The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Gun law question (4 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3
funsway
View Profile
Inner circle
old things in new ways - new things in old ways
8854 Posts

Profile of funsway
I Iike Mr. Salk's "victimhood" - not to imply he is afraid of anything.

I am free to fear what I wish and free not be afraid of other things.
Not sure hat most CC folks are afraid of. I tried asking but that went nowhere.

Do you'all suffer from victimhood? Maybe that is a better word than fear. Doesn't look much like love or brotherhood.
Whatever is the motivations, I Wish to be free of it.

Sure is good to know you guys are out there keeping the world safe, legislating from fears other than mine.

"Fear is a question. What are you afraid of and why?
Our fears are a treasure house of self-knowledge if we explore them."
-Marilyn French
"the more one pretends at magic, the more awe and wonder will be found in real life." Arnold Furst



ShareBooks at www.eversway.com * questions at funsway@eversway.com
Mr Salk
View Profile
Special user
Tied to
561 Posts

Profile of Mr Salk
Universally I think we all want to avoid victimhood. I am neither smart, strong or fast enough to protect myself or my family from threats.
But bullets are fast enough to allay my fears. Packing-heat means that criminal's choices are not necessarily the final verdict.

As a side note, raging pit-bulls aren't fond of a snout-full of lead either.
.


.
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20427 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
True about having choices and not letting a bad guy be the final opinion.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27104 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
Quote:
On Sep 14, 2018, magicfish wrote:
If an outright ban on all firearms was at one extreme end of the spectrum, what would be on the other end...
A lack of interest in the object as political hot-button.
More people die in swimming pools and automobiles than in domestic terrorism. But you don't hear anyone demanding we ban automobiles on those grounds. Nor do you hear pleas to teach pool safety.

On a more serious tack - so far mention of insurance of the sort drivers have on our roads - met with silence.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
Mr Salk
View Profile
Special user
Tied to
561 Posts

Profile of Mr Salk
Actually California and Florida have rather strict pool-safety laws.
.


.
magicfish
View Profile
Inner circle
6627 Posts

Profile of magicfish
Quote:
On Aug 16, 2019, funsway wrote:
Quote:
On Aug 15, 2019, magicfish wrote:

Puke? Why? If you were in a concealed carry state and wished you could open carry, you may envy your open carry neighbours no?


To base any decision on envy is questionable. To put another person's life at risk because of envy is terrifying.

I am in a CC State. No wish to carry, concealed or otherwise. No envy either. Being Christian, no "covet" allowed anyway.

But, if necessary, I can hit a deer at 600 yards with by old Springfield and my shotgun near my bed has slugs and "00" alternating.
No envy. Just being prepared for those motivated by it.

- We are all sinners. We all experience envy, Christian or not.
- Nobody mentioned basing a decision on envy
- Nobody's life is at risk in this scenario. Just two law abiding civilized people who live in different states with different laws.
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20427 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Quote:
On Aug 16, 2019, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 14, 2018, magicfish wrote:
If an outright ban on all firearms was at one extreme end of the spectrum, what would be on the other end...
A lack of interest in the object as political hot-button.
More people die in swimming pools and automobiles than in domestic terrorism. But you don't hear anyone demanding we ban automobiles on those grounds. Nor do you hear pleas to teach pool safety.

On a more serious tack - so far mention of insurance of the sort drivers have on our roads - met with silence.

I lived near lakes. Water safety was taught to children, and taken VERY seriously.

I have a swimming pool. You had better believe if kids or even dogs are near caution is taken.

When you own a pool it is called an "attractive nuisance" in some jurisdictions. I find it hard (As usual.) to discern a point in your post. Also none of these things are covered in the Constitution are they?
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27104 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
mention of (firearm) insurance
Using insurance costs as discouragement to firearm abuse has been mentioned before.

