Visit the Cellar!

The Cellar Image of the Day is just a section of a larger web community: bright folks talking about everything. The Cellar is the original coffeeshop with no coffee and no shop. Founded in 1990, The Cellar is one of the oldest communities on the net. Join us at the table if you like!

 
What's IotD?

The interesting, amazing, or mind-boggling images of our days.

IotD Stuff

ARCHIVES - over 13 years of IotD!
About IotD
RSS2
XML

Permalink Latest Image

June 26th, 2017: Cold Aged

Recent Images

June 26th, 2017: Tricksy Critters
June 25th, 2017: Zero Milestone
June 24th, 2017: North American Food
June 23rd, 2017: Moist Towelettes
June 22nd, 2017: Doodling
June 21st, 2017: Octopus痴 Garden
June 20th, 2017: Money Slang

The CELLAR Tip Mug
Some folks who have noticed IotD

Neatorama
Worth1000
Mental Floss
Boing Boing
Switched
W3streams
GruntDoc's Blog
No Quarters
Making Light
darrenbarefoot.com
GromBlog
b3ta
Church of the Whale Penis
UniqueDaily.com
Sailor Coruscant
Projectionist

Link to us and we will try to find you after many months!

Common image haunts

Astro Pic of the Day
Earth Sci Pic of the Day
We Make Money Not Art
Spluch
ochevidec.net
Strange New Products
Geisha Asobi Blog
Cute animals blog (in Russian)
20minutos.es
Yahoo Most Emailed

Please avoid copyrighted images (or get permission) when posting!

Advertising

Philadelphia Pawn Shop
The best real estate agent in Montgomery County
The best T.38 Fax provider
Epps Beverages and Beer, Limerick, PA
Sal's Pizza, Elkins Park
Burholme Auto Body, Philadelphia
Coles Tobacco, Pottstown
ERM Auto Service, Glenside
Glenside Collision
Moorehead Catering, Trappe
Salon 153, Bala
Dominicks Auto Body, Phoenixville

   Undertoad  Thursday Jun 6 10:13 PM

6/6/2002: PETA advertisement



UK readers will be familiar with this already, I'm guessing. It's a frame from a PETA advertisement that was set to run in cinemas, but was pulled when people felt it was... inappropriate.

The ad features the woman being clubbed to death for her fur coat. Bright folk will see the analogy they're trying to make...



elSicomoro  Thursday Jun 6 10:21 PM

Morons...



Nic Name  Thursday Jun 6 10:50 PM

... PETA or the censors?



elSicomoro  Thursday Jun 6 11:03 PM

You, nic.

PETA...they just irritate the fuck out of me. It shouldn't have been censored, although I can see why. It could "inspire" people to start beating up on fur-wearers. Perhaps they could have put a disclaimer at the bottom.

If people want to wear fur, that's their right. If I owned one, and someone threw paint on me, it would take all the willpower I have to keep from beating the living fuck out of the vandal.



jaguar  Thursday Jun 6 11:09 PM

All depends where the fur comes from as far as i'm concerned.



Nic Name  Thursday Jun 6 11:09 PM

Oh, my misunderstanding. I thought the image was of a dead PETA vandal who had sprayed paint on that pimp's fur coat.



elSicomoro  Thursday Jun 6 11:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by jaguar
All depends where the fur comes from as far as i'm concerned.
Please extrapolate. So, if I legally went out and killed a bear, and decided to make a coat out of it, would you throw paint on me?

One day I AM going to own a fur coat in an attempt to be cool.


warch  Thursday Jun 6 11:17 PM

I remember cracking up to an early Bobcat Goldwaith bit:

"Oh no, I dont eat beef. But I'd kill a cow in second for a cool coat."

I wonder if our righteous dude is striding away in his fine Italian leather shoes...just out of frame.



MaggieL  Thursday Jun 6 11:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by sycamore

One day I AM going to own a fur coat in an attempt to be cool.
Uh...wouldn't it work better to own a fur coat in an attempt to be *warm*?


elSicomoro  Friday Jun 7 12:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MaggieL
Uh...wouldn't it work better to own a fur coat in an attempt to be *warm*?
*groan*


MaggieL  Friday Jun 7 12:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by sycamore

If people want to wear fur, that's their right. If I owned one, and someone threw paint on me, it would take all the willpower I have to keep from beating the living fuck out of the vandal.
Rather like the f*ckwits who think it's funny to stage a driveby shooting with a paintball gun. Is the victim supposed to make a split second asessment as to whether they've just been assaulted with a firearm, or if the stuff they've been doused with is toxic, caustic or contagious?

I do notice that this sort of "good goof" or "political statement" happens mostly in jurisdictions like New York and California where law-abiding folks have been disarmed. One guy who tried the paintball stunt in Utah found out the hard way that some folks there are packing heat. :-)


jaguar  Friday Jun 7 12:13 AM

One in america would shooting someone with a painball gun give you the the justification to blow their head off *sighs*

Quote:
According to the NRA, the best form of personal protection is to be in possession of a loaded firearm at all times. To ensure your personal safety, stay the hell away from NRA members.
Depends on the bear, if it was an endangered species, yes, i'd probably ignite it and you along with it but something like foxfur coats etc, why not? Same applies for croc-skin handbags etc. All depends where the fur is coming from, ehre we have croc farms purely for this stuff.


elSicomoro  Friday Jun 7 12:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MaggieL
Rather like the f*ckwits who think it's funny to stage a driveby shooting with a paintball gun. Is the victim supposed to make a split second asessment as to whether they've just been assaulted with a firearm, or if the stuff they've been doused with is toxic, caustic or contagious?
I was watching some show on TLC earlier this week. It showed some juveniles driving around town on a 3-day rampage, destroying car windows and mail boxes. But what shocked me was that these kids (during said spree) were shooting at people with paintball guns and hitting people with bats. And they videotaped all of it. Now THAT'S stupid. IIRC, they started shooting at this guy on a bike...not only did he get hit by paintballs (which hurts from what I hear) but he went face first into the side mirror of a van. Ouch.


jaguar  Friday Jun 7 12:30 AM

lol now that is amazingly dumb. There are two types of painball, liquid capsules which are pretty harmless and the hard-ball powderpaint ones which can be muchos nasty.



elSicomoro  Friday Jun 7 12:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by jaguar
One in america would shooting someone with a painball gun give you the the justification to blow their head off *sighs*
If one is armed with a gun, and they're being hit by something that appears to be a gun, you don't think that they would try to defend themselves by shooting? I'm not a fan of guns, but even I could see a self-defense rationale in that.

Quote:
Depends on the bear, if it was an endangered species, yes, i'd probably ignite it and you along with it but something like foxfur coats etc, why not? Same applies for croc-skin handbags etc. All depends where the fur is coming from, ehre we have croc farms purely for this stuff.
Hence why I said "legally." And PETA would hate the croc farms.


MaggieL  Friday Jun 7 01:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by jaguar
One in america would shooting someone with a painball gun give you the the justification to blow their head off *sighs*
Anybody who shoots me with *any* kind of gun does so at their own peril. If they're expecting me to introspect on exactly what kind of gun it is and what it's loaded with while they shoot the next couple of rounds, they're making a big mistake. Paintballs can be loaded with very dangerous crap, I'd definately recommend you *not* drive by and shoot me with one.

Furthermore, very few people can tell in the space of a few seconds after a strike whether they've been hit with a .22, a BB, an airgun dart, a paintball, or a bigger bullet. People sometimes get shot with much bigger rounds in combat and don't even notice until it's pointed out to them.

So that pinhead in Utah gets *zero* sympathy from me.


jaguar  Friday Jun 7 01:21 AM

Syc - what is 'legal' and waht is even vaguely ethical are often completely different, in many countires its still 'legal' to hunt endangered species.

