CYCLINGFORUM.COM - Where Cyclists Talk Tech --- Return To Home

 

    Register FAQ'sSearchProfileLog In / Log Out

 

****

cyclingforum.com ****

HOMECLUBS | SPONSORS | FEATURESPHOTO GALLERYTTF DONORS | SHOP FOR GEAR

Return to CyclingForum Home Page CYCLING TECH TALK FORUM
          View posts since last visit

Vista Outdoor; CamelBak,Giro,Bell,Blackburn and more.
 Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Author Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
April
Joined: 13 Dec 2003
Posts: 6264
Location: Westchester/NYC

3/1/18 2:49 PM


quote:
Nobody is opposed to true safety laws. Unfortunately, much of what is touted as "safety measures" is nothing of the kind. It's just a bogus label stuck onto Draconian restrictions or confiscation schemes.


So name some "true" safety laws? Proposed by the like of NRA?

(because the complain being, the "left" never proposed "true" safety laws. So which one from the right?)

I'll have the popcorn ready.

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

daddy-o
Joined: 12 Apr 2004
Posts: 3053
Location: Springfield

3/1/18 6:41 PM

Brian, what about insurrectionists like one that spawned the Oklahoma City bombing, are they hiding behind the second amendment?

McVeigh was experienced and trained but not 'regulated' in any sense I could find.

There was a citation gap between the 1600's and the definition, can you steer me toward an example of our founding fathers' sense of the verb?

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

henoch
Joined: 12 Jan 2004
Posts: 1519

3/2/18 10:04 AM

This seems to be gaining some serious steam
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/03/02/gun-boycott-rei-mountain-equipment-co-op-stop-selling-major-outdoor-brand-due-to-its-weapons-sales-nra-ties/?utm_term=.f5abac7aef07

 Reply to topic    

Craig
Joined: 12 Jan 2004
Posts: 534

3/2/18 10:22 AM

Fox said, however, some policy changes aimed at decreasing school shootings and gun violence in general certainly have merit. Banning bump stocks and raising the age of purchase for assault rifles from 18 to 21 are good ideas, and may lead to a decrease in overall gun violence, he said. But he doesn’t believe these measures will prevent school shootings. “The thing to remember is that these are extremely rare events, and no matter what you can come up with to prevent it, the shooter will have a workaround,” Fox said, adding that over the past 35 years, there have been only five cases in which someone ages 18 to 20 used an assault rifle in a mass shooting.

Since we're still discussing it, this is an interesting read:

https://news.northeastern.edu/2018/02/schools-are-still-one-of-the-safest-places-for-children-researcher-says/

I'm a numbers guy. I like statistics. The biggest problem with all this is that the numbers are all so small it's hard to find anything with a statistical significance. That article points out things are actually better than they were 20 years ago but with events technically so rare relative to the whole population and the number of guns out there, it's hard to really know what the trends are, except that they certainly aren't any worse.

I'm paraphrasing something I heard, but if we really cared about our kids we'd stop making poison look like candy, teach them how to swim, and advocate for self driving cars, long before banning guns or protesting the NRA.

Edit: That sounds dangerously like I'm suggesting we should just accept school (or any) shootings as a fact of life. Obviously I don't, but I also don't think we should waste a bunch of energy on doing things that are ineffective because it makes a bunch of budgie smugglers happy in their homes in the burbs. I don't know what the answer is, but I won't pretend to know what the answer is either just for the sake of just doing something, anything. But something should be done. I don't think not buying expensive bits of styrofoam for our heads is going to make one lick of difference. The gun advocates (some on this forum) will probably only buy Giro helmets moving forward for the same reasons, net neutral effect.

As a Canadian who hasn't grown up with Amendment II disucssed ad nauseam, I parsed it word by word recently and as an outsider I don't see how it protects the rights of individuals to own all the guns all the time. But what do I know...


Last edited by Craig on 3/2/18 10:36 AM; edited 1 time in total

 Reply to topic    

daddy-o
Joined: 12 Apr 2004
Posts: 3053
Location: Springfield

3/2/18 10:33 AM

Good (Great) Meeting

Trump and Pence met in secret with the executive director of the NRA while I was writing that last post. CNN's story

PRESIDENTIAL POSITION REVERSED! Who needs a 'thick wall of congressmen' with churn like that?

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

Brian Nystrom
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Posts: 4005
Location: Nashua, NH

3/2/18 2:59 PM

April, the NRA doesn't propose laws; they're not a legislative body. They work with politicians on legislation, either to promote the rights of law-abiding gun owners and hunters or to try to mitigate the harm of anti-gun proposals.

They also teach millions of people how to use guns safely and responsibly. They're providing grants to schools to help them make safety improvements. Believe it or not, they're not the evil "boogeyman" that the press is so fond of portraying them as.

-
Daddy-o, extremists like McVeigh, the Bundys and many other militia-type try to wrap themselves in the flag and the Constitution, but they're terrorist nuts, plain and simple. They have no more in common with law-abiding gun owners than your average street thug does. They turn the Constitution into a perverted religion that would horrify the framers. It's essentially the same thing that Muslim terrorists have done to Islam.

I'll see if I can find a citation somewhere, but my understanding is that it was the commonly accepted meaning of he term at that time, not specific to the framers in any way. I'm not a Constitutional scholar, I just try to stay informed on 2nd Amendment issues.

-
Craig, I hear you and of course you're correct. Violent crime has been steadily dropping for decades. However, it's not as if you can approach the grieving parent of a murdered child and tell them "Really, things are much better than they used to be. Just look at these numbers."

I mentioned the 400,000 smoking-related deaths per year and an even more sobering number is the 2.8 million obesity-related deaths per year. Obviously, gun violence is nowhere near the immense social problem that it's portrayed to be. Unfortunately, "Joe Lunch Bucket died of lung cancer from smoking" or "Jane Jones died of complications of Type 2 diabetes" aren't as compelling headlines as "17 kids murdered by a deranged gunman." There isn't the same sense of outrage over self-inflicted harm as there is to harm inflicted upon us, despite the fact that there are orders of magnitude difference in the number of death. The 24-hour news media just exacerbate the issue by sensationalizing it and making no effort to provide any context. Sadly, we'll never go back to the days where people just read the newspaper at breakfast, went to work and watched the 6:00 news when they came home. It's in our faces everywhere we turn and it makes it difficult to see the big picture.

I previously mention that the number of shootings we still see is concerning in a different way, in that it represents decay in our society, in the inability of people to find non-violent ways to settle disputes and grievances. It's going to take a huge social movement to correct that, as it's something that you cannot legislate away. Perhaps the current outrage can be the beginning of that.


Last edited by Brian Nystrom on 3/2/18 3:08 PM; edited 1 time in total

 Reply to topic    

Sparky
Joined: 08 Dec 2003
Posts: 16335
Location: Portland, OR

3/2/18 3:06 PM

"NRA doesn't propose laws"

Well they kinda do, perhaps not directly. In a powerful way via lobby with great influence and success one can argue.

But it sounds like a good byte when you type it out there like fact like that. ;)

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

Brian Nystrom
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Posts: 4005
Location: Nashua, NH

3/2/18 3:13 PM

Sure, they lobby like any number of organizations do and there's no doubt that they have significant influence. However, you have to keep in mind that their influence is only there because of the voters that the NRA represents. That's another thing that gets lost in all the noise. The NRA is not like Exxon-Mobil or other huge companies whose profits finance their lobbying. Without it's membership, the NRA would cease to exist. They are representing many millions of Americans, whether they're members or not. Those members vote, too.

So, while it's easy for someone to point a finger and say "It's all the NRA's fault!", what they're really doing is blaming millions of their fellow citizens. Many - probably most - of us reject that criticism and don't take kindly to it. We make our feelings known at the ballot box.

 Reply to topic    

Sparky
Joined: 08 Dec 2003
Posts: 16335
Location: Portland, OR

3/2/18 3:45 PM

"However, you have to keep in mind that their influence is only there because of the voters that the NRA represents."

That is one way to word it.

But this is what is in my mind while I try to keep that in mind. I don't have to point out another way is how law makers get lobbied into manipulating the process. And how one party or the other has closed door meetings minus the other party, 'legislating' bills rushed to the floor. But that is how the mechanism works and the game is played.

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

Matthew Currie
Joined: 11 Jan 2004
Posts: 758
Location: Vermont

3/2/18 5:51 PM

I would be more reconciled to the idea that the NRA only lobbies and does not propose laws if they were not pretty heavily invested in proposing the absence of laws, which seems pretty much like the other side of that coin; and if I thought that their influence and power were proportional to their representation of and the interests of an informed constituency. Given their rhetoric and the manner in which they donate to politicians, it is hard to do. Churches, too, are only, theoretically, representing a constituency of members, but I think it's not unheard of to question whether their doing so is either in proportion to their membership, or in the best interest of the general population.

Even if we determine that the NRA represents a majority opinion (which I rather doubt), I think the utilitarian point of view only goes so far. At some point, source now forgotten, I ran across someone mouthing the usual platitude that "freedom is not free," with the response, "no, it's paid for with the blood of children."

As for the question of just voting people in or out if you don't like them, I seem to recall being taken to task here not long ago for suggesting that a person who voted for Trump to be president over one issue was in some way supporting him. Now suddenly we have the suggestion that if we oppose a politician on a single issue, the job of fixing that issue is simple, just vote him out. One of these things is not like the other, I'd have thought.

On a completely different topic, as some may know, my road riding days are over, but I recently got around to installing a DVD player and a monitor within view of the exercise bike, and I've been pedalling away to movies. Ingmar Bergman's Magic Flute....the miles melt away!

 Reply to topic    

dan emery
Joined: 11 Jan 2004
Posts: 5911
Location: Maine

3/2/18 6:19 PM

Wow

Cycling to Bergman, awesome. Maybe "The Seventh Seal" or "Hour of the Wolf."

Back to topic- LL Bean has raised the age to 21. They took no action on assault rifles because they don't sell them. They only sell hunting and target rifles, and I guess they don't know that AR-15s are sporting. But what does LL Bean know about hunting?

Because of Brian's longtime defense of the reasonable, respectful folks at NRA, I understand he has been awarded a date with Dana Loesch. Enjoy!

 Reply to topic    

Jesus Saves
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 1086
Location: South of Heaven

3/2/18 6:38 PM

Exxon vs NRA...I think the NRA is far and away the most powerful lobby group in America.

For example...

Check out this Frontline piece from 2015. It still holds true today. Timeless...unfortunately...
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/gunned-down/

I was unaware there is IB movie of the Magic Flute. It is one of my favorite operas. I like it a bit more than Don Giovanni, despite musicologists generally contend that is Mozart's best opera.

 Reply to topic    

daddy-o
Joined: 12 Apr 2004
Posts: 3053
Location: Springfield

3/2/18 8:07 PM

K. St. firms write legislation, not all of it, but one good way to help your client is to help overworked Congressional staff polish a bill.

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

Matthew Currie
Joined: 11 Jan 2004
Posts: 758
Location: Vermont

3/2/18 8:41 PM

WRT to Bergman's Magic Flute: it was done originally for Swedish TV in about 1975. Staged more or less as an 18th century opera might have been, or perhaps a good touring production, with Bergman's usual love of the theater. Unlike, say, Olivier's Henry V, this one stays on the stage the whole time, though the camera closes in and one suspects that the stage is virtual at least part of the time. The singing is good, especially Hakan Hagegard as Papageno, worth the trip right there. It's sung in Swedish, but that works pretty well, and though the singing is pre-recorded and lip synched, that also works all right, because the performers are the singers. I think it's wonderful, and even if you're not a big fan of opera or of opera movies, this one might be an exception. It's available on Criterion.

