Local news reports
Arizona's
workplace safety agency has issued several recommendations that it says
could help prevent accidental shootings like the one last year
involving a 9-year-old girl with a mini Uzi.
Charles Joseph Vacca
died in August after he stepped back to let the New Jersey girl hold
the Uzi by herself. The gun's recoil wrenched it upward, killing him.
An
investigation by the Arizona Division of Occupational Safety and Health
found no serious violations. But the agency recommended having a range
safety officer on site, limiting weapons selections for certain shooters
and ensuring shooters are comfortable with weapons before they are
placed on automatic.
The agency says a safety officer isn't
required, but that person could have pointed out that Vacca was out of
position when instructing the girl.
Showing posts with label bizarre arguments. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bizarre arguments. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 25, 2015
Friday, June 27, 2014
Weapons don't kill people
Another dumb "pro-gun" argument: guns "don't kill people".
Nope. weren't designed to kill, which is why one of the safety rules is "never point the muzzle at something you wouldn't want to destroy".
Of course, can't forget these if you are going to use the old cliche about guns and people:
Nope. weren't designed to kill, which is why one of the safety rules is "never point the muzzle at something you wouldn't want to destroy".
Of course, can't forget these if you are going to use the old cliche about guns and people:
Friday, April 25, 2014
Thursday, March 13, 2014
Friday, January 17, 2014
Repeating lies does not make them true
Let's start with
Seriously? What concrete proof do you have for this statement? Looking at the news, there are far more examples of guns doing what weapons do, which is kill or cause serious bodily injury.
I'm open to proof that guns save lives, but right now there is precious little proof this statement is anything but BULLSHIT.
The US doesn't have a gun problem--it has a mental illness problem/crime problem/texting problem
Again, give me a break. Are you telling me that other countries don't have these issues as well? Guess what? they do, but they don't have the gun problem the US has.
Guns are inanimate objects/tools
Yes, they are. Although, calling them tools is a bit disingenuous since they are actually weapons and as such have the purpose of killing or causing serious bodily injury. That's why there is a big difference between hammers, swimming pools, cars and all those other false analogies to firearms.
Firearms are weapons.
Anyway, we are seeing loads of empirical evidence to the fact that the US has a serious gun problem, but people are in denial and coming up with all sorts of piss poor reasons for doing nothing about the problem.
Denial ain't a river in Africa, but the US sure is deep in it.
Or is that shit creek?
Guns save lives
Seriously? What concrete proof do you have for this statement? Looking at the news, there are far more examples of guns doing what weapons do, which is kill or cause serious bodily injury.
I'm open to proof that guns save lives, but right now there is precious little proof this statement is anything but BULLSHIT.
The US doesn't have a gun problem--it has a mental illness problem/crime problem/texting problem
Again, give me a break. Are you telling me that other countries don't have these issues as well? Guess what? they do, but they don't have the gun problem the US has.
Guns are inanimate objects/tools
Yes, they are. Although, calling them tools is a bit disingenuous since they are actually weapons and as such have the purpose of killing or causing serious bodily injury. That's why there is a big difference between hammers, swimming pools, cars and all those other false analogies to firearms.
Firearms are weapons.
Anyway, we are seeing loads of empirical evidence to the fact that the US has a serious gun problem, but people are in denial and coming up with all sorts of piss poor reasons for doing nothing about the problem.
Denial ain't a river in Africa, but the US sure is deep in it.
Or is that shit creek?
Monday, May 13, 2013
Sunday, May 12, 2013
Today's bullet points!
You should believe what we believe because...
I'm sorry, but I have heard your "arguments" before and find them highly unpersuasive.
I prefer intelligence to ignorance and well documented to "just 'cos".
I'm sorry, but I have heard your "arguments" before and find them highly unpersuasive.
I prefer intelligence to ignorance and well documented to "just 'cos".
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
Why the criminals won't obey laws argument is really dumb
Of course if the people who were making this argument were as intelligent as they believe themselves to be, they would have figured this out...
And while we are on stupid gun loon arguments--why does someone need to produce ID if they are going to vote?
Anyway, as another person said:
Why bother with laws?
Anyway, as another person said:
I have not seen a regulation that would stop me or anybody I personally know, or even any responsible gun owner I have ever observed, from procuring game, from practicing gun sportsman and marksmanship, or from use on the family farm or in the family home.
None.
Not one liberal gun control law would harm any of those people or their second amendment rights.
On the flip side, I can think of women I know, women I will never meet, women I’ve known and women I love dearly who are now and will be further impacted by the 694 new proposed laws infringing on our 14th amendment right to health and privacy which include a right to an abortion and other private health choices.
In listening to the sound bites of today, one would think there was a War on Guns instead of a War on Women.Of course, criminals will always get abortions.
Why bother with laws?
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Thursday, September 1, 2011
My Third Amendment rights have been violated!
One of the dumber arguments about the Second Amendment's importance is that it is Second. Using that logic, shouldn't the Third Amendment be pretty significant?
OK, quick, tell me what does the Third Amendment say? It was one of the Complaints that was mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. That should make it significant: shouldn't it???
And back to the "It's third in line" argument. Third place will get you a bronze medal in the Olympics as well as other awards. You can collect if your horse comes in third if you place a "show" bet, but you get paid the "show payoff" even if your horse comes in First.
Well, here it is:
You can find out how important the founders thought this Amendment was by going here.
They even have where this was mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, which also mentioned the issue of "Standing Armies".
So, the Third Amendment is not unrelated the Second Amendment which was intended to prevent a Federal Standing Army. I guess that means "the Third Amendment protects the Second" to rip off another stupid "gun rights" comment.
And Sorry, Gun Cretins or Gun Loons, but I HAVE read the history of the Second Amendment and related PRIMARY SOURCES to come to the conclusion that the Civic right interpretation is the correct one for the Second Amendment. But that's not my point here.
My point is that up until the 1930s, the Second and Third Amendments had the least Supreme Court Jurisprudence. Screw that, they HAVE the least Supreme Court Jurisprudence with 6 cases for the Second Amendment and NONE for the Third. Mostly because it's hard as heck to misinterpret the Third Amendment (unlike the Second).
Although, it provides a great justification for the "Castle Doctrine" using Story:
Actually, it's funny to read the primary sources on the Third Amendment, which really shouldn't be neglected: especially if you are going to argue the Civic Right Interpretation of the Second. This is because there IS a reason this is third, and it is related to the Second Amendment in that they both relate to the issue of standing armies and civilian control over the military, which was far more important that personal firearm ownership to the founders.
For more information on the History of the Third Amendment, try visiting:
* Tom W. Bell, The Third Amendment: Forgotten but Not Gone, 2 William & Mary Bill of Rights J. 117 (1993).
* Willaim S. Fields and David T. Hardy, The Third Amendment and the Issue of the Maintenance of Standing Armies: A Legal History, 35 Am. J. Legal Hist. 393 (1991).
I think you will find an aversion to the maintenance of Standing Armies and civilian control over the military are common threads in Anglo-American history along with the history of other British Colonies. As other former British Colonies show, there was no common law concept of "gun rights" outside of militia duty.
Actually, it has been pointed out to me that the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act (SSCRA) gives service members certain special rights to terminate leases without penalty as well as to avoid eviction. Qualifying service members can also have their mortgages modified to cap the interest at 6%. The SSCRA makes no provision for just compensation to be made to the private parties who suffer the costs of its provisions; effectively, the owners of the affected properties have to bear all the costs.
So, join in the efforts of the Third Amendment Center in protecting this most important of rights! Fight the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act (SSCRA)!
OK, quick, tell me what does the Third Amendment say? It was one of the Complaints that was mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. That should make it significant: shouldn't it???
And back to the "It's third in line" argument. Third place will get you a bronze medal in the Olympics as well as other awards. You can collect if your horse comes in third if you place a "show" bet, but you get paid the "show payoff" even if your horse comes in First.
Well, here it is:
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
You can find out how important the founders thought this Amendment was by going here.
They even have where this was mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, which also mentioned the issue of "Standing Armies".
So, the Third Amendment is not unrelated the Second Amendment which was intended to prevent a Federal Standing Army. I guess that means "the Third Amendment protects the Second" to rip off another stupid "gun rights" comment.
And Sorry, Gun Cretins or Gun Loons, but I HAVE read the history of the Second Amendment and related PRIMARY SOURCES to come to the conclusion that the Civic right interpretation is the correct one for the Second Amendment. But that's not my point here.
My point is that up until the 1930s, the Second and Third Amendments had the least Supreme Court Jurisprudence. Screw that, they HAVE the least Supreme Court Jurisprudence with 6 cases for the Second Amendment and NONE for the Third. Mostly because it's hard as heck to misinterpret the Third Amendment (unlike the Second).
Although, it provides a great justification for the "Castle Doctrine" using Story:
§ 1893. This provision speaks for itself. Its plain object is to secure the perfect enjoyment of that great right of the common law, that a man's house shall be his own castle, privileged against all civil and military intrusion. The billetting of soldiers in time of peace upon the people has been a common resort of arbitrary princes, and is full of inconvenience and peril. In the petition of right (3 Charles I.), it was declared by parliament to be a great grievance.
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§ 1893
Actually, it's funny to read the primary sources on the Third Amendment, which really shouldn't be neglected: especially if you are going to argue the Civic Right Interpretation of the Second. This is because there IS a reason this is third, and it is related to the Second Amendment in that they both relate to the issue of standing armies and civilian control over the military, which was far more important that personal firearm ownership to the founders.
For more information on the History of the Third Amendment, try visiting:
* Tom W. Bell, The Third Amendment: Forgotten but Not Gone, 2 William & Mary Bill of Rights J. 117 (1993).
* Willaim S. Fields and David T. Hardy, The Third Amendment and the Issue of the Maintenance of Standing Armies: A Legal History, 35 Am. J. Legal Hist. 393 (1991).
I think you will find an aversion to the maintenance of Standing Armies and civilian control over the military are common threads in Anglo-American history along with the history of other British Colonies. As other former British Colonies show, there was no common law concept of "gun rights" outside of militia duty.
Actually, it has been pointed out to me that the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act (SSCRA) gives service members certain special rights to terminate leases without penalty as well as to avoid eviction. Qualifying service members can also have their mortgages modified to cap the interest at 6%. The SSCRA makes no provision for just compensation to be made to the private parties who suffer the costs of its provisions; effectively, the owners of the affected properties have to bear all the costs.
So, join in the efforts of the Third Amendment Center in protecting this most important of rights! Fight the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act (SSCRA)!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)