Quote:
If one is armed with a gun, and they're being hit by something that appears to be a gun, you don't think that they would try to defend themselves by shooting? I'm not a fan of guns, but even I could see a self-defense rationale in that.
Its not a frigging gun, it doesn't sound like a gun, most don't even look very gunlike. I donno i guess i'm sick of hearing stupid stories of people being shot for the most inane things, i mean christ you can't even *do* a driveby shooting without a reasonably high power full atomatic weapon nd the jsutification for owning an uzi is questionable in itself so therefore if people didn't have the weapons to commit drive-by shootings you wouldn't need to carry a .50 magnum...but lets just agree to disagree on this I just develpoed a pathological dislie of gun advocated after the NRA did that blantanly false series of crap about australians cowering in their homes after strengthening of gun laws....grrr



juju  Friday Jun 7 01:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by sycamore
One day I AM going to own a fur coat in an attempt to be cool.
This idea seems inherently flawed.


elSicomoro  Friday Jun 7 01:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by jaguar
Syc - what is 'legal' and waht is even vaguely ethical are often completely different, in many countires its still 'legal' to hunt endangered species.
Although I'm sure it happens here, it's a federal offense to do so.

Quote:
Its not a frigging gun, it doesn't sound like a gun, most don't even look very gunlike.
If someone is driving towards you, you can't really tell.

Quote:
i mean christ you can't even *do* a driveby shooting without a reasonably high power full atomatic weapon
You don't think they do drive-bys with 9mm pistols or semis?


elSicomoro  Friday Jun 7 01:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by juju
This idea seems inherently flawed.
Let us make no mistake that I am inherently cool; however, the fur coat and fedora would make me pimp supreme.


jaguar  Friday Jun 7 01:51 AM

If someone is driving towards you, past you, aobve you or undernearth you you'd have to be close to deaf not to be able to tell teh diff between a paintball gun and submachinegun, or even a pistol. As for doing a driveby with a 9mm, you'd have to be pretty damn accurate to say the least to be able to hit a moving target while moving pretty dman fast with a single round. I don't really knwo waht drivebys are usually done with, i haven't ehard of one in Australia ever i think, and certainly not in lembourne, and that kinda thing would make the news here, nearly all gun killings do, they are rare(nuff said?). On the other hand i don't see why a you need a 9mm either. Can be drop the gun debate all? its just gonna be long, boring and ugly, this isn't slashdot =)

As for legality, i'm sure the majority of the killing does not happen in the US. Is it a crime to own one of an endangered animal or only to make?



elSicomoro  Friday Jun 7 02:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by jaguar
If someone is driving towards you, past you, aobve you or undernearth you you'd have to be close to deaf not to be able to tell teh diff between a paintball gun and submachinegun, or even a pistol. As for doing a driveby with a 9mm, you'd have to be pretty damn accurate to say the least to be able to hit a moving target while moving pretty dman fast with a single round, on the other hand i don't see why a you need a 9mm either. Can be drop the gun debate all? its just gonna be long, boring and ugly, this isn't slashdot =)
I'm not trying to have a gun debate here jag. I'm trying to show you that there is certainly a possibility that a paintball gun can be mistaken for a real gun. You're mixing motion (riding in a car) along with split-second thinking, thereby creating a dangerous situation.

As far as the drive-by, you set yourself up for that trap.

Quote:
As for legality, i'm sure the majority of the killing does not happen in the US. Is it a crime to own one of an endangered animal or only to make?
I'm not sure of the exact law. I believe that you must have a permit to keep an endangered species (i.e. a zoo), but I'm not sure how it applies to individuals.


juju  Friday Jun 7 02:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by sycamore
Let us make no mistake that I am inherently cool; however, the fur coat and fedora would make me pimp supreme.
Your fashion sense has actually incited fear in me.


jaguar  Friday Jun 7 02:52 AM

Quote:
I'm not sure of the exact law. I believe that you must have a permit to keep an endangered species (i.e. a zoo), but I'm not sure how it applies to individuals.
I doubt it extends to keeping it in the wardrobe

Yea it probably could be - but i don't think that validates shooting the guy. I mean the theory goes if we all have guns we're not going to shoot at each other becase we'll get shot back, i've seem the same theoy applied ot nukes and nations, *reads the paper* hm.... (for refrence i think this currant pakistan/india possible conflict is the biggest media beatup i've seen in ages)


blowmeetheclown  Friday Jun 7 08:43 AM

I've always been fond of the bumper sticker that goes along the lines, "People are more violently opposed to fur than leather, because it's safer to harass rich women than biker gangs."



dave  Friday Jun 7 10:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by jaguar
therefore if people didn't have the weapons to commit drive-by shootings you wouldn't need to carry a .50 magnum...but lets just agree to disagree on this I just develpoed a pathological dislie of gun advocated after the NRA did that blantanly false series of crap about australians cowering in their homes after strengthening of gun laws....grrr
This is the same retarded argument that high schoolers make. Yeah, let's outlaw guns. That will eliminate the problem.

<b>NEWS FLASH</b> - CRIMINALS DON'T CARE WHAT THE GODDAMN LAW SAYS! THAT'S WHY THEY'RE CRIMINALS!

If they want to shoot someone, they will find a gun and do it. They will get them imported from Mexico or some other goddamn place where guns are available. Jesus H. Christ, when will this inane argument die? "Uh, if we make guns illegal, the world will be a safer place" - yeah, 'cause all the crooks and murderers will go "well, darnit, now it's illegal to have guns, so I guess I'll have to turn mine in." Give me a mother fucking break. For all the skepticism you show of everything else, I can't believe you've bought that faulty logic. Yeah, and if we outlaw, say, DeCSS, it'll stop being readily available, huh? And if we make software copying illegal, it'll just stop... right? Yeah. Uh huh. You say that because it allegedly supports your argument. Nevermind that it makes no fucking sense whatsoever.


juju  Friday Jun 7 10:54 AM

Not true. I once knew a criminal who had never broken a law in his life.



MaggieL  Friday Jun 7 10:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dhamsaic


This is the same retarded argument that high schoolers make.
Oh, that's mean. When do schools let out in AU? He may still be *in* high school; June's not over yet.. :-)


dave  Friday Jun 7 11:02 AM

Eh, I had 9th graders making this argument to me when I was 14. I told them the same thing then, and they still insisted on it when they were 17.

Quit being so goddamn gullible and buying the shit that your parents feed to you. Look at it realistically, for Christ's sake. Just because guns are illegal doesn't mean that criminals won't get them - not by a long shot.

juju - then I guess he's not actually a criminal, is he?



MaggieL  Friday Jun 7 11:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by sycamore

I'm trying to show you that there is certainly a possibility that a paintball gun can be mistaken for a real gun.
Beyond that, a paintball gun can *be* a deadly weapon, loaded with the right ammo. Nobody has the right to assult someone with one and then whine "But it's not a deadly weapon"; the balls could be loaded with prussic acid, or anthrax.

By our laws, I'm also weapons-free to shoot someone who's trying to rape me; I don't have to prove he's got AIDS first. Further, a sound-suppressed small-bore handgun sounds *very* much like a paintball gun. As for hitting a moving target with a 9mm, may I point out that the scenarro has *him* shooting at *me* with a paintball gun. Wanna guess which has more accurate range?

Jag, your feelings about guns *are*, as you say, pathological; it's called hoplophobia.


Joe  Friday Jun 7 12:05 PM

paintball fun

I think that only a complete idiot would take a persons' life over being shot with a paintball gun.

You can't just kill someone because you're having an adrenaline rush, are angry, think the guy was an asshole, want to "get even", want to save face, or believe you will get away with it because you can simply say "I though it was a real gun".

The American mentality is such that some would not only kill the pranskter but everyone else in the car in their instant rage. And why not? It's going to be easy to beat in court, and a perfect chance to use your gun on some unarmed kids.

It's crazy.



MaggieL  Friday Jun 7 12:58 PM

Re: paintball fun

Quote:
Originally posted by Joe
I think that only a complete idiot would take a persons' life over being shot with a paintball gun.
If you attack some random person with *any* gun from a moving car, expecting them to distinguish your "just for fun" attack from a real one in the space of only a few seconds, you're an idiot and fully deserve whatever happens to you.

Would you walk into a bank, produce a plastic handgun and say "This is a stick up!" and then complain that you shouldn't be arrested because you were "only kidding, look, this is a toy gun, it's not real"?

Assaulting people is *dangerous*. It *should* be dangerous. If you don't understand why this is, I suggest you avoid toy guns, paintball guns and replica guns until you you do.


Joe  Friday Jun 7 01:19 PM

duh

I'm not saying pointing fake weapons at people is a good idea, it isn't. You'll probably get shot, especially if you do it in America, land of the well armed and trigger happy.