 Reply to topic    

Marc N.
Joined: 12 Jan 2004
Posts: 429
Location: Israel

3/3/18 12:45 AM

Gotta love this forum

Where else can a reasonably civil discussion about gun control also drift into Ingmar Bergman and opera. Really, think about that for a minute.

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

Brian Nystrom
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Posts: 4005
Location: Nashua, NH

3/3/18 6:17 PM

Even for here, that's pretty remarkable!

 Reply to topic    

dan emery
Joined: 11 Jan 2004
Posts: 5911
Location: Maine

3/3/18 6:34 PM

Beyond me

I can discuss Bergman fairly well, but I’ll have to leave opera to others....

 Reply to topic    

April
Joined: 13 Dec 2003
Posts: 6264
Location: Westchester/NYC

3/3/18 10:33 PM


quote:
I would be more reconciled to the idea that the NRA only lobbies and does not propose laws if they were not pretty heavily invested in proposing the absence of laws, which seems pretty much like the other side of that coin;

+1

More over, they can certainly SUPPORT proposed laws just as they OPPOSE them. But as they never did, it's either they're biased against ALL gun control laws, or there's simply no gun safety laws worth proposing. Which is it?

"They (the NRA) also teach millions of people how to use guns safely and responsibly"

Considering all the accidental gun death, which is the highest in civilized countries, those "education" clearly not very successful, is it?

"Believe it or not, they're not the evil "boogeyman" that the press is so fond of portraying them as. "

No use blame the media. NRA's stand is clear and unequivocally anti-gun restrictions no question asked! That's as evil as it gets. The "boogeyman" is real.

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

Brian Nystrom
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Posts: 4005
Location: Nashua, NH

3/4/18 9:30 AM

"More over, they can certainly SUPPORT proposed laws just as they OPPOSE them. But as they never did, it's either they're biased against ALL gun control laws, or there's simply no gun safety laws worth proposing. Which is it?"

As you often do, you've presented incorrect information and a false choice here. The NRA supports proposals that positively affect law-abiding hunters and gun owners. It opposes measures that negatively affect the same.

While there are certainly things that can be done to promote public safety ("gun safety" is a BS term used by anti-gun groups), most of what ends up getting proposed are restrictions on the rights of gun owners, most of which would have no real impact on crime. The NRA has publicly endorsed improvements to the NICS system, our mental heath system and safety in schools. In the last case, it has put its money where its mouth is. They have also supported harsh punishment for people who commit crimes with guns. They have supported reasonable measures to require gun owners to prevent unwanted access or theft of their firearms.

-
"Considering all the accidental gun death, which is the highest in civilized countries, those "education" clearly not very successful, is it?"

This is one of the dumbest leaps to a conclusion that I've seen you make to date. It's the same as saying "Considering all the accidental deaths on the highway, driver's education is clearly not successful.

There is no requirement for gun owners to attend NRA safety classes. There is no way to know how many current gun owners have done so. It's also abundantly clear that many, if not most, accidental gun deaths are caused by people who do not know how to handle firearms safely, which indicates that they have not had any safety training.

The NRA provides firearms safety training, but it cannot make people take it.

-
"No use blame the media. NRA's stand is clear and unequivocally anti-gun restrictions no question asked! That's as evil as it gets. The "boogeyman" is real."

Again, you're just full of crap. Yes, the NRA opposes restrictions on law-abiding gun owners that would do nothing to reduce crime or accidents. There is nothing "evil" in that. Unfortunately, that is the majority of "gun safety" (which is just code for "anti-gun") legislation that gets proposed. As I mentioned above, there is much that they support, but unfortunately real solutions require time and effort that our lawmakers won't support.

Politicians focus on this worthless junk rather than trying to actually solve the real problems because it's easier, it generates headlines and it gives them the opportunity to say that they've done something, even when they know they've done nothing useful. It's lazy, disingenuous and cowardly. Fortunately, most of this crap doesn't pass, but then they just blame it all on the NRA. I even heard one just this morning complaining about members of a different gun-rights group and blaming that on the NRA.

