RP Listener Forum - Radio Paradise - eclectic commercial free Internet radio
[ ]      [ ]   [ ]

YouTube: Music-Videos - RichardPrins - Jul 24, 2014 - 12:20pm
 
• • • What Makes You Happy? • • •  - ScottN - Jul 24, 2014 - 12:10pm
 
Celebrity Face Recognition - lily34 - Jul 24, 2014 - 12:02pm
 
Climate Change - RichardPrins - Jul 24, 2014 - 11:53am
 
Evolution! - RichardPrins - Jul 24, 2014 - 11:47am
 
The Dragons' Roost - Alexandra - Jul 24, 2014 - 11:44am
 
What Are You Going To Do Today? - K_Love - Jul 24, 2014 - 11:43am
 
The Chomsky / Zinn Reader - RichardPrins - Jul 24, 2014 - 11:41am
 
Recycle Bin - Proclivities - Jul 24, 2014 - 11:17am
 
Ukraine - marko86 - Jul 24, 2014 - 10:51am
 
That's good advice - expertTexpert - Jul 24, 2014 - 10:46am
 
Name My Band - javahnagila - Jul 24, 2014 - 10:37am
 
The Duran2 Forum - sirdroseph - Jul 24, 2014 - 10:16am
 
Congress - sirdroseph - Jul 24, 2014 - 10:08am
 
Regarding cats - DaveInVA - Jul 24, 2014 - 9:57am
 
Palestine - RichardPrins - Jul 24, 2014 - 9:40am
 
Maps • Google • GeoGuessr - Proclivities - Jul 24, 2014 - 9:32am
 
Summer Concerts - lily34 - Jul 24, 2014 - 9:29am
 
Iraq - Red_Dragon - Jul 24, 2014 - 8:55am
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - 2cats - Jul 24, 2014 - 8:38am
 
Sweet horrible irony. - cc_rider - Jul 24, 2014 - 8:33am
 
Military Matters - RichardPrins - Jul 24, 2014 - 8:32am
 
Concert Reviews - ptooey - Jul 24, 2014 - 8:11am
 
Today in History - ScottN - Jul 24, 2014 - 8:06am
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - oldviolin - Jul 24, 2014 - 7:45am
 
Those Silly FBI Guys! - RichardPrins - Jul 24, 2014 - 7:39am
 
• • • BRING OUT YOUR DEAD • • •  - oldviolin - Jul 24, 2014 - 7:36am
 
Food - Proclivities - Jul 24, 2014 - 7:30am
 
Israel - RichardPrins - Jul 24, 2014 - 7:16am
 
Gaza - mgkiwi - Jul 24, 2014 - 7:15am
 
Cryptic Posts - Leave Them Guessing - Red_Dragon - Jul 24, 2014 - 7:01am
 
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos; Please Limit to 510 ... - Coaxial - Jul 24, 2014 - 6:57am
 
Unusual News - Prodigal_SOB - Jul 24, 2014 - 6:52am
 
OUR CATS!! - lily34 - Jul 24, 2014 - 6:50am
 
~*Funny Cats*~ - Proclivities - Jul 24, 2014 - 6:40am
 
PUNCHLINES - Red_Dragon - Jul 24, 2014 - 6:22am
 
LeftWingNutZ - DaveInVA - Jul 24, 2014 - 6:21am
 
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum - VV - Jul 24, 2014 - 6:19am
 
Tomato Gardens - JrzyTmata - Jul 24, 2014 - 6:16am
 
Syria - sirdroseph - Jul 24, 2014 - 6:04am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - lily34 - Jul 24, 2014 - 5:59am
 
Immigration - sirdroseph - Jul 24, 2014 - 5:45am
 
Mixtape Culture Club - sirdroseph - Jul 24, 2014 - 4:48am
 
OBAMACARE - sirdroseph - Jul 24, 2014 - 4:03am
 
What Makes You Laugh? - kctomato - Jul 23, 2014 - 9:40pm
 
How's the weather? - Alexandra - Jul 23, 2014 - 8:23pm
 
Things You Thought Today - ScottN - Jul 23, 2014 - 8:12pm
 
Dreams - Tales from your sleep - maryte - Jul 23, 2014 - 7:56pm
 
Annoying stuff. not things that piss you off, just annoyi... - Alexandra - Jul 23, 2014 - 7:40pm
 
Positive Thoughts and Prayer Requests - Coaxial - Jul 23, 2014 - 7:17pm
 
Poetry Forum - Antigone - Jul 23, 2014 - 4:41pm
 
Those lovable NSA/GCHQ/CSEC/DGSE/ASD/CIA guys - miamizsun - Jul 23, 2014 - 4:20pm
 
Damned with faint praise........ - haresfur - Jul 23, 2014 - 4:16pm
 
Background for a quiet dinner party - cc_rider - Jul 23, 2014 - 3:20pm
 
Baseball, anyone? - ScottN - Jul 23, 2014 - 2:46pm
 
Best Song Comments. - ScottFromWyoming - Jul 23, 2014 - 1:55pm
 
Guns - miamizsun - Jul 23, 2014 - 1:31pm
 
Lagged Stream for Europe - BillG - Jul 23, 2014 - 1:23pm
 
RightWingNutZ - RichardPrins - Jul 23, 2014 - 11:40am
 
Bad Poetry - oldviolin - Jul 23, 2014 - 11:28am
 
What is Humanity's best invention? - mutepoint - Jul 23, 2014 - 10:27am
 
Show us your NEW _______________!!!! - cc_rider - Jul 23, 2014 - 9:46am
 
caching in iphone/ipad app - Karetto - Jul 23, 2014 - 8:50am
 
Amazing animals! - Proclivities - Jul 23, 2014 - 7:44am
 
Your Current Crush - mutepoint - Jul 23, 2014 - 7:10am
 
August Photo Theme : Joy - Proclivities - Jul 23, 2014 - 6:49am
 
Great guitar faces - ScottN - Jul 23, 2014 - 6:33am
 
Beta Testers wanted for new iOS app - FourFortyEight - Jul 23, 2014 - 6:15am
 
Counting with Pictures - Proclivities - Jul 23, 2014 - 4:18am
 
Nosemouth - RichardPrins - Jul 23, 2014 - 12:54am
 
Stuff I've Said Out Loud - BlueHeronDruid - Jul 22, 2014 - 9:53pm
 
Pernicious Pious Proclivities Particularized Prodigiously - RichardPrins - Jul 22, 2014 - 5:43pm
 
Favorite Quotes - haresfur - Jul 22, 2014 - 5:27pm
 
Name My Neurosis - haresfur - Jul 22, 2014 - 4:04pm
 
North Korea - kurtster - Jul 22, 2014 - 1:08pm
 
(a public service of RP)
Index » Regional/Local » USA/Canada » Guns Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 384, 385, 386  Next
Post to this Topic
miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 23, 2014 - 1:31pm

apparently this is what a silencer on a shotgun sounds like


Lazy8
human
Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 16, 2014 - 11:03pm

aflanigan wrote:
I did make an objection. See the link in my previous post.
The lady claiming 52 DGUs in a year was simply exemplary of the manifold problems associated with self-reported data.

See HERE (I understand Kleck has taken exception with Hemenway's opinion of his survey data in his 2000 book Armed, but haven't been able to find an abstract of his criticisms; perhaps you can summarize?), and a more recent revision of the same critique, seemingly published after Kleck's book, HERE

Have a safe weekend!


Sorry to take so long to get back to this, been some life going on. Plus I had to read some papers.

This response from Kleck to Hemenway, for instance. It wasn't that hard to find. It's a good read, and it lays bare some of the confirmation bias (and just plain political bias) in some of the attacks on Kleck and his work. Its tone is a little strident; perhaps understandable given the vilification Kleck and his coauthors received after the publication of thier first survey.

To Hemenway's strongest point, that the survey data likely overestimate the number of wounded attackers Kleck has some solid arguments: namely that there are likely to be errors in both directions. In some of the jurisdictions people were surveyed in defending yourself with a weapon is a crime. Anybody who answered in the positive would have to overcome the suspicion that their answer would not be kept confidential. The upside to being truthful for the respondent is vanishingly small; the downside is the possibility of a long stretch in prison. Not an incentive to overreport.

Similarly Hemenway's assumption that every wounded attacker would show up in emergency room statistics is naive at best. Criminals (especially career criminals) would be aware that that emergency room visit would be reported to the police. They have a very strong incentive to avoid that.

I will readily concede that a good many of those who said they wounded an attacker may be wrong. Hitting something that isn't standing still (and may be armed as well), likely in the dark, and very much interested in not being hit is harder than it looks on TV. Hitting a man-sized target at the shooting range in good light with both hands on the gun and nothing at stake is hard enough that it regularly humiliates people. Doing that under stress, with no time to prepare, after interrupted sleep is much harder. That could also account for some of the "missing" wounded. But does that mean that nothing happened that night at all? An encounter where a shot was fired would be pretty traumatic and hard to forget. Overestimating one's prowess with a gun that night you shot at an intruder is a lot more likely than misremembering whether or not you shot at an intruder at all.
 
Data has noise in it. This is unavoidable. We have no way but surveys to collect this data. This isn't a new problem or one unique to this issue. Noise puts error bars around the data, but it doesn't make it go away.

You probably won't read the link above. It's a long article and you won't agree with its conclusions. I'll just quote a snippet here:

            The NSDS estimates were subsequently strongly confirmed by yet another large-sample national survey, sponsored by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), and conducted under the auspices of the Police Foundation. We can be certain that Hemenway knew about this survey because he served on the NIJ Advisory Committee for the project and was thanked for his comments on a draft of the grant report describing the survey’s findings, including its DGU estimates (Cook and Ludwig 1997, p. x). Kleck was the principle consultant on the Police Foundation survey, wrote most of the associated grant proposal and most of the questionnaire, and participated in numerous meetings with Hemenway and Cook.

            Hemenway did not mention the results of this survey in his critique, perhaps for an understandable reason: it almost exactly confirmed the NSDS results. The NSDS yielded an estimate of 2.55 million DGUs, using a person-based one-year estimate (Kleck and Gertz 1995, p. 184). The most comparable estimate generated by the Police Foundation survey was 2.45 million, well within sampling error of the NSDS estimate. Many variants of this estimate were even higher (Cook and Ludwig 1997, p. 62).

Hemenway himself had ample opportunity, as a member of the Advisory Committee, to suggest solutions to problems he saw in this survey, or to suggest other steps “to reduce the bias or to validate the findings by external measures,” and to show that DGUs are really far less common than so many surveys have indicated. When the Police Foundation survey almost exactly confirmed the NSDS results, Hemenway’s response was to suddenly decide that surveys inevitably overstate DGU frequency.

This appears to be a very recent revelation to Hemenway. In repeated and prolonged meetings of the Advisory Committee in 1994, during which the members discussed at length the long series of questions asking about DGUs, Hemenway did not once share his remarkable theory that all that effort was for naught, and that surveys could not generate even approximately accurate estimates of DGU frequency.

Philip Cook, who also served on the same committee, likewise underwent the same sudden conversion, after the Police Foundation survey yielded DGU estimates every bit as large as those of the NSDS and earlier surveys. Since no new evidence bearing on the ability of surveys to estimate this parameter had come to light since 1994, one can only wonder how and why these revelations came so belatedly to Cook and Hemenway. Cynics might suspect that, metaphorically speaking, once they found they could not win the game, they decided to take their ball and go home.




aflanigan
Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity
aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Aquarius
Chinese Yr: Rat


Posted: Jul 9, 2014 - 1:07pm

 DaveInVA wrote: 

So, which logical fallacy is this a classic example of?

No cheating by looking in the textbook
RichardPrins
Anti-Procrustean
RichardPrins Avatar



Posted: Jul 9, 2014 - 12:25pm

 kurtster wrote:
And lastly, your Marx quote ... Far out !  I learned something or maybe had been reminded of something once learned but long forgotten.  Either way, its cool.

What I would ask of you, since that was a very early Marx quote, did he ever modify that after a passing of time and evolution ?
 
I have no reason to believe he changed his mind. A case in point would be to look at Lenin who, some 60+ years later, wrote:

(...) Yet now of all times, at the present revolutionary moment, it is most urgent and essential that there be a universal arming of the people. To assert that, while we have a revolutionary army, there is no need to arm the proletariat, or that there would “not be enough” arms to go round, is mere deception and trickery. The thing is to begin organising a universal militia straight away, so that everyone should learn the use of arms even if there is “not enough” to go round, for it is not at all necessary that the people have enough weapons to arm everybody. The people must learn, one and all, how to use arms, they must belong, one and all, to the militia which is to replace the police and the standing army.

The workers do not want an army standing apart from the people; what they want is that the workers and soldiers should merge into a single militia consisting of all the people. (...)
Of course when you spoke of The Left, you were talking about the U.S. Left, which, certainly by now, is anything but left (they are predominantly centrists at best and far, far removed from anything resembling socialism, despite the fear-mongering of ultra-conservatives). Also the salient point from the earlier post was that the gun control was in fact enacted by what might be called The Right (i.e. Republicans in the guise of one Mr. Reagan along with an accomplice) and was unrelated to the anti-war movement...
DaveInVA
Single, unwanted, unloved eccentric, crusty ol' fart with cats
DaveInVA Avatar

Location: In a hovel in effluent Damnville, VA
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Leo
Chinese Yr: Buffalo


Posted: Jul 9, 2014 - 11:59am

Murder rate drops as concealed carry permits rise, study claims


kurtster
ignore the kitteh behind the kurtain
kurtster Avatar

Location: counting flowers on the wall ...
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Libra
Chinese Yr: Dragon


Posted: Jun 28, 2014 - 6:07am

 RichardPrins wrote:
So everything was peachy keen in the 50s and 60s and people still trusted the government, though perhaps a tad less if you happened to be coloured (which still seems largely the case today).

But it was about guns, California, and of course those despicable unpatriotic anti-war leftists who took away your right to parade a gun...

All of that piqued my curiosity and via some specialized ideological literature led me to the curious, but prominently highlighted, case of...
The Mulford Act was a 1967 California bill prohibiting the public carrying of loaded firearms. Named after Republican assemblyman Don Mulford, the bill garnered national attention after the Black Panthers marched on the California Capitol to protest the bill. The bill was signed by Republican California Governor Ronald Reagan and became California penal code 12031 and 171(c).
and from there to
It began shortly after the shooting of Denzil Dowell. Easy Bay legislator Don Mulford introduced a bill to repeal the law that permitted citizens to carry loaded weapons in public places so long as the weapons were openly displayed {see link to California Penal Code, Sections 12031 and 171.c}. What the Mulford law sought to achieve was the elimination of the Black Panther Police Patrols, and it had been tagged "the Panther Bill" by the media. (...)
No mention of war, but plenty of context in the Civil Rights struggle for some part of the population (and not universally liked, to put it mildly)... Further context by Malcolm X:
“Last but not least, I must say this concerning the great controversy over rifles and shotguns. White people been buying rifles all their lives…no commotion. The only thing I’ve ever said is that in areas where the government has proven itself either unwilling or unable to defend the lives and the property of Negroes, it’s time for Negroes to defend themselves. Article number two of the Constitutional amendments provides you and me the right to own a rifle or a shotgun. It is constitutionally legal to own a shotgun or a rifle. This doesn’t mean you’re going to get a rifle and form battalions and go out looking for white folks, although you’d be within your rights – I mean, you’d be justified; but that would be illegal and we don’t do anything illegal. If the white man doesn’t want the black man buying rifles and shotguns, then let the government do its job.”
Finally, to finish up and address your compulsive crypto-fascist slandering of all things left, I'll leave you with a nice quote from Satan himself (though removed from a larger class context): {#Mrgreen}

