The Glade 4.0

Not reallyfunny at all for those that take a bullet never indended for them.

Of course bullets always hit their target, never take the lives of innocent bystanders, always stop when they strike a surface, never penetrate that surface and continue to another object or person, and can be controlled by the shooter a-la that movie with Angeline Jolie where they shoot in spirals.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

You can't use people who don't control their gun properly in the first place as any kind of argument about the danger of people being killed unintentionally. The gun is being utilized improperly in the first place. No one is arguing that untrained or careless morons are perfectly safe with guns.

As for ricochets, people being killed by them are so absurdly rare as to be an irrelevant argument (and no, it doesn't matter how they or their families feel about it.) Yes it CAN happen, but it is not a stroke of luck when someone isn't killed by things like ricochet or overpenetration of walls; it's an unbelievable stroke of BAD luck when they do.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

He's not a hypocrite unless he's trying to get an exception just for his gun. He's following the laws as they exist now, and I'm sure he's not proposing legislation that would affect everyone except him.

Maybe this incident will change his mind and he'll recognize how important the ability to defend yourself is.

Assuming he does advocate gun control as was suggested in the OP (someone raised some question about his voting record and I haven't been interested enough to look), I disagree.

There is a very high level of hypocrisy rightfully attributed to individuals that don't practice what they preach, whether it is Al Gore and his smoke stack house, a religious figure and his Playboy collection, or a politician that claims guns are too dangerous.

I see it differently. Your other examples are hypocrites, because those guys are preaching for people to make changes themselves. This senator is pushing for legislative changes. He's following the rules now, and I can only assume he'll follow the new ones if he gets his way.

I look at this case like the guy who drives to work everyday to push for better public transportation. When he gets it, he'll take the bus, but until then he's stuck driving.

It also depends, of course, on why he's anti-gun. If he doesn't think people can use them safely, then he's a hypocrite. If he thinks it'll help reduce the number of guns out there, then he's not.

Different opinion of course, but I don't see him as any different than Al Gore pushing for legislative changes without living what he claims is so important. If it is that important, or dangerous, start at home and practice what you preach.


As you said, it depends on the situation. Is the public transportation crappy because no one uses so the system can't afford the routes, stops or services?

Not to drag that example out, as there are a multitude of permutations that should our opinions one way or the other, but in the case the OP, to me he is clearly a hypocrite, more so if this were another health care like issue, but one non the less.

Still, if you have a gun, you can pull off the "do as I say, not as I do" argument alot easier.

Heh, that reminds me of the quote from Scott Adams around the Y2K bug.

"I've heard that many people are hoarding cash and food just in case civilization collapses. My strategy is to hoard guns and ammo so I can take the cash and food from the people who didn't do a good job thinking through the 'collapse of society' concept."

--Scott Adams, creator of Dilbert, from Salon Magazine, "Lawyers, Guns, Money" (2-10-99)

I think that one can support gun control and still own and use a gun for home self defense. In fact, I don't know of any serious gun control advocates who go after some kind of complete ban on handguns, even in self defense.

Someone who preaches that being gay is a sin while simultaneously getting blown in a bathroom by their secret boyfriend is one thing. Advocating for reasonable regulation on gun ownership and using a gun responsibly in your own defense is quite another.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

This. As long as the ownership and use of the weapon is consistent with the type of legislation you are pursuing, there's definitely no hypocrisy. If not, then... see my previous argument.

1) Happened in Bronx NY in 93, in one of the strictest gun control states in the US. Proof that gun control laws do not affect criminals.
2) "celebratory fire" accident. Yep more responsible gun owners in Sindh, Pakistan- by the way they also have strict gun control.
3) Happened on Clark Atlanta university campus during a fight others were having- another gun free zone.
4) Killed by a 17 year old drug dealer with a .357 magnum. Yet another example of a responsible gun owner. Guess he bought it at a gun show.
5) " In the wake of the killing, witnesses told Greek TV that police had fired directly at the teenager, fanning popular anger.
But the officer who fired the shot had said it was a ricochet from a warning shot, as the dead teenager had been among a group of youths who reportedly threw stones at a police car. " Considering there were full fledged riots over the incident, think the expedient thing to do was call it an accident?
6) Shooting at improper targets which will produce a known effect called backsplash. You'll note that a common theme in these "ricochet" vids are that they are shooting at a flat steel target.

So, um, which one were you referring to as the responsible gun owner?

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

I don't disagree, but if this is in response to my comment about this Senator being a hypocrite, I will point out again where I qualified that comment...





If he is in fact anti-gun, then my comment stands.

That said, I did some quick looking last night and while every article on the web from blogs all over claim he is significantly anti-gun, he received an A rating from the NRA (which means not a lot) and a * from the gun rights group in NC (0 being lowest, * being second lowest). I got tired of looking before I was able to find any record of his votes on gun bills, statements about gun control from him, or bills he sponsored regarding gun control.

But I have to ask, was your comment about gay men unintentional, or did you do your own research on this Senator?

Just as an aside, I really find the labels of anti-gun and pro-gun to be completely meaningless.

I like guns. I own 4 (1 rifle, 3 handguns), and I very much like shooting. I also happen to be a fairly decent shot.

I also support gun laws that put some restrictions on gun ownership and use. As an example, I would support some kind of firearm owners license similar to a drivers license, that ensured that you know how to properly handle a gun and be safe.

I'm sure there are some who would label me as anti-gun, but they would be wrong.

You're no anti-gun, you're just anti-rights.

The guns themselves are fine, people owning them who don't conform to appease your level of fear shouldn't get them.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Heh

Just as an aside, I really find the labels of anti-rights and pro-rights to be completely meaningless.

I like rights. I have many, and I very much like exercising several of them. I especially like exercising my right to vote and of speech.

I also support laws that put some restrictions on rights and their use. As an example, I would support some kind of registration on voters, that ensured that they only voted once and in the correct district.

I'm sure there are some who would label me as anti-rights, but they would be wrong.

Voting multiple times and in areas one doesn't live isn't a right. The ability to defend one's rights is. They aren't comparable events.

You wish to limit the ability of others to protect their rights based on your fear of them. You want other people to meet your standard before they get to undertake their right. That is an anti-rights position. You may only have few of them, you may only have this one however you need to understand that it is indeed anti-rights. No one needs your or anyone else's permission in order to undertake a right (thats why they are called that).

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

As crazy as Elmo can sound in these matters, Aizle, I think he's solidly in the right here. Anything that's "regulated" is no longer a right, but a permission. Permit, permission? License is the same way -- it's something that's *granted* to you, and thus can be revoked. Rights don't get revoked. They are inherent, implicit, and applied universally.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

I sound crazy? Since when?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

2003?

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

The year...AD? That is unpossible.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

I think he meant B.C., but I could be wrong.

Hop in my wayback machine and the sights I will show you....

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

Is this about when I almost burned you alive again?

I swear that was so cool.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Nothing like gas vapors to solidify a friendship.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill