Hello Bull153, You wrote a very thought-provoking blog. I don't agree with all your opinions or observations here, but I AM in agreement about the key factor that personal responsibility plays in gun ownership. As you so astutely noted, "Responsible gun ownership is a twenty-four hour a day, seven days a week commitment. If you own a firearm you cannot afford to lapse for a day, an hour, or even a minute". This applies to correct and secure storage of firearms, proper and safe methods of handling guns, education and awareness of local laws and restrictions governing firearms usage, and understanding and recognizing one's own state of mind, fatigue, or mental stresses that may cause one to disregard all the aforementioned safety guidelines and use or treat guns in an irrational manner. However, defining what responsible gun ownership is or outlining the guidelines unfortunately does not automatically ensure that even those firearms owners who SEEM rational or obeyed the common sense rules previously, will ALWAYS comply with them.You are right that guns in themselves are inanimate objects. It is gun use by humans that causes tragedies. "To err is human", but to err with a gun in hand is often deadly. Responsible gun owners are NOT the problem. But the problem is that not everyone who owns a gun (and I am excluding the criminal element here) IS responsible. The deadly consequences of deliberate misuse of firearms or tragic accidents because someone was not paying close enough attention or was fooling around without proper knowledge of the weaponry are incidents we read about almost every day. I don't have the solution, but I do know that polarization does NOT help. The perfect example is your Larry Elder quote. Elder speaks of "emotion and passion" being pitted against "logic and reason" about common-sense gun control laws that he depicts as a "battle" rather than an important and necessary conversation. But he has it twisted - many gun control advocates want logical and reasonable laws to protect citizens, while some firearms enthusiasts emotionally and passionately paint this as a "battle" against second amendment rights and stoke irrational fears that ANY TYPE of private gun ownership will be forbidden. Gun control is an important subject that requires thoughtful debate not fear-mongering. Thank you for opening up the discussion. Sincerely, Karen
Thank you. I was sure that there would be those who would not agree with all that I wrote, that's debate. It is nice that we agree on responsibility, at least. I doubt there is any disagreement that humans are the factor that must be controlled in gun violence. There should be no disagreement that something needs to be done to curb gun violence. The debate will be what will accomplish the goal in the best way and be most effective.
There are those who say stricter gun control is needed, while others say more people control will help. Some issues seem acceptable to both sides, like mandatory background checks for all gun sales, while banning some weapons is met with resistance.
I think the only way to resolve the issue is to do what Congress should be doing and won't - compromise. Both sides will have to give a little in order for anything to be done. We must learn to seek compromise, otherwise the killings and injuries will go on and on.
“Compromise used to mean that half a loaf was better than no bread. Among modern statesmen it really seems to mean that half a loaf is better than a whole loaf.” - G. K. Chesterton
I disagree that humans are THE factor that needs to be controlled. Actual facts and statistics clearly show more guns directly correlates to more violence. This is a undeniable truth that you summarily dismiss. Further, there is no connection between an increased rate of violence with an increased number of people.
Another source of evidence for this are the countries - such as Australia - that have BANNED guns and then seen a dramatic decrease in gun violence as a result. This seems to be proof positive that guns and not people are the main problem.
You say compromise is the only way to resolve this. I agree. Perhaps a part of that compromise should be acknowledging that actual guns are the main problem.
I never had the need or desire to own a gun. In my 77 years I have never felt threatened or concerned about my safety.
I have traveled the world and admitted to being an American wherever I go and never encountered any safety issues, people have been friendly and welcoming. Using common sense I avoid dangerous countries or situations. I prefer to lead a stress free life and not have to concern myself 24 hours a day about owning and storing guns.
Jack, that is because you aren't of the Fearful class that is running around this country. You came from a time when this was the home of the brave, now there is a whole cable channel dedicated to the fearful, and broadcasts 24 hours of fear mongering a day, which amplifies the terror in the hearts of the fearful.
If you aren't afraid of everything you don't need to be constantly armed. It seems over the last 30 years of this Conservative movement has left us with an unsafe culture. It's time to move away from Conservativism and back to a more confident and safer style of government management. Besides, all this fear mongering is driving this country into the poor house. We aren't exceptional anymore, according to the fearful, this is a dangerous country to live in. How does that make us exceptional?
Good for you. I hope you never encounter a drug crazed gang member or a criminal breaking into your home. In my 59 years I have been threatened and I am concerned about my safety.
I've traveled the world and been identified as an American wherever I go and I have encountered safety issues even though many people have been friendly and welcoming. Using common sense I tried to avoid dangerous countries and situations, but often it was my job and I was unable to.
I prefer to lead a stress free life and not have to worry 24 hours a day about crime or owning and storing my guns. Isn't it funny how our lives are so similar, yet so different.
ICRD - D47
“In times of stress, be bold and valiant.” - Horace
“In times of great stress or adversity, it's always best to keep busy, to plow your anger and your energy into something positive.” - Lee Iacocca
Really, Sov? Just when I thought you'd reached the pinnacle of trashing conservatives, you come out with a manifesto worthy of the garbage can.
Your hatred for those of us who believe in moderation and conservatism will not change the fact that in most of you diatribe you are wrong. There is a huge difference between being fearful and being prepared. There is a huge difference between fear mongering and presenting facts.
You can move anywhere you wish. Conservatism is not going away, and contrary to your claim, it is the liberal side of this country that has created the unsafe culture we struggle with. What confident and safer style of government are you referring to? We have just survived four years and are stuck with four more years of a government that has cost us our credit rating, increased spending by phenomenal amounts, and has no effective plan for reducing the national debt, which by the time Mr. Obama leaves office is going to be twenty trillion and growing.
We would be exceptional if it were not for the uninspired leadership from the White House and Congress. Put the blame where it belongs, and it is NOT with Conservatives.
ICRD - D47
“Right is right, even if everyone is against it; and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it” - William Penn
“Debts and lies are generally mixed together” - Francois Rabelais
My lifestyle and job career did not put me in dangerous elements whereas your apparently did from what I understand from your other postings you were in criminal justice. So yes, you did need a gun as part of your job and possible retaliation from criminals.
We lead to different lifestyles.
Odd how Bull153 again ignores facts by saying "it is the liberal side of this country that has created the unsafe culture we struggle with" when the FACTS show that conservative states have far more crime and poverty than liberal ones.
AGAIN, the FACTS show us reality. I have yet to see any actual FACTS from Bull153, only biased imagination and fantasy.
Yes, yes we do.
ICRD - D47
“A lifestyle is what you pay for; a life is what pays you.” - Thomas Leonard
I changed a few words from a previous posters comment. You may find it amusing.
"I disagree that humans are THE factor that needs to be controlled. Actual facts and statistics clearly show more cars directly correlates to more drunk driver fatalities. This is a undeniable truth that you summarily dismiss. Further, there is no connection between an increased rate of drunken drivers with an increased number of people".
Another source of evidence for this are the countries - such as Australia - that have BANNED driving and then seen a dramatic decrease in drunk driving deaths as a result. This seems to be proof positive that cars and not people are the main problem.
You say compromise is the only way to resolve this. I agree. Perhaps a part of that compromise should be acknowledging that actual cars are the main problem.
Responsible car ownership is a twenty-four hour a day, seven days a week commitment. If you own a car you cannot afford to lapse for a day, an hour, or even a minute. The consequences can be fatal, and that is a tragedy none of us should have to endure. Besides the physical safeguards, there have to be mental ones as well. Always know who has access to your keys, at home, on the road, or drinking. Gasoline by itself is dangerous and should be properly secured. A car with no gas is only as dangerous as a club or hammer. If you have children or have children visit, it is especially important that keys and gas be secured so there is no way anyone can access them. There are ignition locks, door locks, and various containers for storing cars. Use them to prevent a tragic occurrence. Be sure any time you drive you are mentally and physically fit. If you aren't feeling well, skip that driving trip or stay off the road. A momentary lapse could be disastrous.
Being responsible also requires being educated. Know the driving laws of the state and locale you live in. Laws differ from state to state, and even from city to city. Know you cars, how they operate, how to make them safe, how to start and turn them off safely. Be knowledgeable of the types of transmitions and horsepower you are using. You can blow a .07 breathalizer, but trying to drive on .08 could be deadly.
My compliments for a well thought out parody. I only find fault with your comparison to cars and hammers/clubs. Even a Morris Mini would be quite difficult to pick up and then nail someone.
Nice and interesting.
ICRD - D48
“Parodies and caricatures are the most penetrating of criticisms.” - Aldous Huxley
If you think banning all driving and regulating guns are analogous, you have no idea what you are talking about. Now, if the parody instead was making it so a drunk person would be incapable of starting a car, that might make sense as a comparison.
Until gun fanatics recognize reality and stop fearmongering about all guns being banned, actual progress toward fixing our gun problem will be difficult to achieve.
Sad that some people put unreasonable fear ahead of the safety of others. Shows an incredible absence of empathy and logic.
Blaming guns for psycopathic killers is like blaming cars for drunk drivers. How do you miss that? You have no idea what you are talking about.
I'm not blaming guns for psychopathic killers. What I, and many others, blame guns for is a proliferation of gun violence.
Again, look at the rates of gun violence in countries - like the UK and Australia - with heavy gun regulations before and after gun bans for proof.
Trying to ignore reality with straw man arguments is not productive.
"No one attending seemed to advocate stricter gun control."
Wasn't this a event put on by the local Tea Party group?
Anyways I totally disagree with how you frame the situation Bull, you can't just abstract guns away from human agency. I mean is your position really if it weren't for us darned humans guns would be perfectly alright? As if hammers, guns, cars, etc, are things "corrupted" once humans got involved in the equation. These are things which were created by humans for specific uses. Guns are specifically made as weapons. Sure you can turn a car or a hammer into a weapon but that's not what their use is made for whereas that is what guns have always been made for. Trying to separate guns from that fact is just ignoring reality.
And instead of addressing issues of poverty it all comes down people needing a change of attitude about guns, gun safety, responsible gun ownership, etc. No, people are getting murdered in the streets because they realize a gun is a WEAPON, one that is easier to kill someone with than a knife or a hammer.
The meeting was held by the Manteca Patriots. They claim to be non-partisan and welcome anyone to their meetings. They did seek the help of the NorCal Tea Party to establish a charter and file 501c status, but they are not, per se, a Tea Party group. There are those who will dispute that, so you are left to make up your own mind.
I'm not trying to abstract guns from people. But the fact remains that guns, cars, and hammers are all perfectly harmless until you add the human element. When was the last time a car got drunk and ran over someone? When was the last time a hammer leapt off a shelf and murdered a family? When did you last hear of an assault rifle breaking out of its safe, running down to the local mall, and shooting at people indiscriminately? It is a fact that if there were no humans involved, all of these tools are perfectly safe.
Therefore, if you control human's ability to misuse a tool, the tools are just as safe. People must use the tools for their intended purpose. Cars for transportation, hammers to build, and firearms to hunt with and protect us.
Reality is that guns are just as much a tool as a hammer. Soldiers use guns to protect themselves and enforce the policies of their government. Police use guns to enforce the law and protect the citizens. Hunters use guns to kill animals for food and sport. People use guns for recreation and self-defense. It isn't the tool and never has been. It is the user, and always will be.
ICRD - D48
“We can never judge the lives of others, because each person knows only their own pain and renunciation. It's one thing to feel that you are on the right path, but it's another to think that yours is the only path.” - Paulo Coelho
“People are always blaming their circumstances for what they are. I don't believe in circumstances. The people who get on in this world are the people who get up and look for the circumstances they want, and if they can't find them, make them” - George Bernard Shaw
The point that seemed to be missed is that cars are just as capable (and do) kill just as many people as guns. I don't think that their "intended purpose" is really relevant here. If your child was killed by a gun they are just as dead as if they were ran over by a drunk driver.
Traffic accidents in Sierra Leone only accounted for 162 deaths, in the first 4 months of 2012. The US 32,310 in 2011. Sierra Leone has only 6 vehicles per 1000 people the US has 812 per 1000.
There is no connection between an increased rate of traffic fatalities with an increased number of people (If you increase the number of people and not the number of cars the number of people that die by vehicle does not increase).
This seems to be proof positive that cars and not people are the main problem.
This is 100% the logic that you are using, right? You should be lobbying for the banning of vehicles as hard as you are for guns, anything less would be hypocritical. I'm not even factoring in the amount of fatal health problems that arise from vehicle emissions.
I would much rather be pumped full of a 30 round clip than die in a traffic accident. Which would you prefer if you had a choice? Traffic accidents are much more violent. They also effect everyday families going about there merry life, while the overwhelming majority of gun deaths in America involve a criminal circumstance in the victims death. Obviously, cars are a much bigger threat to your everyday law abiding citizens and LITTLE CHILDREN, INNOCENT BOYS AND GIRLS. (Shall I spin it like the gun control nuts).
Repeating the same straw argument over and over again does not make it any more true. Continually ignoring facts does not make one seem reasonable.
"the overwhelming majority of gun deaths in America involve a criminal circumstance"
Absolutely not true. The majority are suicides. But then again, I base this on actual FACTS and statistics instead of my imagination. http://www.totalcriminaldefense.com/n...
In California, as well as 34 other states, committing suicide is no longer a crime. It used to be. The old penal code section, PC167 I believe, was rescinded years ago.
Assisting someone in committing suicide is still a crime, although the state legislature is trying to change that.
So if I blow my brains out - it isn't a crime, but if I ask you to obtain a gun, and help me blow my brains out - you'd go to jail.