If you want to call something "evil", how about evil politicians who knowingly lie to the public about their intentions and the effects of the legislation they propose or have passed?


Last edited by Brian Nystrom on 3/5/18 6:44 AM; edited 1 time in total

 Reply to topic    

walter
Joined: 11 Jan 2004
Posts: 4309
Location: metro-motown-area

3/4/18 8:29 PM

good suggestions, brian

but none of that will happen (even the common-sense "fixes") given the GOP is bought and paid-for by the NRA that is dominated by 2A zealots. the government is banned from even gathering data to analyze firearm deaths -- that is just f*cking disgusting.

"In the language at the time this was written.."

using that as the standard for constitutional interpretation, the 2A only protects gun-rights for muzzle-loading flintlocks. i'm OK with that.

"It's essentially the same thing that Muslim terrorists have done to Islam."

the NRA leadership is alot like the extreme muslim imams.

'hat their influence is only there because of the voters that the NRA represents"

uh, no. NRA influence is because of the political contributions to elected GOP officials and threats to fund opponents if said paid-for GOP officials ever take positions that are contrary to NRA leadership positions.

"there's simply no gun safety laws worth proposing"

uh, how about closing background check loopholes and tightening up the whole background check process on a national basis?

"Our society is a massive freakin' mess of our own creation. That's the real problem."

maybe we start by voting for presidents that are qualified to hold the office. just a thought.

<img src=https://scontent.fdet1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/28379294_10214227543594414_5034490459706461654_n.jpg?oh=8a6d502ff3d65d04f4c58d7f650210d7&oe=5B0DF7DD>

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

Sparky
Joined: 08 Dec 2003
Posts: 16335
Location: Portland, OR

3/4/18 9:54 PM


quote:
maybe we start by voting for presidents that are qualified to hold the office


Let's hope the electorate has the anti bodies. Don't count on the trend not continuing though...

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

Brian Nystrom
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Posts: 4005
Location: Nashua, NH

3/5/18 12:56 PM

"but none of that will happen (even the common-sense "fixes") given the GOP is bought and paid-for by the NRA that is dominated by 2A zealots. the government is banned from even gathering data to analyze firearm deaths -- that is just f*cking disgusting."

I have mixed feelings about this, but I understand why it happened. It was a reaction to the anti-gun shenanigans of Howard Metzenbaum and his cronies tried to turn the CDC into a political body and ordered them to do studies that they could use the support their radical "ban everything" anti-gun agenda. That's why the law specifically prohibits the CDC doing research for the purposes of gun control. Unfortunately, since they can't control how their research is used, they just stopped it entirely. Arguably, none of this ever should have happened and the CDC should be free to do what it feels is in the interest of the American people. Unfortunately, that horse left the barn decades ago.

-
"In the language at the time this was written.."
"using that as the standard for constitutional interpretation, the 2A only protects gun-rights for muzzle-loading flintlocks. i'm OK with that."

OK, if you want to look at it that way, muzzle-loading flintlocks were the state-of-the-art military weapons of that time. Where does that leave us?

-
"It's essentially the same thing that Muslim terrorists have done to Islam."
"the NRA leadership is alot like the extreme muslim imams."

I see your point, but there's a big difference. The NRA and it's gun-owning constituents are under nearly constant attack from anti-gun politicians and the media, so they're constantly on the defensive. History has shown that every time any compromise was made in an effort to placate the anti-gunners, they took it as a sign of weakness and pushed even harder for more stringent restrictions. Consequently, the NRA takes a hard stand, though it not as absolutist as many would have us believe.

If someone was constantly attacking your fundamental rights and every time you gave them an inch, they just demanded more, how would you react?