“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.”

Karl Marx, March, 1850


 
Briefly, it does not undermine my position, it actually reinforces it.

More later when I return home.
.
So much to go over, but very little at the same time.  My timeline has been pinpointed as to the end of open carry in California of which I recollect and have related, yet though off by a couple of years is still being called unbelievable by those who were yet to be born or were not there to witness it first hand.  No one has come up with any historical references to counter my recollections.  Nor have any here who lived there at the same time as I.  And there are some here at RP.  They are free to speak their mind.

The only reason I mentioned California in the first place was to put some perspective in the timeline and how different things were just 50 years ago and in inconceivable ways to people from other places and ages in the US and abroad.  There is still Alaska and the western Canadian provinces and territories with similar recent histories of lasting pioneer ways that would seem to come from a dusty book 100 or more years old yet are only 50 years old and maybe less.  Remember that the transistor was invented in 1945 IIRC which was less than 70 years ago.  And look what has happened since in such a short time.

On to Mulford and Malcolm.  Mulford only confirms my timeline by providing an end point for the way of life I have described.  I set out to do two things.  a) present the gun debate in terms yet to be recognized in this thread and b) attempt to tie it into the anti war movement.  In the process I brought up points to make my points.  I kept it brief, cuz to try and rehash the 60's in a couple of sentences or paragraph's is just plain impossible.  However on Malcolm and the Civil Rights movement of the 60's and even the Black Panthers, I did at least acknowledge it, though it was glossed over by nearly everyone.

 
 kurtster wrote:


What changed between that not so long ago time and now ?   I really don't know.  I do recall however, that sentiment towards guns changed shortly after JFK was shot.  Somehow guns became a touchy subject.  Then RFK and MLK went down.  And Viet Nam and the baby killing soldiers at My Lai.  That is when the Left latched onto gun control for keeps.  They used it against the Negro before to keep him down.
.

.

 kurtster wrote:

Funny you should mention that as I was born in Berkeley and moved to Newport Beach (in Orange County) as a young teenager in 1964.  I have experienced it first hand and during the war in Viet Nam.  Mario Savio was known to me as he was having his moment as I lived only blocks from the campus of UC (both my parents are alums), as was Angela Davis and the original Hell's Angels, yada. yada.  But what then ?  You could say or agree that I have seen and experienced a lot just living in those two unique places in that unique time that few have ever seen, except those that were there.  Maybe its why I sometimes contradict myself and knowingly, having lived the dichotomy.

Anyway, we can pick this up later.  No one is going anywhere. 

So let's talk about the American Negro or the "coloured" as you said.  I am aware of that history, well aware of that history and have brought it up in other threads for other reasons.  So here is a very interesting summary of what I have long tried to bring to the discussions here ...

The Dark Secret of Jim Crow and the Racist Roots of Gun Control

By Dave Kopel


Feel free to try and impeach the author.  Here I'll help ...
I think that covers your concerns on the Civil Rights part of your reply and shows that I did at least acknowledge it as a component.

.
So back to my a).  I have made the case about the debate itself and its dishonesty and one of the functions of the 2nd Amendment to anticipate it.  Defending guns is the position of defending a negative which is impossible.  The Left created a litmus test to work around that and undermine the defense of the gun rights.  The whole method of debate is unfair and guarantees the eventual end of the 2nd Amendment by means of a death of a thousand cuts.

And on b) well I may have more to do to build that case.  But it is not a major concern really.  a) is what matters most.

And lastly, your Marx quote ... Far out !  I learned something or maybe had been reminded of something once learned but long forgotten.  Either way, its cool.

What I would ask of you, since that was a very early Marx quote, did he ever modify that after a passing of time and evolution ?

Thank you for your reply which adds to the discussion in a positive way and further allowed me to reinforce the case I have been making.



RichardPrins
Anti-Procrustean
RichardPrins Avatar



Posted: Jun 27, 2014 - 7:58pm

 kurtster wrote:
California... yadda, yadda, yadda....
(...) And also a reminder, my main point is the anti gun movement was born from the anti war movement, not from the establishment based crime and punishment view.
 
So everything was peachy keen in the 50s and 60s and people still trusted the government, though perhaps a tad less if you happened to be coloured (which still seems largely the case today).

