand said...

Should we ban water?

I don't remember saying we should ban guns. But that doesn't mean we have to encourage every living breathing person in the US to own one.
Guns are meant to kill is water?

"Furthermore, the notion that government can prevent crime is illogical, at least in a society which believes in freedom."

I bet this fits right in with the argument you'd make for the death penalty. Execution is a deterant Right?

You didn't make this argument but I'm pretty sure the Conn-man @ OTBL did. If everbody was armed they could have stopped this kid from killing his principal. Tell that to Jim Brady. He was surrounded by the best trained armed bodyguard on earth and he was shot.
If you guys would like the kind of gun freedom and lack of police protection you describe, you really should move to someplace like Somalia. Lots of Guns, and no laws!!

Ahh!!! Wingnut Nirvana.

"People with guns are a free people, that's what people with guns are."

Tell that to the the 15 year old "liberal Democrat" (what a joke) sitting prison charged with murder.
Now he's really free. Or will you tell me he's not free because they took his gun away? I'll bet his parents were "liberal Democrats" too, since that's where he got his guns.
I've never heard of an NRA program to curb gun violence except for more people to have guns. The NRA is just one more fear mongering component of the wingnut agenda.

Cato said...

It is often said that in a society where guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns.

Think about for a moment.

In such a society only criminals would be the ones who had weapons. Your typical law abiding citizen would give up his arms. He no longer can defend himself from criminals -- and that includes the government.

Guns are a great equalizer, since a 120 lb woman can beat back a 300lb man. They also keep the government in check, and our founders knew that a well armed people were a free people.

As for Jim Brady, his wife has done much to desecrate the Constitution. Gun control is illegal for the US Government to engage in and should not be done by any government. I find gun control a heinous thing for a government to engage upon as it wrongly takes from the people the means of their self defense.

jpn said...

Cato:

How do we stop 15-year old kids from bring guns to school and killing people?

Fuzz said...

Anonymous; It seems to me that you are spewing rhetorick based on hypothetical data. Though it is factual that law enforcement in part is reactive, it also proactive.
There are many proactive methods that can be implimented;
Education: involves enhancing a knowledge base on chemical abuse, consequences, safety, and crime prevention tips.
Crime prevention by environmental design: is a method used in law enforcement to assist businesses, and citizens in methods of preventing crimes in and around dwellings.
Deterrence: some times physical presence, suspected presence, and contact, influence a persons criminal activity at a given location or time.
Enforcement: aggressive enforcement of lesser infractions influences the committing of other major crimes. New York City set a prime example of that.
Investigations: often apprehending and taking criminals off the street has a substantila impact on the crimes that a given individual can commit. Frequently, any criminal can be responsible for a large number of crimes.
Ultimately "anonymous" the world, and people are much more complex than you give credit. The world happens to be GRAY, not BLACK AND WHITE.

Anonymous said...

JPN How do we stop sixteen year-olds from killing themselves, their friends,or somebody else in an automobile?

Almost any object can be lethal if used in a careless or menacing
manner.

Fortunately for society only a tiny fraction of the populace is truly evil just as only a tiny fraction of teenagers are killed in automobiles.

Defense against evil begins with the individual's ability to protect life and property. The bottom line is we are never going to be able to prevent all evil more than we are able to prevent automobile accidents.

Anonymous said...

By the way fuzz those are not hypothetical figures, they come from the Department of Transportation, the FBI and national insurance data.

I would suggest you know your facts before attempting to open your mouth. True to form, the rebuttal is predictable in its nature, short on logic and absent of fact.

Cato said...

JPN:

Maybe we should install cameras inside people's homes and police should act as our personal bodygaurds. Then we'd be able to see if the 15 year olds have illegal black market BB guns that they might use to shoot someone's eye out.

jpn said...

I don't think you can stop 16 year olds from dying in car accidents. I think you can reduce the amount through serious education on the responsibility and results of irresponsibility.

