[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2013-May-14, 11:07, said:

Of course the NRA is allowed to lobby, as is, well, no point in making a list. Discussing whether they are or are not evil is a waste of time. If Dracula wants to suck my blood, the game is to try to stop him. Let someone else argue good and evil. The NRA represents two constituencies: Those with a strong profit motive for wanting no gun regulation and those with a strong ideological objection to gun regulation. My cold dead hands and all that. They are well funded and effective. Those of us who have different objectives must do the best we can to make things go our way.

I continue to believe that this is possible, it will just take time. I believe there are some measures that would have widespread public support. I think it is a mistake to go to extreme positions that would not have broad support, quite possibly would not have my support. In this world there will always be violence, and for the most part a reduction in violence will come about through better social arrangements. But I see an alteration of our views toward guns as one of many needs.

The NRA does not have to be demonized, just defeated.

Defeating the NRA will most likely be a decades long objective. Most recently, the failure of increasing background checks failed to pass Congress despite the support of a substantial majority of the population. The backlash of lowered approval ratings showed up in polls for those who opposed the bill. This appeared an obvious case where money dictated the vote over the will of the people.

It will take many years to replace the Congressmen and Senators who vote against the will of their constituency. Until that occurs, the NRA is likely to call the shots on gun control legislation.

[kenberg]

Just to add a bit to my previous post. I don't know whether it is more likely that I will need a rope ladder to escape a fire or a shotgun to fend off a home intruder. Neither seems very likely, and I could, if needed, jump out the window to escape from either.

But surely more people die from complications due to obesity than from home invasions. Apples and oranges? Sort of. But pulling a trigger is so easy. Losing weight is so tough. I see some guy with an extra 40 pounds and a pistol for protection. A good solution, maybe and perhaps, for the unlikely problem, not much help for the likely threat to his life. But sure, maybe some wide receiver, or ex wide receiver, or whatever, is outside my door right now. Could be.

Added: And by the way, I am one with a good deal of extra weight. I have lost a fair amount, and I will be losing more. I will die someday. Care to place a bet on how this happens?
Option 1. Ken died from complications coming from overweight
Option 2: Ken died because he didn't have a shotgun under his bed.
Of course I could lose weight and buy a shotgun, true enough. And I could spray disinfectand on everything in the house. I'll go with the weight loss.I just got back from my walk. Tomorrow I hit the erights and the ArcTrainer at the Y.
But if you think a shotgun is the way to go, what do I know?

[Vampyr]

 ArtK78, on 2013-May-10, 12:07, said:

It seems that the number of murders/manslaughters in 2013 in Atlantic City is projected to be 15 based on prior years' statistics.

London, a city with roughly the same population as New Jersey, just had its 7th this year. So the total for both cities will likely be approximately equal.

[Chas_P]

 kenberg, on 2013-May-14, 14:46, said:

But surely more people die from complications due to obesity than from home invasions. Apples and oranges? Sort of. But pulling a trigger is so easy. Losing weight is so tough.

Obviously the solution we need is obesity control legislation. Never fear. It will happen. Michael Bloomberg is already working on it in NYC.

[kenberg]

 Chas_P, on 2013-May-14, 17:49, said:

Obviously the solution we need is obesity control legislation. Never fear. It will happen. Michael Bloomberg is already working on it in NYC.

Now you're thinking. Good idea!

[blackshoe]

Clearly the government knows better than we do what is good for us, and should be regimenting every aspect of our lives.

[Trinidad]

 blackshoe, on 2013-May-14, 23:21, said:

Clearly the government knows better than we do what is good for us the other people in society, and should be regimenting every some aspects of our lives.

FYP.

Of course, the government should be regimenting your life so that you are not a nuisance to the rest of society. That is one of the reasons why we have a government.

The problem is that everybody readily accepts that they should regiment somebody else's life, but that some of us won't accept that inevitably sometimes that "somebody else" happens to be "me, myself or I".

I think that a significant part of those who fiercely oppose the government regimenting gun control are very much in favor of the government regimenting euthanasia (or assisted suicide). Regiment them!! Regiment them!! Not me!!!

Rik

[kenberg]

Many years ago I lived in Columbia, Maryland. It's one of the more successful planned communities. My neighbors were upset that the guy next door to me did not mow his grass often enough. They were also upset with me for not being upset with him. My general view is that concentrating on my own shortcomings is apt to pay bigger dividends than concentrating on someone else's.

Nonetheless, we all share space and some rules are necessary. Even I got upset with my neighbor when snakes started taking up residence in his un-mowed grass.

This business with easy access to guns is not easy for me. At one point in life "everyone" was getting married. Then having children. Then getting divorced. Sometimes now it seems as if the most common news is who is not around anymore. So far no one I know has died because he wasn't carrying a gun. Not even close. For that matter, no one has died because he was carrying a gun. But I do know someone who lost a son to street violence. As I get it, and I realize I may not have the straight story, he was with the wrong people at the wrong time. In my view, young people should not carry guns and, very important, they should run not walk away from anyone who does.

Maybe we can eventually get some sensible regulations on guns, maybe we can't. While waiting for this to occur, people might want to give hard thought to whether walking around with a gun really improves their chance of staying alive. For most people, in most circumstances, I think that the answer is no.

[Winstonm]

 blackshoe, on 2013-May-14, 23:21, said:

Clearly the government knows better than we do what is good for us, and should be regimenting every aspect of our lives.

