Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
Shetville , North of Los Angeles
|
|
Do all crank loons drool and are they all idiots...?
|
|
philo
climber
|
|
I don't know RJ do you need help securing your bib?
|
|
Lorenzo
Trad climber
Portland Oregon
|
|
I just figured out the duck is one of those computerized noun-adverb-verb random word generators.
Somebody needs to add some nouns besides crankloon.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Sure, but in the case of guns, your argument is that since red lights don't prevent every single accident and won't have any effect at all on accidents that aren't at intersections, all they do is slow down law-abiding citizens, so we shouldn't have red lights at all, and certainly shouldn't put up any new ones at intersections that have become more dangerous.
That's not my argument at all.
First, I would never argue that the goal of red-light laws is to prevent every single accident (or even many/most of them)!
Second, my argument really concerns the law's intent relative to the outcome of violating it, which addresses the possible value of ancillary laws surrounding it.
Red-light laws are NOT intended to prevent every single accident. In FACT, if people would UNIVERSALLY agree to abide by intersection lights, NO law supporting such lights would be needed, as no penalty would ever be imposed. In the real world, however, people give a nod at the purpose of intersection lights and then do whatever is convenient. Hence the need of a law and a penalty for violation.
Red lights (and their supporting laws) are actually intended to provide a means by which to equitably distribute traffic flow among competing participants at intersections. Accidents are a SIDE-effect of violating that law, not THE thing the law is intended to prevent. And, accidents are a quite infrequent effect of violation, relative to the number of actual violations.
Furthermore, there is no underlying moral principle I'm violating to run a red light. Only if there's a law in place am I violating a moral obligation to obey the laws issued by a legitimate authority operating within its scope of authority.
For all these reasons (and more), there is no parity between traffic laws (and others you mentioned) and murder (by gun or other means).
When you pass an additional law surrounding red-light laws, such as, for instance, that one must slow to no more than half the posted speed when approaching a yellow light instead of trying to run it (just an example of an ancillary law one might pass), I might violate one or both laws. But now, BOTH laws have an effect on my thinking and perhaps behavior.
With murder, however, particularly mass-murder, I've already committed myself to a beyond-the-pale act. I've removed myself from ALL "legal" thinking. I then care ONLY about strategy and tactics, NOT laws and ancillary laws. This is NOT a case of "the law doesn't stop all murderers, so no point in having a law against murder." The law is intended to DEFINE what MURDER IS and to explicitly prohibit it. And if commit myself to violating THAT law, I have utterly placed myself "above" the law. NO ancillary laws have any effect on my thinking.
I'm NOT arguing that "they'll have no effect, so they should not be passed." I have REPEATEDLY said that I have no problem with a universal background check law (that does NOT allow a registry database), even THOUGH I believe that it will be essentially useless.
What I AM arguing is that USING tragic incidents like this latest one to ARGUE FOR the passage of such laws is entirely unmotivated and unsustainable, as the passage of such laws will NECESSARILY have exactly zero effect on a person that has decided to commit mass murder. So, a mass murder incident has NO relevancy to the passage of such laws.
|
|
crankster
Trad climber
No. Tahoe
|
|
"Zero effect". You say that with certainty and authority. But you really don't know, correct? You can't.
You seem to be arguing that the lack of guns makes a person/community LESS safe from gun violence. I think that's weird.
|
|
philo
climber
|
|
Actually Crank what I think many of the gun huggers are saying there is so many guns already that everybody shod arm up to be safe. It's lunacy but they believe it. And it makes them so petulantlyangry that they can't see straight.
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Hell is empty and all the devils are here
|
|
With murder, however, particularly mass-murder, I've already committed myself to a beyond-the-pale act. I've removed myself from ALL "legal" thinking. I then care ONLY about strategy and tactics, NOT laws and ancillary laws.
Exactly! Which is why all civilian weapons must be seized and destroyed.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
well.....
one learns in high school to internet post in a very authoritarian manner
with supreme arrogance and certainty while being only vaguely condescending
that way the elusion of credibility is maintained
most everyone else politely knows this and lets the children think they said something.....
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
But you really don't know, correct? You can't.
I don't know that I have HANDS with any "certainty." However, I am pretty confident that I do.
I am also VERY confident that these mass murderers are NOT contemplating gun laws as they plan out their deeds. And we have a pretty huge slate of empirical evidence amassed at this point to indicate that these guys are getting their guns via channels that NO proposed legislation will address, not even the Hillabeast's recently announced "plan."
Thus, yes, I am pretty confident that NO proposed gun laws are relevant to these tragic incidents and cannot be justified BY them.
If you want more gun laws, feel free to do your best to get them passed. I might even support some of 'em. But NONE of them will even touch, much less solve, incidents like this latest one.
To do THAT, you have to take seriously protecting the kids ON SITE in real time!
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
Shetville , North of Los Angeles
|
|
the crank loon-anti-gun idiots are blinded by the drool dripping from the zionist mouth-breathing , Hillary supporters...stupid mis-informed Americans...
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
|
|
orale
We don't need no stinkin' gunz, just a vat of acid.
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Hell is empty and all the devils are here
|
|
But NONE of them will even touch, much less solve, incidents like this latest one.
Exactly right. We need to go Australian on guns.
|
|
philo
climber
|
|
So Madbolt you'd propose nothing be done to address the issue other than militarizing school campuses like prison camps.
Brave new world indeed.
|
|
Skeptimistic
Mountain climber
La Mancha
|
|
Sure, but in the case of guns, your argument is that since red lights don't prevent every single accident...
Interestingly, when I was in Egypt a few years back, drivers completely ignored the traffic signals- total chaos & anarchy. But a closer look revealed the cars had no dents or scratches; they incessantly blow their horns reminiscent of bat echolocation.
|
|
Fritz
Trad climber
Choss Creek, ID
|
|
Sigh
madbolter is a true gun-lover & he is sincere, long-winded, & his posts are mostly unread, TGT likes posting cartoons to explain his supposedly intellectual conservative stance, & Werner is just a weird duck.
And of course Das Chief is possessed by his own evil right-wing demons that force him to post until his keyboard starts to smoke.
I love my guns, but then again, I actually kill pests on our ranchette with them.
I do advocate mental-health checks for new gun owners, mandatory gun training, & of course, a waiting period before gun purchase.
I do not advocate continuing to sell assault-rifles, since no experienced & serious (sane) hunter wants to shoot the schit out of the game they are going to eat.
I grew up meat-hunting in central Idaho, with the mark of a good hunter, being a single head or heart shot to kill big game.
For the last 30 years I have worked as a outdoor sales-representative selling camping, backpacking, river-running, & survival gear to outdoor stores. I have worked with a bunch of conservative, survivalist retailers. Despite my comfort with guns and shooting, those folks scare me.
Some of those folks want revolution. Some of them will never be happy with our current political system, but they would rather shoot than vote. Some of them need to go to jail.
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
good post Fritz..
thanks for the sanity
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
Some of them will never be happy with our current political system, but they would rather shoot than vote.
The whole gun thing aside, there are people like that in every political system. It doesn't matter whether the overarching political structure of a country is liberal, conservative, capitalist, communist, theocracy, oligarchy, or "You must do whatever your Rice Krispies tell you to do", there will be people who want to overthrow it. Preferably with violence.
For me, the best thing to do about guns is keep them out of the hands of crazies. To some extent, that means working to help the crazies, but it also means that non-crazy people who want the right to own firearms should be willing to accept that not everyone should have access to guns.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!