Of course it's our right to be well armed and trigger happy, and to walk down the street, hand in pocket on trusty Glock 9mm, round in the pipe, safety off, just waiting for the chance to double tap some kid with a super soaker who saw too many Clint Eastwood movies. I wonder what his mom would say afterwards.

It's our right, after all. Hell, that squirt gun coulda been a real gun, shoot it LOOKED real. Best tried by 12 than carried by 6! Hey buddy, in today's America I'm not taking any chances.

Whatever.



mitheral  Friday Jun 7 01:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by jaguar
lol now that is amazingly dumb. There are two types of painball, liquid capsules which are pretty harmless and the hard-ball powderpaint ones which can be muchos nasty.
Well as someone who has recieved many a bruise from paintballs I can tell you that even through protective clothing the liquid capsule variety can hurt. And I rarely bruise from normal life events.


mitheral  Friday Jun 7 01:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by jaguar
If someone is driving towards you, past you, aobve you or undernearth you you'd have to be close to deaf not to be able to tell teh diff between a paintball gun and submachinegun, or even a pistol. --SNIP--
Jaguar, you and I probably have relatively rare expereince to draw on. I know what a 9mm (along with other assorted handguns) sound like when fired. I know what several variety of paintball gun sound like. But even though I know what a paintball gun sounds like when fired at me I don't know what an actual gun fired in my general direction sounds like. And I'd bet the vast majority of people with a CCW permit have never participated in paintball sports.

That having been said I don't think I'd bet my life that the loser who just hit me with a projectile, while I was minding my own business walking down the street, is only using a paintball gun. I'd err on the side of caution and blow his ass away. That kind of anti social behaviour should be actively discourged.


dave  Friday Jun 7 01:49 PM

This brings to mind one of my favorite Jack Handey Deep Thoughts, which I know Tony is a fan of. I will recite it here, from memory.

"I think a good gift for the President would be a chocolate revolver. And since he's so busy, you'd probably have to run up to him real quick and hand it to him."

It's funny because both you and I know that anyone doing that would be shot. The Secret Service isn't going to take any chances to distinguish between a chocolate revolver and a real gun.

It's not at all about getting a chance to use your piece. It's being frightened for your life and neutralizing the threat.



Slight  Friday Jun 7 03:16 PM

I have to make a comment here. I have played paintball. Each marker sounds different. The marker I owned was fully automatic and loud as fuck. It could easily be mistaken as fully automatic gun. It was acctually designed as a training weapon. I would however not recomend it as it jammed more often than my AK.

Now if I beat down a PETA actress with an aluminum baseball bat, am I hitting her with a sports accessory or a weapon? Then isn't shooting "Jag the packin'ist pimp" with a paintball marker, assault with a deadly weapon? Don't fool yourself, a hot shot to the eyes at 300+ fps can kill.

I don't know what I would do If I was in Jag's place but I believe it is his right to defend his person, with deadly force if required.

So to turn that around, if a furry animal can't defend itself against anal electrocution or poison gases, tough shit. To put things in perspective I am a vegetarian that wears leather shoes and hates cows.



MaggieL  Friday Jun 7 08:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Slight
I have to make a comment here. I have played paintball. Each marker sounds different.
Yes, that's the new PCness..."It's not a gun, it's a marker."
What silliness...:-)


MaggieL  Friday Jun 7 08:18 PM

Re: duh

Quote:
Originally posted by Joe
I
Of course it's our right to be well armed and trigger happy, and to walk down the street, hand in pocket on trusty Glock 9mm, round in the pipe, safety off..
Glocks don't have safeties....if you're going to wax sarcastic, do your homework.

I carry a double-action only (hammer doesn't cock, eight pound trigger pull) Kel-Tec P-11, and don't keep a round chambered("up the pipe" is the correct idiom, by the way) because it's even safer that way. I'm willing to rack the slide to make the weapon ready if I need to, and I can do it one-handed if necessary.

I don't think that constitutes being "trigger-happy". The amount of legal grief that awaits a licenced gun-carrier who *displays* (much less points or fires) her weapon without justification is unimaginable.


Nic Name  Friday Jun 7 08:24 PM

Quote:
*displays*
I think brandishes is the correct idiom.


juju  Friday Jun 7 10:21 PM

This kind of thing has happened before. Try doing a google search for 'police mistook toy gun'. I could produce a laundry list of incidents, but I won't.



MaggieL  Friday Jun 7 10:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Nic Name
I think brandishes is the correct idiom.
Nope.
-----------------------------
Brandish Bran"dish, v. t. imp. & p. p. Brandished; p. pr. &
vb. n. Brandishing. OE. braundisen, F. brandir, fr. brand
a sword, fr. OHG. brant brand. See Brand, n.
1. To move or wave, as a weapon; to raise and move in various
directions; to shake or flourish.
-----------------------------
You can display a handgun without brandishing it....you can display it while it's still holstered.


Nic Name  Friday Jun 7 10:46 PM

and you can get unimaginable legal grief for that? i can't imagine.



jaguar  Friday Jun 7 11:19 PM

Quote:
NEWS FLASH - CRIMINALS DON'T CARE WHAT THE GODDAMN LAW SAYS! THAT'S WHY THEY'RE CRIMINALS!
Gee, that sure sounds so silly compared to "let痴 give everyone a gun so when they get drunk they can shoot up the bar, or when someone bulls out a book they can overreact and empty 3 clips into them. Yes we have very restricted guns laws here and HOLY SHIT, very few crimes involving firearms. If people need to pack a fucking 9mm under their jacket to feel safe something else is very, very wrong. You see the amazing thing here is I can walk anywhere I want in the city without think "shit, I could do with an Uzi and few frag grenades round here...stunning thought. When I知 with people driving past people I know I can lean out the window and yell at them without worrying about some paranoid nut pulling out a glock and blowing my head off, I kinda like that.

Quote:
That having been said I don't think I'd bet my life that the loser who just hit me with a projectile, while I was minding my own business walking down the street, is only using a paintball gun. I'd err on the side of caution and blow his ass away. That kind of anti social behaviour should be actively discouraged.
Is it me or is that a self-defeating statement.

Look I agree the guy was bloody stupid but the trigger-happy attitude is what pisses me off. I mean if someone did that here you would not that "he has an M-16 and is spraying the street because you CANNOT GET THEM. I have never heard of a crime in Australia since these guns laws involving an automatic rifle.



elSicomoro  Friday Jun 7 11:51 PM

Hmmm...maybe the caps were a bit too much...let me see if I can assist here.

Jag, if criminals want a gun, they will get a gun. Period. You could pass 50-11 laws to restrict their ownership and use. And would they work? I doubt it. If they banned handguns in the city of Philadelphia, I could probably still go over to W. Erie Ave. and buy one for $50-500.

An honest law-abiding citizen is very rarely going to act a fool with their gun. Sure, you have the rare instances. But for every Columbine, there are millions of people who store, carry, and use their gun properly. Why would an honest citizen WANT to ruin their chances of owning a gun by being stoopid?

"It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious."--Unknown



elSicomoro  Saturday Jun 8 12:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by sycamore on 06/07/02
I was watching some show on TLC earlier this week.
Hey! This was just on again!

A few additions to my original post:

The guy on the bike I mentioned ran into a truck mirror after being hit with a bat. He had already slowed down before being hit.

However, the kids DID hit another guy on a bike, with a paintball gun (that looked incredibly real). He wound up falling off his bike into a signpole (one of those poles that holds a large grocery store sign).

The show is called City Surveillance, and this particular episode will be on again Sunday afternoon at 5pm ET on the Learning Channel. The incident I mention is in the last 10 minutes of the show.


Nic Name  Saturday Jun 8 12:25 AM

Quote:
An honest law-abiding citizen is very rarely going to act a fool with their gun. Sure, you have the rare instances. But for every Columbine, there are millions of people who store, carry, and use their gun properly. Why would an honest citizen WANT to ruin their chances of owning a gun by being stoopid?
Jayson Williams is the poster boy. Prosecutors say Williams, a former star with the New Jersey Nets, was recklessly handling his 12-gauge shotgun when it went off and that he, Gordnick and another friend, Kent Culuko, tried to make the shooting look like a suicide.


jaguar  Saturday Jun 8 02:03 AM

Quote:
Jag, if criminals want a gun, they will get a gun. Period. You could pass 50-11 laws to restrict their ownership and use. And would they work? I doubt it. If they banned handguns in the city of Philadelphia, I could probably still go over to W. Erie Ave. and buy one for $50-500.
And if they banned in australia, you're going to import from indonesia? Yes, true, but its not a matter of making it impossible, just more difficult. Nothing is impossible, only harder. When there is a handgun-related crime here it goes to federal cops instantly and its a bit liek kicking a wasps nest, they go apeshit, as a result, they are very uncommon.


dave  Saturday Jun 8 02:18 AM

Jag - I think we all agree that it's more difficult to get a gun if they're banned. The problem is that the select few criminals who do get them will use them for intimidation and crime - not necessarily killing, but to, say, force a woman to submit to a rape, or to hand over the keys to the car, etc.

Let's just all agree that, because Maggie carries, she's not getting raped and her vehicle isn't getting carjacked.

Guns are pretty fucking terrible - no doubt about it. Any instrument whose purpose is to take life is not a good thing. The problem is that by denying firearms for protection purposes, one collectively lowers the safety level of a society.

You can probably walk around and not worry about getting shot, and that's certainly a valuable freedom to have. But... suppose you and your girly are walking around and some fuckholes come up and take her and your wallet and just like that, she's a rape victim and you're a few hundred dollars poorer. Maybe that kind of stuff doesn't happen in Australia, and if that's the case, that's great. But it does happen here - Baltimore, Washington, Dallas... Christ, that's why Texas has so many goddamn executions.

Taking away the guns is attacking the <b>symptom</b>, not the problem. Truth be told, we need to spend more money on education and getting people out of the slums - not giving them a hand out, but a hand up. An educated young man with a lot to lose is less likely to murder someone on the streets than a 17 year old crack addict who can't read.

All these politicians talk a real good talk - "let's ban guns" and "guns kill people" and "there's no reason to own a gun" - yet their bodyguards carry. Rosie O'Donnel, organizer of the million mom march, outspoken on gun control... and her body guard is registered to carry a firearm. Why? Why is she more important than me? Bill Clinton and his cronies argue for gun control... what, are the Secret Service carrying butter knives to protect POTUS?

Imagine how different the world might be if the passengers on 175, 77, 11 and 93 had guns. Hijackers wouldn't have stood a chance.

Imagine how less likely someone would be to break into a house or mug a person on the street if the population was 99% armed and <b>they knew that</b>.

We can't un-do the gun, and it's a damn shame. So we have to live with it. Unfortunately, the only way one can protect oneself against a gun is by having a gun. I wish there were some other way, but there just isn't.



jaguar  Saturday Jun 8 02:24 AM

Well that is my point dham - if you need to be packing a 9mm to feel safe something else is seriously fucking screwed. To be honest if i know i'm going somehwere dodgy late at night i've been known to carry a 6 inch flick blade but its rare and i've never been in a situation where i've been forced to use it. ANY crime here involving guns detonates the apeshit alert, whether someone is shot or not, if there is one thing the cops don't like is crims with guns, its sht shooting of thsoe who carry them is not uncommon. I can see what you're saying, i'm just switching words around.



Joe  Saturday Jun 8 01:19 PM

guns

The point I'm trying to make here is that there is more to gun ownership than being able to hit a target. What is needed is *discipline*, and a whole lot of it. As a gun owner you will be held to a higher standard than someone else, because you will be responsible for making snap life-or-death decisions during times of stress.

One of those decisions may be to determine if you have been assaulted with a weapon or a toy. If you cannot tell a paintball gun from a real gun, may I suggest some additional firearms safety classes and maybe some time on a paintball range getting shot with paintballs. That way when some complete idiot shoots you with a toy gun in a spasm of stupidity, your first instinct isn't a panicked "Oh my god, I've been shot!" but rather a much calmer "That was a paintball", and let your actions follow from there. It is perhaps unrealistic to suggest to an American to make this distinction, since it takes a whole lot less mental effort to simply say "I thought it was a real gun, so I killed the him to be on the safe side".

Life, or death.

You might also ask yourself how you're going to feel afterwards if you a)killed the paintball idiot to be on the safe side or b)managed to keep your gun in your pocket through the whole incident without anyone even knowing you had one.

I know my argument isn't going to work, that if someone shoots you with a paintball gun from a moving car, making it look every bit like a drive-by shooting, that you will probably kill the shooter. I'm just making a case to avoid tragedy, since kids do some really dumb things in their adolescent years. It is perhaps unrealistic to hope that someone more mature might be able, in a split second, to do enough thinking for two people at once, and save the day.



MaggieL  Saturday Jun 8 02:56 PM

Re: guns

Quote:
Originally posted by Joe
As a gun owner you will be held to a higher standard than someone else, because you will be responsible for making snap life-or-death decisions during times of stress.
Of course.

But there are limits. Look, everybody who gets behind the wheel of a car is required to "make snap life-or-death decisions in times of stress". I do the same when I climb in the cockpit of an airplane.

But *here* we have people who piled into a car, who weren't under stress at all, and had all *kinds* of time to decide *not* to do something stupid and dangerous to other people.

Of course, if they figure out it might be dangerous to *them*, they're a bit more disinclined to do it. That's why this crap happens in states like California and New Jersey, where the citizens have been disarmed.

The pinhead in Utah (where the right of self-defense is still preserved somewhat) thought he was safe; he said he shot at a victim who looked too young to be armed. As it turned out, he was wrong, and somehow he's having trouble interesting the police in finding his victims.

Isn't *that* a shame? Not.

In the video mentioned earlier (have you seen it?) , the vicitims (especially the ones riding bicycles) could very well have been killed in the resulting accidents. And shooting someone wearing no vision protection with a paintball can blind them; that's why paintballers wear vision protection.

The legal standard here for justified use of deadly force in self-defence is "the actor believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat" I'd consider being blinded a "serious bodily injury". I bet dham agrees. He lost vision in one eye when someone shot him with a "toy gun".

Quote:

If you cannot tell a paintball gun from a real gun, may I suggest some additional firearms safety classes and maybe some time on a paintball range getting shot with paintballs.
Nonsense. It's not my job in life to anticipate *every* idiot thing someone might do, and train to protect them from the consequences of their actions.

If there's any lack of training or responsibility here, it's on the part of the shooter. Maybe paintball guns should have a warning label: "Caution: people you shoot at may shoot back". I doubt it would have helped though.

Someone who assaults me, or anybody else, is by their actions just plain assuming the risk that their victim is not armed, or that they might not figure out that the paintgun is (probably) nonlethal, or that the victim might reasonable belive that they were in danger of serious bodily injury. There's just no fricken excuse for shooting at some random person in the street. Not even adolescence.
Quote:
That way when some complete idiot shoots you with a toy gun in a spasm of stupidity...
A paintball gun is not a toy.
Quote:
It is perhaps unrealistic to hope that someone more mature might be able, in a split second, to do enough thinking for two people at once, and save the day.
*Hoping* for such a thing is not unreasonable. Hope doesn't have anything to do with "being realistic"; you can hope for all sorts of improbable things.

But *expecting* it, and basing your behavior on those expectations, is not. We're all responsible for doing *our own* thinking. Somebody who's going to go through life relying on other people to do his thinking for him is both deluded and dangerous.

"Spasms of stupidity" frequently *are* lethal in the real world. What *I* hope for is that most "spasms of stupidity" are lethal mainly to the person *being* stupid, rather than to the innocent people around them.

That happens too often.


Nic Name  Saturday Jun 8 03:10 PM

Another thread hijacking by People Explaining Toy Arms




henry fitch  Saturday Jun 8 05:06 PM

Just for the record, America isn't quite the gun-happy country that everyone seems to think it is. In my admittedly short 17 years on this earth, spent almost entirely in the Washington DC area, I have seen exactly one person openly carrying. Of course, it's possible that every other stranger I cross on the street has a piece in each pocket, but that is illegal. 'Course, maybe it's different in Texas.



juju  Saturday Jun 8 05:29 PM

Isn't Washington D.C. the murder capital of the world?



henry fitch  Saturday Jun 8 05:46 PM

Could be; I'm not certain. It's worth mentioning that when I say "washington DC area" I mostly mean "washington DC suburbs," but I do go into the city fairly often. All I mean to say is that, contrary to how it's often portrayed, this country isn't some kind of modern Everquest zone where everyone walks around with a weapon drawn in case somebody looks at them funny.