I can't agree that THE government should do anything, but it is apparent that if a government regulated and actively enforced weight control that the cost of health care for those governed people would be substantially less.

Central control is not inherently evil. There are some things done best with central control and others done less well.

[kenberg]

I know that I, and I am pretty sure that Charles, were joking about government laws controlling weight. We even attached the obligatory smiley faces.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2013-May-15, 07:14, said:

I know that I, and I am pretty sure that Charles, were joking about government laws controlling weight. We even attached the obligatory smiley faces.

Comment was directed to the non-smiley-face poster. That's why his quote was in well...quotes.

[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2013-May-14, 09:37, said:

Are you suggesting that lobbying against "gun control" is evil?

Not necessarily, it depends on the details.

If you're lobbying on ideological grounds, that's appropriate. But my impression is that the NRA is basically a mouthpiece of the gun manufacturing industry, at least as far as their lobbying efforts go. They're not lobbying because they think people have a right to own guns, they're lobbying because they want to ensure that people can continue to buy guns from them.

They're more like the tobacco lobbyists. Consider that one of their achievements was to get legislation passed that prohibits the NIH from studying gun violence. THAT is evil.

[blackshoe]

 Trinidad, on 2013-May-15, 03:50, said:

FYP.

Of course, the government should be regimenting your life so that you are not a nuisance to the rest of society. That is one of the reasons why we have a government.

The problem is that everybody readily accepts that they should regiment somebody else's life, but that some of us won't accept that inevitably sometimes that "somebody else" happens to be "me, myself or I".

I think that a significant part of those who fiercely oppose the government regimenting gun control are very much in favor of the government regimenting euthanasia (or assisted suicide). Regiment them!! Regiment them!! Not me!!!

Rik

Pfui. We need one rule: "An' it harm none, do what thou wilt." We don't need a huge overbearing government to administer it.

[blackshoe]

 kenberg, on 2013-May-15, 06:08, said:

In my view, young people should not carry guns and, very important, they should run not walk away from anyone who does.

Many years ago, when I was young, my next door neighbor was a state cop. He carried a gun. When I was younger than that, I was engaged to a woman who carried a gun. Should I have run away from them?

[kenberg]

 blackshoe, on 2013-May-15, 12:08, said:

Many years ago, when I was young, my next door neighbor was a state cop. He carried a gun. When I was younger than that, I was engaged to a woman who carried a gun. Should I have run away from them?

Wrt the cop, no, probably not. I will duck the other example. I seem to recall a song, Lay that pistol down babe, lay that pistol down. Pistol packin mama, lay that pistol down. But with women, every man is on his own.

[Trinidad]

 blackshoe, on 2013-May-15, 12:05, said:

Pfui. We need one rule: "An' it harm none, do what thou wilt." We don't need a huge overbearing government to administer it.

That's an excellent rule. If that is your rule then euthanasia is clearly legal and guns are clearly outlawed. Glad to see that we agree.

Rik

[hrothgar]

 blackshoe, on 2013-May-15, 12:05, said:

Pfui. We need one rule: "An' it harm none, do what thou wilt." We don't need a huge overbearing government to administer it.

Who needs enlightenment political philosophy when we can substitute early 20th century thelema and 1960's neo-paganism...

(It is kinda nice to see the theocrat's straying from Abrahamic relgions)

[blackshoe]

 Trinidad, on 2013-May-15, 12:55, said:

That's an excellent rule. If that is your rule then euthanasia is clearly illegal and guns are clearly not outlawed. Glad to see that we agree.

FYP.

[FM75]

 barmar, on 2013-May-15, 10:16, said:

If you're lobbying on ideological grounds, that's appropriate. But my impression is that the NRA is basically a mouthpiece of the gun manufacturing industry, at least as far as their lobbying efforts go. They're not lobbying because they think people have a right to own guns, they're lobbying because they want to ensure that people can continue to buy guns from them.

It is nice that you have provided your "impression". I am sure everyone was particularly interested in it.
It was also probably much easier for you to provide, since it did not involve actually finding the financial statements of the NRA to see what their revenues and expenses really are. That said, would you change your impression if you had the facts?

What does it cost to be a member of the NRA? How many members does it have? How many people like what they are doing, but do not pay any membership fees? What is the thing that makes their membership drives particularly successful? What percentage of their revenues comes from membership fees? What are their expenses? Does your congressman understand what that membership represents? Does he need to be bribed to vote?


Damn the facts! Full speed ahead!

[onoway]

 FM75, on 2013-May-15, 15:21, said:

It is nice that you have provided your "impression". I am sure everyone was particularly interested in it.
It was also probably much easier for you to provide, since it did not involve actually finding the financial statements of the NRA to see what their revenues and expenses really are. That said, would you change your impression if you had the facts?

What does it cost to be a member of the NRA? How many members does it have? How many people like what they are doing, but do not pay any membership fees? What is the thing that makes their membership drives particularly successful? What percentage of their revenues comes from membership fees? What are their expenses? Does your congressman understand what that membership represents? Does he need to be bribed to vote?


Damn the facts! Full speed ahead!

OK, FM75, just what are the facts and how do they affect the discussion? Or are you just happy to sneer at someone for not offering details of how they arrived at their impression without actually offering anything at all yourself, much less any reason why his impressions might be wrong? How safe for you to simply criticize without committing yourself to anything at all.

Damn the facts, full speed ahead, indeed.