Granberry's Parlor

This will be fuel/reason/excuse/opportunity for them/someone to 'throw out' the Partiot bill and win brownie points.
It's the new patriot bill.
Yuck.

We've gutted the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, killed thousands of Americans, and tens of thousands of innocent foreign civilians to fight terrorism.

It feels like the people we need to worry about aren't the ones overseas.

at the risk of being put on a (more severe?) watchlist .... "AGREED!"

I'm fairly sure that any variants of "El Jefe" have been on security watchlists since Pancho Villa's days.

This admin may be perfectly fine with wielding the power. The next one may not. It's always harder to take away the authority once it is granted. I'm fully ACLU on this issue.

What???

Quote

The T.S.A. doesn’t open shrink-wrapped packages.”

http://vnty.fr/thpFMg

LOL, yep, it's all a farce. I used to have SecurityTheater.net for a while, but it was just too damned depressing to keep it up. All the articles that pointed out the abuses, the lack of effectiveness, etc.

Still have securitytheater on twitter... if anyone wants to buy it. :-D

Heaven help the first president who cuts the budget for the "war on terror™" though - wouldn't want to seem "soft on terror"...

The defence/security industry must think Al Qeada is the best thing since the cold war...

Oh, the big thing now is selling military-grade and -scale hardware to local and state police departments, at least here in the States. Because every locality needs its own motorized troop transport (sadly, these are not being used to run over luxury cars parked in handicapped zones or bike lanes illegally, as in where was that, Riga?).

ddt

I know a lot of terrible things are done with guns, but this is why some people need them.

TLDR Summary: 18-year-old widow with a three-month-old child calls police while two men are trying to force entry into her home. The police could NOT get there in time. She defended herself, shooting and killing an intruder with a knife. The other man ran away, and was eventually picked up by police.

Where would she be if she wasn't armed? Where would her child be? The same place as my aunt, perhaps.

Yes. I read that today too. and thought the same thing.
A coworker of mine this last month turned on to guns.
It's funny to see someone that never wanted one rush head strong into all the "Did you realize.... blah blah"
I try to temper his enthusiasm. But yeah, the story you reference is good.
On the other hand, I listened to a BBC broadcast today mentioned the "Moat Manor". And,well, if all houses had good moats, and drawbridges, that'd be good, too.

I'm puzzled why the accomplice is being tried for 1st degree murder, rather than attempted murder/break&enter etc

1st degree murder of the other accomplice (that he didn't shoot)? Odd...

But yes, an example of where the anti-gun argument breaks down.

That said, it's the exception rather than the rule - and for every "defenceless mother saves child with gun" story there's a hundred "crazed junkie/criminal kills in robbery gone wrong with legally bought no questions asked gun" and "child/teenager guns down classmates with gun stolen from parents"

If specific "good" examples are going to be used to justify widespread gun ownership, you have to likewise acknowledge the overwhelming number of "bad"
examples to justify gun control, no?

the way they do it is that if you conspire to commit a crime that causes something like this (others' deaths) to occur, it was YOUR fault and you are tried for the consequences.
I'm sure J-Coop can comment in a more technical manner than can I.
Last man standing gets the penalty in this case. I can't say that I blame them.

>If specific "good" examples are going to be used to justify widespread gun ownership, you have to likewise acknowledge the overwhelming number of "bad" examples to justify gun control, no?

First off, I'm not sure that the 100:1 ratio is legitimate, or even in the ballpark. And there's no way to measure the deterrent effect on crime of knowing that potential targets are quite possibly armed. Finally, I don't think that you can tell a person that they cannot defend themselves or their families because weapons might fall into the hands of criminals. (Who will continue to have access to firearms regardless of their legal status.)

Should we ban anti-depressants and opiates in medicine because so many of them are abused?

Sorry, I don't know what I was thinking opening up this can of worms...

The 100:1 ratio is of course a figment of my imagination - let's just say more "bad stories" than "good" ones?

Would you agree that at least background checks or, failing that, the presentation of some legitimate I.D. be required to purchase a gun?

I was rather shocked to watch a TV story where some tea-party nutter successfully overturned such requirements in his state (Oklahoma, IIRC...).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/05/2012 11:59PM by Tony Leggett.

The deterrent effect obviously didn't work in this case (and indeed it could be argued that it might follow the classic arms race model: hey if the householder is likely to be armed, I'd better make sure that they're not alone...)

Sure, I'm fine with background checks. I'm even fine with a limit of one firearm purchase in a three month period or even in a year. I don't really want to re-open the unending gun control debate, I just wanted to exhibit a concrete example of the kind of case that I have to reference as an abstract concept when we do have those discussions.

Ron, certainly the deterrent didn't work in this case. And in the case where my aunt was butchered in her home. But the nature of a deterrent is that we never know when it works. We can say that the US nuclear arms build up deterred Soviet aggression, but we cannot prove that it did. Or prove that the Soviet arms build up deterred US aggression, for that matter. IMHO, there is no question that the possibility that a victim is armed MUST provide some concern for a potential attacker. You are right that this possibility of an armed victim probably causes some attackers to upgrade their weaponry. I don't know what to say about that, but in the US the existence of armed homeowners has not promoted a lot of burglars with heavy artillery. Even assault rifles, which are not hard to obtain, are rarely used in burglaries or muggings.

I've thought that something as simple as stringing monofilament line up around the/your house could deter/reverse once they are in and entangled.
Obviously, a nuisance to put up and take down perhaps.
We use The Door Club so that at least picking our lock will not gain entry.
http://bit.ly/yQUlOP
Our dog might bark then quickly LICK them. :)
Our attack DUCKS will pester them until they are fed!
And as messy as our house is with kids, they'll likely trip and die anyways.

>And as messy as our house is with kids, they'll likely trip and die anyways.

That's our primary defense as well, though I do have a sword in my bedroom.

[EDIT]
I just realized how that sounds, but I'm not going to change it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/06/2012 11:57AM by John Willoughby.

(not touching it)