Cato has pointed out that mandatory guns ownersehip is required in Switzerland. I think it is also required in Israel. My guess would be that training emphasizes responsibility.

Likewise, if there is a history of instruction on weapons responsibility and proper training, the older borthers and big kids in the neighborhood probably pass down info to the younger kids before they reach the age of 18.

Guns kill, but they don't kill unless a human is pulling the trigger. Guns are the great equalizer that make a man out of the the weak, jilted, out-numbered, spat upon, walked over, cowards of this nation. Guns don't make kids take them into schools and start shooting others. The glorification of violence with no consequences can inspire kids to take a gun to school and start evening the score.

jpn said...

Cato:

Maybe we should just accept the fact that we have a violent culture with a growing trend where individuals blame everybody else for their problems and see the use of readily available guns as a way to equalize things.

I see that more people were killed in Pennsylvania Amish school today by a gun man.

mike hammered said...

Anonymous said: "the notion that government can prevent crime is illogical, at least in a society which believes in freedom.
I totally disagree. What government can do is have a criminal justice system that holds to the 3 major needs that must be met. If a crime is committed, punishment (however you define it) must be swift, certain and severe. If we held to those standards, the threat of the punishment is what would prevent the crime. A failure in any one of those, would doom the whole system. That is what we have here in America now.

Cato said...

Yeah I saw that too JPN.

That violent Amish culture strikes again. Perhaps a better warning label on CDs would have prevented this tragedy.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps arming the teachers and janitors would help.

Cato said...

Eh I guess it wasn't the Amish, but it wasn't a student either.

So how does one stop such people? Deadly force.

fuzz said...

Not true anonymous. As stated previously police are reactive, but inturn various other tactics do work, including aggressive law enforcement, education, and when well appropriate laws. I have read and studied the data.
Dot information addresses traffic accidents, and possibly DWI arrests. However they have no information on other aspects of crime preventitive efforts (as they acknowledge). The FBI report identifies trends and pure crime rates, however thier information only foucses on Class 1 offenses, and not include Class II offenses. DOJ reports tend to be more accurate on general trends. Neither however, identify other variables that lend to crime controle.
Tell me have you tracked crime rates to make that analysis?? How about inquiring into police tactics?

Anonymous said...

Cato:

In order to have equal protection under the law, everyone should have the option of the same training and the right to carry the same weapon. We wouldn't want some people carrying around deadlier force than others. In other words, we could allow children 18 and under to carry a single shot pistol and let those over 18 carry a semi-auto pistol. That would be inequality.

Anonymous said...

Apparently Fuzz you didn't try hard enough. Here is the website from the FBI http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/violent_crime/murder_homicide.html Good luck

fuzz said...

Anonymous; I've read that along with the UCR, DOJ reports, and contributed to reporting. I'm assuming that you've not done any actual field work, or research on your own. the FBI report does not include Class II offenses and gives general statistics. It does not track beyoud raw data, i.e. crime deterrence efforts.

Cato said...

Anonymous said...

Cato:

In order to have equal protection under the law, everyone should have the option of the same training and the right to carry the same weapon. We wouldn't want some people carrying around deadlier force than others. In other words, we could allow children 18 and under to carry a single shot pistol and let those over 18 carry a semi-auto pistol. That would be inequality.


The above is the nadir of stupidity. I cannot fathom how one could reach this.

Bowery Boy said...

Cato said:
"The above is the nadir of stupidity. I cannot fathom how one could reach this."

Using those big intelleckegent words like nadir will launch you to the pineapple of your blogging career.

Anonymous said...

Cato:

Of course Cato can't fathom how I could reach that conclusion. For someone like Cato who paints in black and white and never goes beyond the borders of you idealogical silo, I'm not surprised that you would see nadir while I see reductio ad absurdum.