But it was about guns, California, and of course those despicable unpatriotic anti-war leftists who took away your right to parade a gun...

All of that piqued my curiosity and via some specialized ideological literature led me to the curious, but prominently highlighted, case of...
The Mulford Act was a 1967 California bill prohibiting the public carrying of loaded firearms. Named after Republican assemblyman Don Mulford, the bill garnered national attention after the Black Panthers marched on the California Capitol to protest the bill. The bill was signed by Republican California Governor Ronald Reagan and became California penal code 12031 and 171(c).
and from there to
It began shortly after the shooting of Denzil Dowell. Easy Bay legislator Don Mulford introduced a bill to repeal the law that permitted citizens to carry loaded weapons in public places so long as the weapons were openly displayed {see link to California Penal Code, Sections 12031 and 171.c}. What the Mulford law sought to achieve was the elimination of the Black Panther Police Patrols, and it had been tagged "the Panther Bill" by the media. (...)
No mention of war, but plenty of context in the Civil Rights struggle for some part of the population (and not universally liked, to put it mildly)... Further context by Malcolm X:
“Last but not least, I must say this concerning the great controversy over rifles and shotguns. White people been buying rifles all their lives…no commotion. The only thing I’ve ever said is that in areas where the government has proven itself either unwilling or unable to defend the lives and the property of Negroes, it’s time for Negroes to defend themselves. Article number two of the Constitutional amendments provides you and me the right to own a rifle or a shotgun. It is constitutionally legal to own a shotgun or a rifle. This doesn’t mean you’re going to get a rifle and form battalions and go out looking for white folks, although you’d be within your rights – I mean, you’d be justified; but that would be illegal and we don’t do anything illegal. If the white man doesn’t want the black man buying rifles and shotguns, then let the government do its job.”
Finally, to finish up and address your compulsive crypto-fascist slandering of all things left, I'll leave you with a nice quote from Satan himself (though removed from a larger class context): {#Mrgreen}

“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.”

- Karl Marx, March, 1850

kurtster
ignore the kitteh behind the kurtain
kurtster Avatar

Location: counting flowers on the wall ...
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Libra
Chinese Yr: Dragon


Posted: Jun 27, 2014 - 7:34pm

So do we want to talk about guns ?

Or did I make a point that cannot be challenged ? 

later ... g'nite
kurtster
ignore the kitteh behind the kurtain
kurtster Avatar

Location: counting flowers on the wall ...
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Libra
Chinese Yr: Dragon


Posted: Jun 27, 2014 - 7:11pm

 steeler wrote:

So, not prevalent in Berkeley during your time there?
 

 
What is your point ?  Mine is quite clear.

I didn't have to read books or watch TV to see this stuff.  It was part of my life.  The west was still alive and well and nearby to me growing up.  One did not have to make a special trip to see this stuff.

Just as it was no big deal for you to pass by a working coal mine or steel mill where you grew up, right ? 
steeler
About three bricks shy of a load
steeler Avatar

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth


Posted: Jun 27, 2014 - 6:47pm

 kurtster wrote:
 steeler wrote:

Was that in Berkeley?


I will politely add a geography lesson about California to all this.  Not only are some cultural differences unique to the old California I speak of, so is its climate and terrain.  In one state you can encounter all of the climates found throughout the entire world.  From desert heat below sea level, to Arctic environments up on Mt. Whitney.  All in a days drive.


 kurtster wrote: several pages ago

Ok.  Remember I said rural areas, not downtown getting a garden hose.  I just asked the wife if she had the same memories and she agreed. It was common and no big deal. Not in the urban areas, but out in the Tules, ranchlands, deserts and up in the Sierra.  Her family has deep roots up in the NorCal area above Sacramento.  She is a fifth gen native Californian.   By the mid 70's it gets very much less so.  But in the 50's and 60's, hell yes.  Men wearing holstered guns was no big deal in those regions of California and also up in Washington as I recall on a trip to the Seattle World's Fair in 1962 when we made a side trip to eastern Wash to my great uncle's ranch in a place called Wilson Creek, near Spokane.  He was also the Sheriff at the time.

Times are much different now, obviously, but 1970 was just 44 years ago.  And the west coast was much different from the rest of the country back then before the invasion of the easterners.  Running water and indoor toilets were still a luxury in many places out there in those not so long ago days.  And that is my point.  For most alive now, 20 years is a long time ago, with no firsthand visual knowledge of anything past that point in time.  I did use a little hyperbole on the cell phone delio, but in those areas, not really that much of a stretch

And California was much different from Texas back then, too.  Just ask any native Californian or Texan my age or older.  They will likely be more than happy to tell you and point out the differences.  Don't forget the dark side of history when armed Californians patrolled the eastern border of the state looking for Okies during the Dust Bowl era as well.

But just to get back to my point that 40 to 50 years ago is not that long of a time and things were way different there then.  Inconceivably different to a great many people not originally from those parts.

And also a reminder, my main point is the anti gun movement was born from the anti war movement, not from the establishment based crime and punishment view.