MaggieL  Saturday Jun 8 05:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by juju
Isn't Washington D.C. the murder capital of the world?
It's the handgun control capital too....only cops can own handguns in D.C.. if you carry open, you won't do it for long.


elSicomoro  Saturday Jun 8 05:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by henry fitch
All I mean to say is that, contrary to how it's often portrayed, this country isn't some kind of modern Everquest zone where everyone walks around with a weapon drawn in case somebody looks at them funny.
Good point.

MD and VA both have CCW laws. I don't believe DC does...of course, DC banned handguns in 1977.


Nic Name  Saturday Jun 8 06:05 PM

FBI statistics on murder rates. Washington D.C. ranks 41 in 2000.

Contrary to what the gun lobby would have you believe, there is abundant evidence that enforcing gun control laws reduces the gun homicide rate.



jaguar  Saturday Jun 8 09:22 PM

Quote:
Isn't washington the murder capital or the world?
Quote:
It's the handgun control capital too....
Why did the words 'nuff said immidietly pop into my head then???? Ill stick by waht i said and leave it at that - if you need a firearms to feel safe in your own town something is seriously fucked up.


henry fitch  Saturday Jun 8 09:41 PM

Heh. Guess my earlier point isn't worth much, then. Ah well.

Say, does the effect of gun legislation on gun homicide rates really matter? I'd think the really important number would be its effect on overall homicide. If people go on killing just as much but they use clubs or whatever, it doesn't matter much.

Not saying I know what those numbers are, mind you.



MaggieL  Saturday Jun 8 11:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by henry fitch
does the effect of gun legislation on gun homicide rates really matter? I'd think the really important number would be its effect on overall homicide. If people go on killing just as much but they use clubs or whatever, it doesn't matter much.
This kind of thing is one reason there's so much controversy about statistics on this issue. The crime-increasing effect of handgun prohibition doesn't necessarily result in more *handgun* crime, or even in more murder. Disarmed citizens are more vulnerable to armed thugs, who can operate with the assurance that their victims won't be better armed than they are. If a mugger knows his knife won't be trumped by a legal handgun, there's a disincentive to pull an (illegal by definition; guns may not legally be owned by convicted felons here anywhere) gun.

Jag--read *all* the words: handgun *control* capital--handguns are illegal in DC unless you're a cop. That the murder rate is so high doesn't exactly support your point. :-)

Or a congressman, since they or their bodyguards can get FBI carry permits vaild anywhere in the country. Unfortunately the laws for DC are made by Congress, who dosen't actually *live* there.


juju  Saturday Jun 8 11:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Nic Name
FBI statistics on murder rates. Washington D.C. ranks 41 in 2000.
That doesn't sound right... I live near Pine Bluff, AR, and I think it's pretty safe. They're ranking it the #2 murder capital of the world! Their population is only 55,000. Most of the other top ranking citys are other rinky-dink southern cities.

Of course, I probably shouldn't be questioning the FBI. Still.. this does not seem right.


jaguar  Sunday Jun 9 02:37 AM

Quote:
If people go on killing just as much but they use clubs or whatever, it doesn't matter much.
Its kinda easier to kill people with a gun thouhg. Im ena you shoot someone it doesn't even ahve to be ciritacal fo them to die of shock/blood loss/cardiac arrest pretty damn quickly and most thugs aren't actaully interested in killing people - it tends to generate a little too much police interest.

Quote:
citizens are more vulnerable to armed thugs, who can operate with the assurance that their victims won't be better armed than they are. If a mugger knows his knife won't be trumped by a legal handgun
So he gets a handgun, and since he'll probably have it out first, you're now more screwed becease he has more chance of shooting you if you try to pull it out.


MaggieL  Sunday Jun 9 07:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by jaguar
So he gets a handgun, and since he'll probably have it out first, you're now more screwed becease he has more chance of shooting you if you try to pull it out.
I'd rather go up a against a thug (no matter how he's armed) with a gun of my own than without. I'm better off gun vs. gun than nothing vs. baseball bat or lead pipe or knife. ("He'll probably have it out first" is an assumption, too; tactics are more complicated than that.)

Thugs are cowards (otherwise they wouodn't be thugs); when the populace is armed there's a strong disincentive to attempt. As you point out, thungs aren't really interested in killing people; if a nice quiet mugging turns into a gun battle they're way behind the curve. It tends to create the sort of intense police interest here you mentioned is supposed to happen in AU when a gun crime goes down.

The idea that law-abiding citizens are somehow safer if they're disarmed is just plain bogus. It's an idea mostly championed by people who already have their own armed guards, like police chiefs and politicians.


jaguar  Sunday Jun 9 07:20 AM

We have an interesting concept here called an effective polcie force. It eman i can wander around without having to worry about being mugged. I can walk though the centre of the city and take a train home @ 1am without being even vaguely worried about my safty. I don't need a gun to feel safe. As for 'you're safer with' you're starting ot sound liek the NRA and that blatnatly untrue series of adverts they put up about australia.



juju  Sunday Jun 9 08:28 AM

We have an interesting concept here called freedom. It means that we don't need our government ordering us around and doing things that are "for our own good".



jaguar  Sunday Jun 9 08:44 AM

We have the same freeomds, we jsut can't wander round with an M-16. Don't get me started on negative and positive rights comparisons =p I'm generally a libitarian but for thigns like this.....



henry fitch  Sunday Jun 9 10:55 AM

I realize you're almost certainly using hyperbole, but could you please stop using "m16" as an example of a gun people carry around? It's stupid, and getting on my nerves.



MaggieL  Sunday Jun 9 02:07 PM

It goes a bit beyond "hyperbole" when used in a sentence like that. This "high-school debate team" level of discourse does get old after a while.

Jag says (or tries to): "We have the same freedoms, we just can't wander around with an M-16".

But the truth is we *don't * have the same freedoms, and I think that's one reason we hear so much sour grapes about how there "must be something wrong" with people who exercize their right to be armed.

It would be *nominally* legal for me to open carry an AR-15 (I'm not about to pay the confiscatory tax we have here on full-auto M-16) and "wander around". (Of course, that's another of jag's favorite images on this issue: gun owners out looking for an excuse to shoot something, like one of those teenage fire brigade volunteers that eventually get caught starting fires just so they have something to put out).

But the actual fact is that "wandering around with an AR-15" anyplace but the state game lands would get me picked up for "disturbing the peace" or "disorderly conduct" in the more populated areas of the state in fairly short order.

Where we *don't* have the same freedoms is when it comes down to the right to carry an effective personal defense weapon. I have that freedom and jag doesn't, so to resolve that dissonance he needs to paint gun owners as a trigger-happy lunatics.

I know *lots* of legal gun owners. As a group, they are polite, mature, restrained, careful, and tend very much to mind their own business. The kind of irresponsible personalities that one could characterize as "trigger happy" spent their youth out blowing up mailboxes (or over in NJ shooting cyclists with paintball guns), and by the time they reach adulthood have usually accumulated enough of a police record that they are no longer allowed to posess firearms legally.



juju  Sunday Jun 9 04:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by jaguar
We have the same freeomds, we jsut can't wander round with an M-16. Don't get me started on negative and positive rights comparisons =p I'm generally a libitarian but for thigns like this.....
Well, that's kind of the point. We have the freedom to carry weapons, and some other countries don't. Whether you think it's a good freedom or not could be argued -- but it <b>is</b> our freedom.


jaguar  Sunday Jun 9 07:05 PM

Okok I値l stop the hyperbolic crap and try and keep this realistic. (as for debating quality that fark imagine of arguing on the internet is like...... comes to mind).

My guess is that I知 arguing with people from the 'small-government' school of thought. Call me insane but I知 willing to delegate things like law enforcement to the government we elect. This novel concept, properly implemented means I don't need to carry a loaded firearm, whether it be a glock or a minigun for my personal protection. Owning a firearm for recreational purposes I wouldn't have a problem with, there are many gun clubs here and they are thriving, but the the point is for sport only - not personal defence.

The bill of rights is an amazingly socially advanced document, there is no question about that - in reality I壇 question just how well things like freedom of speech and freedom of associating actually exist but... Governmental control of these things is of course an icky issue however you look at it and there is always going to have to be a delicate balance drawn between the effectiveness of law enforcement, the freedom of the populace and the power of businesses. Some of the intelligence laws here (http://www.efa.org.au), are starting to lean toward the draconian - all in the name of the war on terror an issue that is starting to and will continue to generate ever-growing dislike but the gun control laws (admittedly passed in the wake of a slaughter committed by one man in Tasmania that would not have been possible without an automatic weapon) generated little concern outside the firearms community. The main argument against was farmers ability to effective control pests such as kangaroos, the issue was never one of positive rights. Abstract 'rights' while making you feel nice are kind of pointless unless they are useful for something. Correct me if I知 wrong but the original purpose of being able to own firearms was as a balance-of-power thing between the people and the state? Neither this or the need to be able to 'best' or 'match' the firepower of thsoe would do us harm is an issue here. I would hope an armed rebellion would not b necessary to keep a democratic system democratic (then again *thinks back* I could be wrong). Each nation has its own collection of political lobby groups and socio-political hang-ups, if a political here tried to be elected on a platform of 'lets bring god closer to the presidency' I doubt they'd do well at all. Here the government is actively funding stem cell research, despite the lambasting of the Catholic Church. The kind of militant support that the gun lobby has over there may be based on something solid, but from here with a reasonably effective police force and an extremely (by comparison to most) peaceful history, it seems outmoded and unnecessary.

Sorry couldn't help this one
We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.
by George Orwell



henry fitch  Sunday Jun 9 07:17 PM

Quote:
(as for debating quality that fark imagine of arguing on the internet is like...... comes to mind).
Am I slow, or does that sentence make absolutely no sense whatsoever?


jaguar  Sunday Jun 9 07:19 PM

Requires knowledge of the image in question which many people here would know. Basicly it says "argueing on the internet is like running in the special olympics, even if you win, you're still a retard" fark refers to a website called fark.com , talk a look.

I missed one point, on the whole i'm sure gun owners are a responsible group, and i'm sure paintball gun owners are, but there always will be a minority....



elSicomoro  Sunday Jun 9 07:35 PM

Jag, while I respect what you have to say, and I am by no means calling you stupid, this may be a situation that is simply not quite understood by non-Americans. Even some Americans might not understand.

The second amendment of the US constitution is very precious to many people in this country.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Now granted, this amendment is 211 years old. But even if interpreted in modern times, one could interpret it as "In order to keep our country free, people have the right to have guns, knives, etc."

I used to believe a lot of what you're saying, jag. In fact, if I were still a resident of the state of Missouri, I would probably vote to keep the ban against concealed weapons (one of only 7 states I believe to have this ban) b/c I find most Missourians beyond St. Louis to have the IQ of a sock.

But seriously, the second amendment is an unshakable belief that is as strong as our first amendment. The amendments are part of the foundation of our country, and are what make our society truly unique. The Constitution was created so that Americans would never have to suffer as they did under Union Jack rule. People bearing arms are what helped us become the United States of America.

As a whole, our police forces are rather effective, and it's a shame that a few bad apples fuck it up for everyone. While we have laws that govern us, and police that protect us, we are an individualistic society (for better or for worse). We control our destinies for the most part...and that includes the right to protect ourselves in a legal manner, with guns if we choose to do so.

Criminals are bad...they are selfish, and care for nobody but themselves. So, they will do whatever they desire to get over on you.

Strictly as a hypothetical, maybe someone will try to mug Maggie (not that I want to see that happen, of course) and WILL draw a gun faster than her. But, because she is also carrying, there is an equalizing factor. It gives her a fighting chance. To put it plainly, it moves her status from "completely fucked" to "possibly fucked."

I don't like guns. And maybe I'm risking my life by not carrying one, but that's my decision. I feel able to carry on my life in the city of Philadelphia by not carrying one. And maybe restrictive gun laws are helping us. But we still have people on the street, using semi-automatic weapons, killing each other. People using guns in robberies, assaults. And now, we have people getting creative...passing notes to tellers in bank windows, using no weapon whatsoever.

To me, it's about the criminal element. We have to find better ways to stop the criminal element before it starts. Education...man, that is so damned important. People need to get themselves schooled. Learn that they can succeed in life without having to resort to criminal activity. Of course, it's not as easy as it sounds, but somehow, we have to find a way in this country to show that good always trumps bad. Throwing people in prison and restricting our freedoms doesn't seem to be helping that.

In conclusion, we are a unique country that has developed under unique circumstances. Many of our people believe in the right to bear arms, and for the most part, it has worked well over the past 226 years. And so long as law-abiding citizens are not using those arms to infringe upon my individual rights, why the fuck should I care?



BruteForce  Sunday Jun 9 07:42 PM

Effective police force?

Is this the effective police force you speak of?

http://www.efa.org.au/Campaigns/alert200205.html



Nic Name  Sunday Jun 9 07:51 PM

In the USA it's called the PATRIOT ACT.



henry fitch  Sunday Jun 9 07:55 PM

Quote:
Requires knowledge of the image in question which many people here would know. Basicly it says "argueing on the internet is like running in the special olympics, even if you win, you're still a retard" fark refers to a website called fark.com , talk a look.
Oh! I get it; yes, I did see that image. Your spelling threw me off; with the word "imagine" there, it isn't much of a sentence at all.


Nic Name  Sunday Jun 9 08:00 PM

Googlejag



elSicomoro  Sunday Jun 9 08:02 PM

Re: Effective police force?

Quote:
Originally posted by BruteForce
Is this the effective police force you speak of?
I'm not sure if you were referring to me or jag, but I was speaking of the United States in my post. Of course, our government is trying to do the same thing in terms of monitoring communications, and it wouldn't surprise me if they try to bring back the War Powers Act as it was used during WW1.


Nic Name  Sunday Jun 9 08:29 PM

http://www.peta.edu.au/



russotto  Sunday Jun 9 08:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by jaguar
My guess is that I知 arguing with people from the 'small-government' school of thought. Call me insane but I知 willing to delegate things like law enforcement to the government we elect.
Law enforcement? Sure; they make the laws, they can enforce them. But personal defense? A different matter entirely. Law enforcement just means they track down and punish anyone who breaks the laws (they do a bad job at this, and not just in the US, but that's another story). Thing is, if someone's attacking me, I'm MUCH more interested in stopping the attack than in whether they are punished afterwards.


Nic Name  Sunday Jun 9 08:37 PM

using sex in an attempt to get the thread off gun contol ...




jaguar  Sunday Jun 9 09:20 PM

syc i know the second amendment to quote myself

Quote:
Each nation has its own collection of political lobby groups and socio-political hang-ups,
Mabye i should have made it more clear what i was refering to, my equlancy tends to fail early in the morning (its now 11am here). I agree, education is essential, life oppotunities and all that are the key - any solution i think is better than arming the populace in some desperate bid for self-defence as a substitute to an effective police force. Yes the word imagine would have thrown me off too =)

Quote:
Law enforcement? Sure; they make the laws, they can enforce them. But personal defense? A different matter entirely. Law enforcement just means they track down and punish anyone who breaks the laws (they do a bad job at this, and not just in the US, but that's another story). Thing is, if someone's attacking me, I'm MUCH more interested in stopping the attack than in whether they are punished afterwards.
If you know you're gooing to be caught afterwards you're not going to do it are you, or less likely. While the cops here aren't a perfect bunch they generally seem to do a pretty good job - i'm judging that by the experience of myself and those around me

pink has nice teeth.


elSicomoro  Sunday Jun 9 09:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by jaguar
If you know you're gooing to be caught afterwards you're not going to do it are you, or less likely.
I don't know how things are going in Australia, but here, we seem to have a new breed of criminals. A group that either a)Doesn't think they'll get caught, b) Thinks they can beat the system on a technicality (which does happen), or c) Doesn't care if they get caught or not.


juju  Sunday Jun 9 09:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by sycamore
Strictly as a hypothetical, maybe someone will try to mug Maggie (not that I want to see that happen, of course) and WILL draw a gun faster than her. But, because she is also carrying, there is an equalizing factor. It gives her a fighting chance. To put it plainly, it moves her status from "completely fucked" to "possibly fucked."
Poor Maggie. I think she's hypothetically mugged/raped every time we have a gun debate.