-
"that their influence is only there because of the voters that the NRA represents"
"uh, no. NRA influence is because of the political contributions to elected GOP officials and threats to fund opponents if said paid-for GOP officials ever take positions that are contrary to NRA leadership positions."

Where do you think their money comes from? Sure, they have many donors, but they couldn't survive without their membership. It's not as if they're a union that can force all gun owners to support it whether they want to or not. There's a real travesty for you...

-
"there's simply no gun safety laws worth proposing"
"uh, how about closing background check loopholes and tightening up the whole background check process on a national basis?"

That is some crap that April made up. I never said it and I don't agree with it. I said as much in a previous post and I also voiced support for fixing the NICS system.

I feel the same way about background checks for private sales, provided the regulations are reasonable. Having to do a background check on your 10-year-old child before you can teach them to shoot - or face felony charges - is not reasonable. Having to run a background check on a friend before you can let him try a gun you own while at a shooting range - or face felony charges - is not reasonable. Having to run a background check if you want to lend a firearm to a friend while you're on a hunting trip - or face felony charges - is not reasonable. However, that's exactly the type of crap that's been in the bills that have been proposed so far. How, in any way, is that going to reduce gun crime? It's ridiculous and nobody in their right mind should ever support it.

I haven't heard what was in the stand-alone bill that the Republicans were working on, but I was hopeful that it might be sensible. Unfortunately, it's stalled at the moment.

-
"Our society is a massive freakin' mess of our own creation. That's the real problem."
"maybe we start by voting for presidents that are qualified to hold the office. just a thought."

Fair enough. If I hadn't been in a position where letting Hillary win (I never would have cast a ballot for her) wouldn't have resulted in a liberal, probably anti-gun Supreme Court, I wouldn't have voted for Trump. As I've said before, I'll deal with the short-term pain in order to get the long-term benefits.

Look at the bright side; once the Trump nightmare is over, it's likely to be another 240 years before someone like him gets elected again. ;-)

 Reply to topic    

Nick Payne
Joined: 10 Jan 2004
Posts: 2337
Location: Canberra, Australia

3/5/18 4:08 PM


quote:
Does the "very big majority" in Europe regard the Swiss as "criminal idiots" for requiring that households have military weaponry and ammunition?

In the US the murder rate is 4.88 per 100,000 population. In Switzerland it's 0.69.

As for hunters and "sporting shooters", reserves should be set aside where they can go in and hunt each other. That would be sporting.

 Reply to topic    

Brian Nystrom
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Posts: 4005
Location: Nashua, NH

3/5/18 5:02 PM

"In the US the murder rate is 4.88 per 100,000 population. In Switzerland it's 0.69."

Exactly my point. The issue isn't access to military-style weapons, it's the willingness to kill innocent people with them. It's a cultural problem here in the US.

Apparently, you know little or nothing about hunting, so I won't waste my time replying to your other remark.

 Reply to topic    

walter
Joined: 11 Jan 2004
Posts: 4309
Location: metro-motown-area

3/5/18 8:52 PM


quote:
OK, if you want to look at it that way, muzzle-loading flintlocks were the state-of-the-art military weapons of that time. Where does that leave us?



That leaves us with flintlocks being completely unrestricted. But we can regulate more modern firearms with relevant laws, aligned the immensely greater killing power certain designs/technologies confer.

Of course this is purely theoretical as it would be impossible to retroactively regulate the zillions of modern semi-auto battle rifles already in private hands, for instance,

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail


Return to CyclingForum Home Page CYCLING TECH TALK FORUM
           View New Threads Since My Last Visit VIEW THREADS SINCE MY LAST VISIT
           Start a New Thread

 Display posts from previous:   


Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next  
Last Thread | Next Thread  >  

  
  

 


If you enjoy this site, please consider pledging your support

cyclingforum.com - where cyclists talk tech
Cycling TTF Rides Throughout The World

Cyclingforum is powered by SYNCRONICITY.NET in Denver, Colorado -

Powered by phpBB: Copyright 2006 phpBB Group | Custom phpCF Template by Syncronicity