 
So, not prevalent in Berkeley during your time there?
 
kurtster
ignore the kitteh behind the kurtain
kurtster Avatar

Location: counting flowers on the wall ...
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Libra
Chinese Yr: Dragon


Posted: Jun 27, 2014 - 6:22pm

 steeler wrote:

Was that in Berkeley?


I will politely add a geography lesson about California to all this.  Not only are some cultural differences unique to the old California I speak of, so is its climate and terrain.  In one state you can encounter all of the climates found throughout the entire world.  From desert heat below sea level, to Arctic environments up on Mt. Whitney.  All in a days drive.


 kurtster wrote: several pages ago

Ok.  Remember I said rural areas, not downtown getting a garden hose.  I just asked the wife if she had the same memories and she agreed. It was common and no big deal. Not in the urban areas, but out in the Tules, ranchlands, deserts and up in the Sierra.  Her family has deep roots up in the NorCal area above Sacramento.  She is a fifth gen native Californian.   By the mid 70's it gets very much less so.  But in the 50's and 60's, hell yes.  Men wearing holstered guns was no big deal in those regions of California and also up in Washington as I recall on a trip to the Seattle World's Fair in 1962 when we made a side trip to eastern Wash to my great uncle's ranch in a place called Wilson Creek, near Spokane.  He was also the Sheriff at the time.

Times are much different now, obviously, but 1970 was just 44 years ago.  And the west coast was much different from the rest of the country back then before the invasion of the easterners.  Running water and indoor toilets were still a luxury in many places out there in those not so long ago days.  And that is my point.  For most alive now, 20 years is a long time ago, with no firsthand visual knowledge of anything past that point in time.  I did use a little hyperbole on the cell phone delio, but in those areas, not really that much of a stretch

And California was much different from Texas back then, too.  Just ask any native Californian or Texan my age or older.  They will likely be more than happy to tell you and point out the differences.  Don't forget the dark side of history when armed Californians patrolled the eastern border of the state looking for Okies during the Dust Bowl era as well.

But just to get back to my point that 40 to 50 years ago is not that long of a time and things were way different there then.  Inconceivably different to a great many people not originally from those parts.

And also a reminder, my main point is the anti gun movement was born from the anti war movement, not from the establishment based crime and punishment view.



steeler
About three bricks shy of a load
steeler Avatar

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth


Posted: Jun 27, 2014 - 6:11pm

 kurtster wrote:

I will be happy to withstand the scrutiny of backscrolling.

I am not retreating from anything and will remind you of my posted disqualifier that you gloss over ... 

 Up until the 60's, the government was for the most part, trusted; society while far from perfect was basically peaceful and quiet.  Guns in everyday life were not an issue.  Having one and wearing it in the open turned few heads, if any, at least in the West where I grew up in the 50's and 60's.  I'm sure that the Eastern experience was different, being far removed from the days of fighting Indians and foreign invaders and their bloody Civil War.

And you still refuse to address my main point about the honesty of the entire gun debate.

 
Was that in Berkeley?
steeler
About three bricks shy of a load
steeler Avatar

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth


Posted: Jun 27, 2014 - 6:10pm

 Lazy8 wrote:
steeler wrote:
What is reasonable in one community may not be in another, true.
.
The District was arguing in Heller that the reasonableness of restrictions should be assessed on the particularities of the community in question.  

The particularities of a community don't trump anybody's rights.

 
The rights are subject to reasonable restrictions, including the Second Amendment.  Heller made that clear in case anyone had his or her doubts.
Lazy8
human
Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 27, 2014 - 6:07pm

steeler wrote:
What is reasonable in one community may not be in another, true.
.
The District was arguing in Heller that the reasonableness of restrictions should be assessed on the particularities of the community in question.  

The particularities of a community don't trump anybody's rights.
Lazy8
human
Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 27, 2014 - 6:03pm

islander wrote:
Okay, I'm about done here because we always wind up at this same point.  The bolded bit above is the exact point I've been making here (and a strange place to land for the guy who was linking the open carry movement to the gay rights movement earlier). Despite your constant accusation and my constant rebuttal -  I'm not scared of guns, I don't mind them around, even in public with some certain exceptions.  I hope the 2nd amendment remains strong and that options remain for people to use them for hobby, sport, protection or whatever else they want. And again, here is the problem with complex issues that come down to a "'for 'em" or "against 'em" stance - I want them with some conditions. I don't think it's unreasonable to require some training and upkeep for a CCP, but with that I fully support it.I'm okay with various other restrictions, but you think anything codified is an attempt to put you in jail. I agree with you on the technical interpretation, but the way you fight even a discussion makes you seem almost as unreasonable as the guy who insists on taking is AK into Chipotle because he can. I think the Open carry guys are well within their rights, but they are complete asshats for their behavior.

I think that the gun rights people are doing themselves a lot of harm in the discussion. I fear if they keep it up, once the dam does break the tide of legislation and restriction will be such that many more people are unreasonably restricted or imprisoned.

I have much the same conversation with people who I know that really do want to ban all guns. They think I'm a violent irrational person who only wants to foment chaos and destruction in the world.

