Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[The Oracle]

should they be? Instead of banning guns should we be discussing access and responsibility?

Why instead? We can do more than 1 thing.

[Kapture1]

Why instead? We can do more than 1 thing.

We're not banning guns

[CGVT]

Trump: I would have run into school during shooting even without a gun

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/375597-trump-i-would-have-run-into-school-during-shooting-even-without-a-gun

Really? This guy? Really?

[Jeff Buchanan]

We're not banning guns

I think these sentiments should be privately harbored not shrieked out on the street or in public forums.

Clearly guns aren't going to get banned. We've already had that discussion about why this is so. Chest thumping about it though, is, IMO, counterproductive and the retort from the segment of the left that wants guns banned is well, you're a child killer. Useful dialogue ceases.

[The Oracle]

[ame]https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/968183203172405248[/ame]

[entropy]

(1) There's no liability, whatsoever, if your gun is stolen and used in a crime. And rightly so.

(2) The only differences between a stranger and your child stealing your gun is that you've parented your children and they may have easier access. We don't make parents liable for "bad parenting" so the only germane difference is relative ease of access. That seems like a remarkably thin reed on which to go from no liability to life in prison.

If your gun safe was broken into, I'd say yes... no liability.. If they're laying on a desk and your kid uses them.... well, is that different? I leaned towards no on the grounds that proof of what you did or did not do would be tough, but I think it's worth asking. If you believe in the safe use of guns and gun responsibility, shouldn't that also translate in keeping your guns safe?

[entropy]

and no comments on my wiz video... so disappointed..

[CGVT]

If your gun safe was broken into, I'd say yes... no liability.. If they're laying on a desk and your kid uses them.... well, is that different? I leaned towards no on the grounds that proof of what you did or did not do would be tough, but I think it's worth asking. If you believe in the safe use of guns and gun responsibility, shouldn't that also translate in keeping your guns safe?

What about the guy that gets his hand gun stolen out of his unlocked truck glove box? It happens every day. Ask a cop.

[iam416]

If your gun safe was broken into, I'd say yes... no liability.. If they're laying on a desk and your kid uses them.... well, is that different? I leaned towards no on the grounds that proof of what you did or did not do would be tough, but I think it's worth asking. If you believe in the safe use of guns and gun responsibility, shouldn't that also translate in keeping your guns safe?

I think your example translates more into negligence which is why I think civil liability can be appropriate.

I don't disagree with you that the conversation ought to include access points.

[SeattleLionsFan]

FWIW, I agree with talent’s legal analysis of this issue. Although it might be interesting to hear Stan’s viewpoint as a plaintiff’s lawyer.

[Kapture1]

I think these sentiments should be privately harbored not shrieked out on the street or in public forums.

Clearly guns aren't going to get banned. We've already had that discussion about why this is so. Chest thumping about it though, is, IMO, counterproductive and the retort from the segment of the left that wants guns banned is well, you're a child killer. Useful dialogue ceases.

Difference is im not assigning motives, the left is with that response. Its a garbage notion, and anyone stating i dont care about dead kids because i dont want to give away my rights is a piece of trash, and i am happy to point that out.

[hack]

I think these sentiments should be privately harbored not shrieked out on the street or in public forums.

Clearly guns aren't going to get banned. We've already had that discussion about why this is so. Chest thumping about it though, is, IMO, counterproductive and the retort from the segment of the left that wants guns banned is well, you're a child killer. Useful dialogue ceases.

There is no need for dialogue. Less guns = more safety. There is no country in which this isn't the case. As black-and-white as it gets. But I do agree about the chest thumping. The Russian bots are only going to be of limited use when the policy issues don't lend themselves to shades of grey. And especially with the younger voters developing their bullshit meters so much earlier on than older generations. You can sneer at them all you want, but that's a voting bloc that grows faster than any other.

[Jeff Buchanan]

There is no need for dialogue. Less guns = more safety. There is no country in which this isn't the case. .......

If you believe in process and that in the US this is key to change then dialogue is unequivocally needed. Maybe I missed your point .... or you've missed mine.

I can see where folks on both sides of the issue claim that dialogue is impossible given how polarizing the issue tends to be. But, man, if people aren't talking, despite all the reasons why they aren't, that's sad.

My point is that we need to be breaking down these barriers to dialogue. Both sides aren't going to get their way despite how black and white both sides want to make it.

[hack]

Policy is going to be created regardless of any dialogue or pretend dialogue. You're right -- both sides aren't going to get their way. Winner-take-all/tyranny-of-the-majority politics aren't sustainable, but that may be where we're heading. Most Americans feel excluded from the process, and they're right to feel that way. So therefore should there come a time when government is of/for the people rather than of/for the biggest campaign contributors, the two factions made up by actual people aren't likely to be keen to compromise. They've been played against each other for so long. They each have legitimate gripes about their own leaders selling them out. So I think that the left, should they ever get real power, and not under a figure like Obama obsessed with heeding gentlemanly norms, is going to be ready to ram some policy down some people's throats and say fuck you in the process.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Well, I'm not prepared to take the dark look at American politics that you appear to be taking. Admittedly, policy is too often unduly influenced by money. You'd be blind to not see that. However, I'm not sure that the circumstance you describe in American politics hasn't been present to a lesser or greater degree since 1776. It 's a nasty burden that freedom, American style, and governance that springs from it has to bear.

The alternative, of course, is totalitarianism or some version of it and I'll freely admit, the Trump Presidency appears to have taken us a bit toward that abyss...... that would be like the winner-take-all/tyranny of the majority politics you allude to.

My lighter view is that American institutions and how government was arranged by the founders make the likelihood of it's survival as a reasonable form of government mostly representative of the people pretty good. But, then again, I remain hopeful for Michigan football success too.