To Fuzz I would heartily admit that I am not itimately entwined with the statistical DNA of the gun ownership debate. However, from a pragmatic reading of the issues involved and the impact of violence on our culture, it is obvious that we have a problem Houston and there are no easy answers. A statistical shooting match in the spin cycle of emotion is what we got here. I doubt that common sense will ever prevail.

Fuzz said...

Anonymous, you have my agreement on that point. These are emotional topics that often spin beyond politeness.

Cato said...

It's not a big word.

"Equal protection of the law has nothing to do with making people equal, only applying the law equally. The Constitution allows for no such waste of taxpayer funds; all it says on this subject is that the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon at all by the Federal government.

AndyRand said...

CATO:

Are you like the founder of the "Back to 1776 Club" or what? I am not a Contitutional expert like you, but everytime I research some of the amendments you mention, I find numerous interpretations, yet your arguments indicate that you believe there is only one interpretation, yours.

Cato said...

Other people's lack of reading comprehension skills do not concern me.

AndyRand said...

CATO:
Seriously, there are all kinds of Constitutional scholars who have honest disagreements about interpretation, yet you seem to believe that your interpretation is the final word. How can this be?
(Poor reading comprehension is not a satisfactory response.)
Amazingly, your interpretations have never been implemented by any branch of governerment.

Cato said...

It isn't "interpreting" anymore than you reading "Jack ate three peices of cheddar cheese" is interpreted to mean "Jack ate three peices of cheddar cheese".

Amazingly you have yet to present an argument refuting anything I have said other than "oh ho ho you're full of yourself" (which is not actually an argument, but for the sake of argument we'll pretend you have presented one). Attack my ideas and I will show you why you are wrong. These "other interpretations" you cite -- where are they?

AndyRand said...

CATO:
Here are to schools of interpretation:

From www.usconstitution.net/consstop_intr.html
excuse the copy/paste.

Literalism - historical

Historical literalists believe that the contemporary writings of the Framers are not relevant to any interpretation of the Constitution. The only thing one needs to interpret the Constitution is a literal reading of the words contained therein, with an expert knowledge in the 18th century meaning of those words. The debates leading to the final draft are not relevant, the Federalist Papers are not relevant - only the words.

The historical literalist takes a similar look at the Constitution as an originalist does, but the literalist has no interest in expanding beyond the text for answers to questions. For example, an historical literalist will see the militia of the 2nd Amendment as referring to all able-bodied men from 17 to 45, just as in the late 18th century, and this interpretation will color that person's reading of the 2nd Amendment.

Literalism - contemporary

Very similar to an historical literalist, a contemporary literalist looks only to the words of the Constitution for guidance, but this literalist has no interest in the historical meaning of the words. The contemporary literalist looks to modern dictionaries to determine the meaning of the words of the Constitution, ignoring precedent and legal dissertation, and relying solely on the definition of the words.

Just as the historical literalist view parallels the originalist view, but much more narrow in focus, so too does the contemporary literalist mirror the modernist; and again, the main difference is the literalist looks only to the words of the Constitution for meaning. To expand on the 2nd Amendment example, the contemporary literalist will view the militia as the modern National Guard, and this will color that person's views on the 2nd.

My argument is not so much:
"oh ho ho you're full of yourself"
But that, I have never met anyone who is absolutely correct 100% of the time and I refuse to believe that you are that person though your arguments insinuate that you are.

AndyRand said...

CATO:

"Attack my ideas and I will show you why you are wrong."

One more thought for the day.
I think it's interesting that you presume that I will be wrong before I even present an argument.
I think they call that clairvoyant!

Cato said...

OK, don't attack my ideas and I will laud you for being right.

AndyRand said...

CATO said:
"These "other interpretations" you cite -- where are they? "
In the post above.
You didn't adresse them.

These are the first I found. As I said many times, you may know the
Constitution better than I, but
to deny any interpretation but you own??? How would you describe that other than arrongance?

Cato said...

You cited general approaches to interpretation. What do you want me to say?

I was asking for specifics. I plan on eviscerating the arguments, but you need to present them.