I'm seriously fed up with both sides of this argument. I'm content to live with the rules of whoever wins. It's not worth the effort to discuss with you guys anymore.

There are people in the gay rights movement who feel about the Pride parade as you do about the open carry movement: that they are losing ground by celebrating aspects of their culture that outsiders are reflexively repelled by. I tend to side with the four-abreast-leather-chaps-chained-together-at-the-nipples bunch here. It doesn't build acceptance right away, but it can create space for a deeper acceptance later. It really does help to get people to publicly confront their fear and hatred. It (eventually) withers in the light of day.

When I bring up the hoplophobia* I believe is at the core of a lot of gun control arguments realize that I'm not just talking to you here. You may not be a sufferer, but an awful lot of those reading this are.

We haven't talked a lot of specifics here, but when you mention how unseemly my intransigence is I need to remind you of what I'm intransigent about—more laws. I'd be delighted to discuss ways to reduce violence in our culture, but the only ideas anybody throws at me are more laws. I've already explained why I think that's a bad thing. I'm glad you don't think they will ever be a problem for you, but I hope you realize that that doesn't mean they won't be a problem for somebody, somebody who doesn't deserve it.

*What, your Google finger broken? Go look it up!


kurtster
ignore the kitteh behind the kurtain
kurtster Avatar

Location: counting flowers on the wall ...
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Libra
Chinese Yr: Dragon


Posted: Jun 27, 2014 - 5:22pm

 islander wrote:

You are the one that is going around saying everything was wine and roses back in the days of your forefathers when everyone else was living on the east coast or socialist europe. Back when everyone had guns openly displayed as commonly as people have cell phones now. Back when there was peace and trust in the government. Back when we all got along just fine.  I'm simply pointing out (over and over) how your examples simply don't hold up to even the slightest of scrutiny. Call names if you want, but I'm not going to just stop pointing out the inconsistencies. 

You may now try to backtrack and claim you said something else. I'll leave it for anyone who cares to backscroll and take a look. 

 
I will be happy to withstand the scrutiny of backscrolling.

I am not retreating from anything and will remind you of my posted disqualifier that you gloss over ... 

 Up until the 60's, the government was for the most part, trusted; society while far from perfect was basically peaceful and quiet.  Guns in everyday life were not an issue.  Having one and wearing it in the open turned few heads, if any, at least in the West where I grew up in the 50's and 60's.  I'm sure that the Eastern experience was different, being far removed from the days of fighting Indians and foreign invaders and their bloody Civil War.

And you still refuse to address my main point about the honesty of the entire gun debate.
islander
Embrace the chaos
islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Scorpio
Chinese Yr: Cock


Posted: Jun 27, 2014 - 5:18pm

 kurtster wrote:

That's your best example ?  What about LBJ and McNamara for openers and the lies regarding Viet Nam ?  Sure the Tea Pot Dome scandal is well known and about money.  What LBJ and McNamara did was about war and the lives of well over 52,000 Americans who died in their war of lies and phony pretenses such as the Gulf of Tonkin.  Not to mention the 100's of thousands who were wounded and maimed for life from either combat or such goodies like Agent Orange.

Why didn't you bring up Tammany Hall ?   I was making a point about real distrust of a government that would draft you for speaking up and make you run point on patrol in the jungle.  The war in Nam is the center peace of modern distrust in our government and for you to ignore it either reveals your ignorance or unwillingness to debate honestly.  What is going on right now with Obama parallels so much of this, including Nixon.  But you are too young to have seen the movie I and others have.  You can't wrap your head around a malevolent US government because you have never experienced it before, sonny boy.

But enough about you.

In all this you ignore my point about the debate on guns, which is the position of having to defend a negative.  I'll add that the intent of the 2nd Amendment was to prevent this phony discussion from even beginning. 

 
You are the one that is going around saying everything was wine and roses back in the days of your forefathers when everyone else was living on the east coast or socialist europe. Back when everyone had guns openly displayed as commonly as people have cell phones now. Back when there was peace and trust in the government. Back when we all got along just fine.  I'm simply pointing out (over and over) how your examples simply don't hold up to even the slightest of scrutiny. Call names if you want, but I'm not going to just stop pointing out the inconsistencies. 

You may now try to backtrack and claim you said something else. I'll leave it for anyone who cares to backscroll and take a look. 
kurtster
ignore the kitteh behind the kurtain
kurtster Avatar

Location: counting flowers on the wall ...
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Libra
Chinese Yr: Dragon


Posted: Jun 27, 2014 - 5:16pm

 haresfur wrote:

I'll address one small part for now since I have places to go and people to see.

The snip above basically supports my point.  The 60s social revolution brought with it greatly increased mistrust of the government by American white middle class and working class (and perhaps particularly among the was middle class now working class people being left behind by the concentration of wealth). This continues to be translated into gun-rights activism that will not accept any government action to curb the violence.

I think Islander addressed your rosy view of the western USA in the 50's and 60'.  I'll just add that on my first trip to California, I wondered how one state could spawn San Francisco and Orange County.  I came to the idea that the common denominator was a profound sense of individualism. And I'm happy to be in a country where social good is seen as something positive and promoting that is an appropriate role of government in balancing privatized interest. Note I say balancing - private-public partnership is pervasive in the social arena. There is ongoing creeping Americanization, though.