Nic Name  Sunday Jun 9 09:47 PM

Pink fails to change the topic ...




elSicomoro  Sunday Jun 9 09:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by juju
Poor Maggie. I think she's hypothetically mugged/raped every time we have a gun debate.
I know...that's horrible.

Seriously, the only reason I used Maggie in my example is b/c she is a fervent gun rights supporter, and she is the only one here that I know of that owns a gun (or at least talks about it).


dave  Sunday Jun 9 10:40 PM

I own a number of guns, but I don't carry.



BrianR  Sunday Jun 9 10:44 PM

Okay, now I'll say something.

Maggie is not the only one here who openly owns a gun(s), will admit to it, carries one for personal protection, and generally supports the NRA. I am 100% right behind her (I love the womens' movement from here). She is doing a fine job of defending herself and her opinions without me muddying the waters.

But you never know who might be on her side without saying it.

Brian

PS to Maggie, I gave you a free pass on that misquote about the ends justifying the means in an earlier forum.
You owe me one.

B



jaguar  Monday Jun 10 01:52 AM

Site was interesitng, man, long list of anti-gun groups/companies/individuals/flowerbeds/corperations/foundations
. Seem to be lots of school groups, psychologists groups and victims groups, the kind pf people who ahve to clean up the mess afterwards *sighs*. Odd about that. The lobbying to liberals page didn't work which is what i was most interested in =( (anyone ahve a better link for it?)
FAQ was kinda brief. Interesting group. Am i the only one that found the use an what looks like an assult rifle mount/butt worrying?

Syc once again, i wonder how they came into being......
Argh, this is pointless.



elSicomoro  Monday Jun 10 02:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by jaguar
Syc once again, i wonder how they came into being......
Argh, this is pointless.
How is this pointless? We are having a constructive discussion involving gun control. We may not agree on it, but there's no harm in talking about it, unless we go into shit like, "Well jag, you're a fucking moron for thinking that way...you Aussies are all alike!"

As far as the origins, pick one or more:

--Socioeconomic status
--Poor home environment
--Societal influences
--Bad genetics
--Bad decision making


elSicomoro  Monday Jun 10 02:29 AM

Re: Okay, now I'll say something.

Quote:
Originally posted by BrianR
Maggie is not the only one here who openly owns a gun(s), will admit to it, carries one for personal protection, and generally supports the NRA. I am 100% right behind her (I love the womens' movement from here). She is doing a fine job of defending herself and her opinions without me muddying the waters.

But you never know who might be on her side without saying it.
Hence why I used a disclaimer.

I'm going to use Jesus in future hypothetical situations. "If Jesus had his trusty 9mm..."

WWJD?


juju  Monday Jun 10 03:00 AM

Re: Re: Okay, now I'll say something.

Quote:
Originally posted by sycamore
Hence why I used a disclaimer.

I'm going to use Jesus in future hypothetical situations. "If Jesus had his trusty 9mm..."

WWJD?
Dude, that'd be awesome.


jaguar  Monday Jun 10 03:46 AM

One day we'll live in a socity where minorities won't need firearms to feel safe, where tollerance is the norm, where people can walk the streets in safty. Hell will freeze over first but it might happen.


best i could do, i was looking for another one.
I was looking for the one i knew of, it had the text "fucking crazy" under a pic of jesus holding a 9mm so i did a goodle image search for "fuck jesus". It came up with the MSN logo......



elSicomoro  Monday Jun 10 03:50 AM

Yeah! That rules!

Jesus: Holy Land Ranger



MaggieL  Monday Jun 10 07:04 AM

Re: Okay, now I'll say something.

Quote:
Originally posted by BrianR
Maggie is not the only one here who openly owns a gun(s), will admit to it, carries one for personal protection, and generally supports the NRA.
The NRA and I don't alwys see eye-to-eye. There are a lot of homophobes in the NRA, and too often the organization turns a blind eye to it. There was a lot of queer-bashing from Heston when he was campaigning against Clinton.

That said, we do have a lot of goals in common. And in general I get more tolerance of my queerness from shooters than I do tolerance of being a shooter from most queers.


BrianR  Monday Jun 10 01:40 PM

They haven't heard "An armed society is a polite society."

One is more inclined to be polite to anyone (not necessarily queer) who is known to be packing a gun, is one not?

wink

Brian



MaggieL  Monday Jun 10 04:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BrianR
They haven't heard "An armed society is a polite society."
Actually, they probably have. The issue seems to be that they have queers stereotyped as people who want to disarm erverybody, and who seek special privileges (a special "hate crime" category, for example) rather than *equal* rights.

They have to actually *see* and experience out queer folks who believe in the individual right of armed self-defense for all people to break that stereotype. That's one thing that the Pink Pistols is about.

One of the early reactions we often hear when folks first hear about the Pistols is "Oh, you just support arming gay people?", and they have to think a minute when our answer is: "No, we support the right of armed individual self-defense for *all* people. We place special emphasis on the importance of it for queer folk, since we're usually stereotyped as hoplophobes, and we believe that stereotype is dangerous to us as a group."

That's a little bit easier for straight people to understand than issues like "gay marriage" or "gay adoption", which come across as "special interest" issues. The difference is, of course, that there's not much controversy about the rights of *straight* people to marry or adopt (although there's still racial issues about adoption in some areas) .

But the individual right to armed self-defense is still *not* universally respected, even within the US. So when the homophobes find out the homos aren't all hoplophobes, it's a real conciousness-raising expereience for them.

Rosie O'Donnell, for example, has done *enormous* damage to efforts to reverse that stereotype. And most of the anti-gay rants I've heard in the armed citizen community have started off with Rosie-bashing. Rosie hasn't exactly been a poster child for gay pride, either.

Again let me emphasize: most of the armed citizens I've met are content in general to let queer folks live their own lives, even if they still have doubts about gay marriage or gay adoption. But the level of acceptance for queer folks within, say, the NRA, hasn't risen to the level where someone engaging in queer bashing in the context of a panel discussion at the NRA convention (this did happen quite recently) would be frowned on openly by those present.


Nic Name  Monday Jun 10 04:33 PM

This just in ...

Posted on Mon, Jun. 10, 2002

Court rejects review on gun ownership
BY JAMES VICINI
Reuters

WASHINGTON - - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday stayed out of the politically charged debate on whether the Constitution protects an individual's right to possess guns, a position advocated by the Bush administration in reversing the government's long-held policy.

Without comment, the justices declined to hear two cases in which the Justice Department last month said the right to bear arms does not apply just to state militias, a change in policy denounced by gun control advocates and praised by the National Rifle Association.

The Justice Department argued there was no need for the Supreme Court to get involved in the two cases, leaving intact federal appeals court rulings that upheld the constitutionality of provisions of federal gun control laws.

The Supreme Court last ruled on the scope of the Second Amendment in 1939 when it said the amendment protects only those rights that have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation of efficiency of a well regulated militia."

That legal position still stands since the Supreme Court issued no new ruling. But in one of the cases the high court passed up on Monday, an appeals court did support the Bush administration position on an individual's right to bear arms.

The Second Amendment states: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

RIGHT SUBJECT TO 'REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS'

In a footnote in the two cases, Solicitor General Theodore Olson said the government now takes the position that the Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals, including persons who are not members of the militia, to bear firearms.

Olson said the right was "subject to reasonable restrictions designed to prevent possession by unfit persons or to restrict the possession of types of firearms that are particularly suited to criminal misuse."

The Justice Department has said it plans to defend vigorously the constitutionality under the Second Amendment of all existing federal firearms laws.

The administration's shift in position first surfaced in May last year in a letter by Attorney General John Ashcroft to the National Rifle Association. It was repeated in a memo sent in November to all federal prosecutors.

In one of the cases, the justices let stand a U.S. appeals court ruling that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of individuals to carry guns, but that exceptions do exist.