* Analysis:
* first address the seriousness of the matter (domestic terrorism)
* second, address the absurdity of obvious attempts at distraction (tradition, superstition, appeal to fear...)
* then a pause
* then an appeal to responsibility to test whether others are interested in addressing the matter (firearms possession) as distinct from the social problem (domestic terrorism).
*
*
Distraction : We could discuss how the comma was used in 1750 as opposed to used today in writing.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27104 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
Quote:
On Aug 16, 2019, magicfish wrote:
If you were in a concealed carry state and wished you could open carry, you may envy your open carry neighbours no?
We have something like that with laws regarding buying liquor. Some towns are "not on Sunday" and some are "only in specially licensed liquor stores". Some restaurants have liquor licenses. Some allow "bring your own bottle". In NY we recently had a law passed about bringing dogs into restaurants. It used to be only service dogs with special tags and collar.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
Mr Salk
View Profile
Special user
Tied to
561 Posts

Profile of Mr Salk
Quote:
On Aug 16, 2019, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
In NY we recently had a law passed about bringing dogs into restaurants. It used to be only service dogs with special tags and collar.


Ugh. Better a new topic to rant in, but I'm sick of huge dogs rolling and scratching their back in the Safeway produce aisle.
.


.
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20427 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Quote:
On Aug 16, 2019, Mr Salk wrote:
Quote:
On Aug 16, 2019, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
In NY we recently had a law passed about bringing dogs into restaurants. It used to be only service dogs with special tags and collar.


Ugh. Better a new topic to rant in, but I'm sick of huge dogs rolling and scratching their back in the Safeway produce aisle.


I own a big dog and I agree with you. I never bring him in places not specifically designed for dogs, even if it is allowed now.

Sad part was how easy it was to fake a "service dog" qualification, and how many did it.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
16042 Posts

Profile of tommy
The two equal-and-opposite forces of Greed and Fear do essentially determine most things.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27104 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
I spent some time talking with someone closer to the argument. From their side safety, precautions, and training is built into the system. They also claim there are already laws about using firearms or any deadly weapon to scare people, to intimidate people, as part of another criminal act, and even use in context of planning a criminal act.

Going public to demand a change in some social policy or else some threatened action is its own social problem.

The problem, they say, is not so much folks who happen to like target shooting so much as other people who claim a black firearm is an assault weapon while the same model in chrome is a collectors item. I get the feeling that one could just as well argue about motor vehicles in black being an assault weapon. To be cynical - I wonder if this is a rhetorical circus of stess where the vendors are selling anti-anxiety medication, diet plans, sleeping medication, and impulse items.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
4954 Posts

Profile of landmark
Quote:
From their side safety, precautions, and training is built into the system. They also claim there are already laws about using firearms or any deadly weapon to scare people, to intimidate people, as part of another criminal act, and even use in context of planning a criminal act.


So how's that working?

The late NYC mayor Ed Koch used to like to ask at campaign stops, "How am I doing?" Once a woman at the back of the crowd shouted out, "You're doing great, Ed. The rest of us not so much."

Your friend has to show that the structures are actually working, or else it's meaningless.
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27104 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
Ed Koch was popular. Blaming others still seems popular too. It's misdirection. So what? How about an argument from sound principles and facts?
Quote:
On Aug 16, 2019, landmark wrote:
...Your friend has to show that the structures are actually working, or else it's meaningless.

If guns are so dangerous, how come anybody leaves a gun show alive? Ask some of the oldtimers at the Saturday gathering about whether or not L* and his * was a problem. It wasn't. He was there almost every Saturday. The problem is something else. Focus.

If you think internet spambots are dangerous now - wait till they are driving cars and you're trying to cross a street. Smile
...to all the coins I've dropped here
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
4954 Posts

Profile of landmark
The burden is on those who claim that adequate precautions are in place to prove it. "Not everybody is dead yet" is not much of a proof.

As for L*...well, how many told him to his face that his execution of the *** sleight sucked? Smile
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20427 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
To be fair a goal of zero firearm deaths is not possible. So it is a sliding scale and anyone who doesn't like firearms claims it is not working and anyone who does claims it is. I believe you know this already, and use it actually as a platform.

So the "prove it" thing sinply is not possible.

Aside from that we HAVE these rights already. That is not the argument to be made. If you want to change things them it is incumbent upon YOU to make the case, effectively, that is is somehow NOT working across the board.

Not so easy huh? This is why that argument is weak.

Because if you want to change the entire country you have to prove somehow it is not working for the whole country. Otherwise you will be told that is why we have States and let the States deal with it.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Gun law question (4 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2020 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.34 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL