TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Very well thought out post (especially for the first waking hour).
I never stated that I think the death penalty is the perfect answer. I never even stated that I wasn't open to other ideas.
Also, I would argue that the instances of putting innocents to death is bound to be dropping to almost nothing due to growth in technology and the appeals process. Sure, up until the early 2000s some districts had to rely on blood type and testimony. That is almost never the case anyore.
Forensics knowledge has grown exponentially in the last couple decades. Speaking of half hypocrites, it's funny to me how many will argue for global warming and base their argument on not-yet-perfected science that had gotten more wrong than right in the past few decades. Yet the same person will argue against the death penalty due to not-yet-perfected science. Balance that out for me.
So, the risk of killing one innocent person over improper conclusions is not worth taking. But changing our entire economy here in the states and risking getting driven into the ground by countries "not as enlightened as we are" is?
Hypocracy.... It's a funny thing, isn't it?
Oh, and, good morning. I have two young children. The luxury of waking after dark left me several years ago. What does it feel like?
Crimes may be down, but crime reporting is way up. They are building more prisons because the population is growing.
Probably, yes. "Science" covers an incredibly broad range of disciplines. I wonder how many of the "scientists" who signed that petition are actual climatologists, as opposed to those who specialize in very different areas?
OK. But I have no concerns about my interactions with the police. When they approach me, I am respectful and compliant. I've never been arrested, I haven't gotten a ticket since 1987, and I'm still alive. Cops have no idea what's in the mind of a belligerent detainee, so they're apt to be more assertive when a person is non-compliant. As far as penalizing some segments of society more than others, I'll assume you mean that segment that participates in criminal activities.
I wouldn't call it their own fault, but their right. If a person doesn't want a gun, it shouldn't be imposed on them.
I suspect that even in poverty stricken areas, there are plenty of guns, and that you could put buckets of guns at every street corner and it wouldn't increase the vanishingly small fraction of people for whom a gun is realistically a source of protection. I should have admitted that I don't believe claims that guns protect people at any level worth taking seriously. It seems absurd to impose guns on people, to protect somebody's extremist interpretation of their rights. This is nothing but a total capitulation to a toxic industry.
As a geologist, I think the evidence for climate change is strong. However, I don't think anyone knows the comparative cause between human activities and natural processes. I do think it would be naive to expect that burning all the wood and fossil fuels we have since cave-man days would not have some impact on the world's climate. If this is predominantly natural warming in the midst of an interglacial period, as has happened hundreds of time before the advent of humans, then there ain't a danged thing we can do about it and our time would be best spent planning on how to deal with rising sea level. If it is primarily human caused, we still may be in the same boat - we may have passed the tipping point. From my perspective, it's a good time to be old.
My counter argument is that we are already as armed as we're going to be, where "armed" means that a person has a gun and is capable and willing to successfully defend themselves with it. This depends on the person, not the gun, and it depends on exactly what happens, none of which can be predicted or controlled. I don't think you can make people "armed" just by giving them guns.
My counter argument is that we are already as armed as we're going to be, where "armed" means that a person has a gun and is capable and willing to successfully defend themselves with it. This depends on the person, not the gun, and it depends on exactly what happens, none of which can be predicted or controlled. I don't think you can make people "armed" just by giving them guns.
The mindset of the criminal is that they know this, and are committing crimes at a rate commensurate with the population being as "armed" as we are ever going to be.
I believe that a gun is just a dangerous toy for most people. This isn't anti-gun, or even limited to guns, but just reflects a realistic view of human nature. I also have my own expectations of what happens when a lot of people get into their cars with their cell phones, that would probably offend those people.
I have no idea what it's like to own a gun or to think about defending myself with one. If I were given one, I would try to dispose of it, or render it inoperable. I found a cache of ammo in my house when I was remodeling a bathroom, and we had the police come and take the stuff away. I strongly suspect the previous owner, an old widow with grown kids, had no idea it was there. Most likely, someone else in the household got the idea of having a gun, then lost interest in it. I have searched high and low to make sure there is no gun in my house.
The TSA confiscates guns from people in airports because the owners "forgot" that they were carrying, and walk through the metal detector. This is the mental level of people that we're dealing with.
The constitutional laws have many interpretations.
In my view, differences of interpretation could have to do with what kinds of guns people can have, requirements for licensing, training, background checks, how they can be sold, where people can carry their guns, and so forth. The fact that the Supreme Court has taken up 2nd amendment cases suggests that there are conflicting interpretations.