The appeals court rejected the arguments by a Texas physician, Timothy Emerson, that a 1994 federal gun law, designed to deny guns to people under restraining orders, was unconstitutional.

The other case involved an Oklahoma man, John Lee Haney, who was convicted of owning two machine guns. He claimed the federal law that bans the possession of a machine gun violated his constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

The Justice Department said the constitutional challenges and claims in both cases lacked merit and did not warrant Supreme Court review.



jaguar  Monday Jun 10 11:39 PM

Interesting....Sure sounds like legal war over there. Is gay bashing still a common thing? I've heard a few cases but nothign widespread. Same applies here, i've seen a few really offputting things here (one of my best friends and her gf kissing at a public train station copped some pretty nasty verbal abuse ) but it seems pretty isloated and rare.



MaggieL  Tuesday Jun 11 09:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by jaguar
Interesting....Sure sounds like legal war over there. Is gay bashing still a common thing?
In the NRA context , by "gaybashing" I meant verbal disparagement of queer folks.

*Physical* assaults against queer folk certainly do still occur. Matthew Shepard's case is notorious, and Danny Lee Overstreet's death in the Backstreet Cafe shooting in Roanoke VA ( http://speakout.com/activism/apstories/9977-1.html ) is a classic case where a gathering of queer folk was thought to be helpless because they were presumed to be unarmed.

The movie "Boys Don't Cry" documented a queerbashing multiple murder that actually happened. A lot of the other folks who died *without* their own movie are remebered at http://www.gender.org/remember ...including Joanne Lillecrapp, who was murdered in Adelade last November.

As for "legal war", there's been a dispute as to the correct interpretation of the Second Amendment ever since Miller. Olsen's statements leave some rather wide loopholes, but in general the Ashcroft Justice Department has come quite a ways in what I consider to be the "right" direction from the positions of previous Justice Departments.

The constitution of the Commonweath of Pennsylvania, where I live, is much clearer on this issue; we don't have that confusing paean to militias (a term that has changed in meaning considerably since Federalist times) in front of the clause affirming the right.

Section 21 of Article 1 says simply "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." Not much wiggle room there.


elSicomoro  Tuesday Jun 11 10:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MaggieL
Section 21 of Article 1 says simply "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." Not much wiggle room there.
There's ALWAYS wiggle room.

You can always have the right, but that doesn't mean that it can't be restricted, therefore preserving that right. Not that it SHOULD, but it COULD be.


LordSludge  Tuesday Jun 11 11:37 AM

The 2nd Amendment made sense when muskets were the pinnacle of weaponry, and it was reasonable to expect some sort of balance between the military power of the govt and of the people. It is now 100 years obsolete -- made so by the power of modern weaponry vs. the irresponsibility of Joe American.

Anybody who honestly believes a few handguns and assault rifles would have *any* chance of deterring a govt assault by anything more threatening than a letter opener-wielding battalion of postal carriers... is sadly, and ridiculously, mistaken. We need tanks, missiles, and tactical nukes! Now how safe would you feel knowing your drunk neighbor had a couple tactical nukes at his disposal? Not very. I believe, however, the 2nd Amendment gave that right, but it's obsolete and frankly (don't shoot me ) should be repealed.

The classic NRA anti-govt opression line is Grade A bullshit. The real reason: power vs. fellow citizen, whether that's vs. a potential criminal, bullies in a bar, or some schmuck boinking your wife. Now, whether "law-abiding" citizens should have that power is debatable, but not, I feel, within the scope or intent of the Constitution.



MaggieL  Tuesday Jun 11 11:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by sycamore


There's ALWAYS wiggle room.

You can always have the right, but that doesn't mean that it can't be restricted, therefore preserving that right. Not that it SHOULD, but it COULD be.
Which is what Ashcroft's guy was saying. My point was there's much less wiggle room in the wording of Commonweath constitution than in the US one, where the reference to militia has created an excuse for decades of confusion.


Griff  Tuesday Jun 11 12:05 PM

Just an aside, actually the Man of War was the pinnacle of military technology at that time. Private persons owned well armed ships as well, but nothing capable of going toe to toe. Comparable to me having a backhoe vs a Fed tank, potentially useful but really not effective... not that I've considered such things.



Nic Name  Tuesday Jun 11 12:50 PM

The reference to militia has only caused confusion when folks have tried to apply the clause without reference to militia, like it was a case of bad drafting because it doesn't fit well the current perceived needs.

It seems clear that the concern addressed by the 2nd Amendment was to ensure the freedom of the State in a federation. Having been formed by revolution against a government, and viewing themselves as independent sovereign states such as the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the federal union of states was "conditional" on certain assurances of freedom of the State from the federation. High on the list was the right of the people to continue to keep and bear their arms to defend the State from the other states and the federation, if need be. Having just proved that an armed militia was necessary to achieve freedom of self determination it was the accepted notion.

In the context of the period, the people had just fought a revolution against their legitimate government, so self-determination was a very high priority and the founding fathers realized that such rights are often achieved and maintained by armed forces of the people of the State seeking self determination.

There are still folks in the NRA who still see their guns as the best defence against their own federal government. Ruby Ridge, etc.

For many, that notion is anachronistic. For others, it is a clear example of why the people need to stockpile weapons in their homes.

In modern times, many Americans interpret the constitutional language to support their current perceived need pack heat to protect themselves from murderers, rapists, terrorists and assorted mofos.



Joe  Tuesday Jun 11 01:04 PM

self defense 401

I think that the typical person who thinks they need a gun really just needs a way to stop an attacker.

What about alternate means? More of these are being developed all the time, some are pretty cool.

I want one where I can throw or aim a device at an approaching mugger that instantly encases him in some kind of clear acrylic, tougher than steel but light enough that I can still cart the suspect into a courtroom on a dolly as exhibit A.

"See your honor? Look at that expression on his face, and the way that knife is raised, he was definately up to no good".



MaggieL  Tuesday Jun 11 11:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Nic Name
The reference to militia has only caused confusion when folks have tried to apply the clause without reference to militia, like it was a case of bad drafting because it doesn't fit well the current perceived needs.
Maybe. But I'd point out "Report of the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution, 97th Cong., 2d Sess., The Right to Keep and Bear Arms (1982)

http://www.guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senrpt.html

as a source of some very interesting constitutional scholarship on that issue, especially the preface written by Hatch.

http://www.guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senrpt.html#h1

These are probably the grounds on which the Ashcroft Justice Department has taken the stand they have.


mitheral  Wednesday Jun 12 11:14 AM

Re: self defense 401

Quote:
Originally posted by Joe
I think that the typical person who thinks they need a gun really just needs a way to stop an attacker.

What about alternate means? More of these are being developed all the time, some are pretty cool.

-- SNIP --
Problem is that old slippery slope. For example: here in Canada not only is your average citizen restricted from CCW, she also can't carry a can of pepper spray [1] or mace. I don't think tasers are legal either. Any of the nifty personal protection devices are also useable by robbers, rapists, and muggers and seem to quickly become illegal to possess.

[1] pepper spray is legal only if you carry a 16 oz or larger container. At least I can carry some protection from bears when out in the woods.


henry fitch  Wednesday Jun 12 03:22 PM

Unfortunate reality: most of those alternate self-defense gizmos are basically shit for self defense. Pepper spray hurts, but there's no guarantee it'll drop a guy, and even less you can get to it fast. Same for ranged tasers. Guns don't really improve on those flaws, but at least you can get training for one; don't think I've ever heard of a course in pepper-spray use.

Touch tasers are even worse, though. Have to get the guy in the neck for the full effect, see. Nearly impossible to do that in a struggle, but it's easy when you're sneaking up behind someone. In other words, it's a lovely weapon for rapists and crap for stopping them.



MaggieL  Wednesday Jun 12 03:35 PM

This illustrates one of the core gun-control fallacies: that a weapons prohibition law will prevent criminals from arming themselves more than it prevents law-abiding people from defending themselves..

It's just not true....law-abiding citizens comply with laws *much* more than criminals do; why that's so hard to follow escapes me. And prohibitions that create contraband really never work. In an ideal world they might, but then an ideal world wouldn't need laws.



Your reply here?

The Cellar Image of the Day is just a section of a larger web community: a bunch of interesting folks talking about everything. Add your two cents to IotD by joining the Cellar.