 
Funny you should mention that as I was born in Berkeley and moved to Newport Beach (in Orange County) as a young teenager in 1964.  I have experienced it first hand and during the war in Viet Nam.  Mario Savio was known to me as he was having his moment as I lived only blocks from the campus of UC (both my parents are alums), as was Angela Davis and the original Hell's Angels, yada. yada.  But what then ?  You could say or agree that I have seen and experienced a lot just living in those two unique places in that unique time that few have ever seen, except those that were there.  Maybe its why I sometimes contradict myself and knowingly, having lived the dichotomy.

Anyway, we can pick this up later.  No one is going anywhere. 
kurtster
ignore the kitteh behind the kurtain
kurtster Avatar

Location: counting flowers on the wall ...
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Libra
Chinese Yr: Dragon


Posted: Jun 27, 2014 - 4:59pm

 islander wrote:

?? The 'historical' portion of your post reads like a storybook. The facts just don't back up your perception of how the world used to be.

There have been riots and civil unrest throughout the country for the entirety of it's history. California has had several flavors of race riots, there was a whole west coast longshoreman strike that culminated in "bloody thursday" in the mid 1930s.

For trust in government I'd refer you back to a certain Senator Albert B. Fall and the largest scandal up until Nixon decided to go for top dog.

And to polarization, I'll just say that April 12, 1861 was pretty much the high water mark for polarization. We've got our issues, but I don't  think we're there yet. 

I know you think everything was just perfect in your day, and it was all these other people that F'd it up for you. But the reality is that was just where you were then. Things happen, stuff changes.  


 
That's your best example ?  What about LBJ and McNamara for openers and the lies regarding Viet Nam ?  Sure the Tea Pot Dome scandal is well known and about money.  What LBJ and McNamara did was about war and the lives of well over 52,000 Americans who died in their war of lies and phony pretenses such as the Gulf of Tonkin.  Not to mention the 100's of thousands who were wounded and maimed for life from either combat or such goodies like Agent Orange.

Why didn't you bring up Tammany Hall ?   I was making a point about real distrust of a government that would draft you for speaking up and make you run point on patrol in the jungle with the hope that you would return in a body bag, silent forever.  And hoping to silence others who might speak up with that threat.  The war in Nam is the center peace of modern distrust in our government and for you to ignore it either reveals your ignorance or unwillingness to debate honestly.  What is going on right now with Obama parallels so much of this, including Nixon.  But you are too young to have seen the movie I and others have.  You can't wrap your head around a malevolent US government because you have never experienced it before, sonny boy.

But enough about you.

In all this you ignore my point about the debate on guns, which is the position of having to defend a negative.  I'll add that the intent of the 2nd Amendment was to prevent this phony discussion from even beginning. 


haresfur
I get around
haresfur Avatar

Location: The Golden Triangle Australia
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 27, 2014 - 4:44pm

 kurtster wrote:


Up until the 60's, the government was for the most part, trusted; society while far from perfect was basically peaceful and quiet.  Guns in everyday life were not an issue.  Having one and wearing it in the open turned few heads, if any, at least in the West where I grew up in the 50's and 60's.  I'm sure that the Eastern experience was different, being far removed from the days of fighting Indians and foreign invaders and their bloody Civil War.

But in the 60's, the social revolution that began then is finally being played out in its end game now.  So which changed first ?  The government or the people ?  The 60's culminated with the CIA being caught domestically spying on American citizens and a failed presidency complete with an enemies list and nefarious political use of the IRS.  The government lost all credibility.  Used car salesmen were held in higher regard than politicians.  So let no one say that anyone who was there and came out of the 60's with a profound distrust and contempt of government did not come by it honestly.  And since then, I have seen little if anything done to regain my trust.

I did not grow up in a polarized or divided country, it became that way.  Anyone born after 1970 would have no recollection of this country as it was before it became so polarized.  For all intents and purposes, for them, it has always been that way and it is safe to conclude that has affected their judgement of how things could be versus how they are.  Its similar to people who have grown up in say Gaza and have known nothing but war and BS their entire life and live their lives as if it will always be that way because they know no other way.
 
I'll address one small part for now since I have places to go and people to see.

The snip above basically supports my point.  The 60s social revolution brought with it greatly increased mistrust of the government by American white middle class and working class (and perhaps particularly among the was middle class now working class people being left behind by the concentration of wealth). This continues to be translated into gun-rights activism that will not accept any government action to curb the violence.

I think Islander addressed your rosy view of the western USA in the 50's and 60'.  I'll just add that on my first trip to California, I wondered how one state could spawn San Francisco and Orange County.  I came to the idea that the common denominator was a profound sense of individualism. And I'm happy to be in a country where social good is seen as something positive and promoting that is an appropriate role of government in balancing privatized interest. Note I say balancing - private-public partnership is pervasive in the social arena. There is ongoing creeping Americanization, though.
Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 384, 385, 386  Next