ICRD - D49
“Suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem.” - Phil Donahue
“Suicide sometimes proceeds from cowardice, but not always; for cowardice sometimes prevents it; since as many live because they are afraid to die, as die because they are afraid to live” - Charles Caleb Colton
So then, we can now all agree that a gun in the home is more likely to kill or injure a non criminal than a criminal.
Therefore, we can now all agree, it is a fact that by simply owning a gun one is statistically more likely to cause violence than mitigate it.
Lol the Manteca Patriots. What are there three pillars again? Small government, free markets, and some other conservative point. It's hardly a non-partisan group, the proof being that nobody at the meeting had any objections to what was being said concerning gun-control. Probably because no person that is not conservative belongs there, why would they want to involve themselves in that group?
The human element is the only "element" that exists, these things are created by humankind, not by nature. What other "element" can you speak of when talking about guns? Guns are cool until you factor in the bear cavalry? Guns are made to harm things, people are using them exactly what they're for when they're doing a drive-by, when they're doing a bank robbery, etc, that's what it's use is. You may disagree and say that it's not what it's designed for but that is what it's designed for, it's people that decide what a WEAPON is made to do. So while you may say it's defend you and your family or hunting a gangbanger may say it's designed to keep their turf under their control, our government has decided numerous times that guns are not for defending Americans but for attacking/invading/occupying other countries.
That's what seems to be missing from the dialogue, guns are WEAPONS, made for a specific reason, that being FORCE. Guns weren't invented for skeet shooting.
There are approximately 300 million privately owned guns in the United States. Less than .1% will ever be used to harm anyone. Does it not make sense to concentrate on that group and leave the 99.9% alone?
Straw man arguments don't help anything. Less than .1% of the population gets ALS, so, should we just stop all ALS research?
Also, are you suggesting there are "acceptable losses" associated with gun ownership? So long as the number of people dead or hurt from legal gun ownership no one should care?
What I am saying is that punishing the 99.9% of gun owners who never hurt anyone is counter-productive. Efforts and resources should be focused on the .1% that do harm. Leave the others alone.
To use your analogy. why treat the entire population for ALS when they don't have it. It is expensive, unnecessary, and causes unnecessary problems.
Acceptable losses? no, just a need to punish the guilty and leave the others alone.
So you are against vaccinations??? Why vaccinate for diseases people don't have? Right?
It's called being proactive, not reactive.
I am a gun owner, California bans assault weapons. Do I feel I am being "punished"? Of course not, I don't see any need for owning an assault weapon.
Do you feel "punished" for not being able to purchase an assault weapon in California? Then maybe someplace like Texas is the place for you.
@crimeriddendump - Vaccinations are not the same as treating the disease. You don't treat someone who does not have the disease.
@LarryBaca - You don't resent being told that you do not have the sense to decide what to spend your money on?
Every time that it is made more difficult for you the law-abiding citizen to purchase a firearm because of the criminal actions of someone else, you are being punished for their crime.
It is not just assault weapons that are banned in California. It is also a number of handguns and shotguns. Check out the list of weapons that cannot be sold in California. Also there are handguns that can only be sold to Law Enforcement Officers. Not the ones issued to them for their jobs, but for personal use. Why should they be allowed to buy guns as private citizens that other law-abiding citizens cannot?
As for the term Assult Weapon, It is vague and not clearly defined. There are weapons available that are every bit as powerful and only slightly different that are legal.
A good example is the Mini-14. There are currently 3 models of the Mini-14 made by Ruger. All are semi-automatic, All use detachable magazines, all fire the .223 round. Only 1 of the 3 is on the proposed Assault Weapons Ban list.
Tell me how that makes since. The only true assault weapon is a fully automatic weapon such as the M-16, M-4 or AK-47. These are already illegal under current law.
DL, No, I don't resent being told what I can spend my money on, because nobody is doing that (In the case of Assault weapons or any other banned guns in California).
And I do have the sense to decide, I decide not to buy banned guns, I don't need them and I got plenty of guns now, none of them banned.
Removing guns from circulation is like vaccinating against gun violence. Less guns = less gun violence. That is an undeniable fact.
Your views that suicide should be involved in the gun control debate are WAY off base. The only reason you would bring them up is because the arguement can be "spun" in your favor. The truth is that (outside of suicide) gun violence is MUCH MUCH MUCH less likely to kill or injure an innocent person that is not engaging in a criminal activity than that of vehicle use. You can not use the suicide statistic in this argument because once a person decides that they are going to take their life, the form for which they choose is inconsequential.
You are absolutely wrong and there are dozens of scientific studies that contradicts your baseless assertions.
Guns in the home are 30% more likely to kill or injure accidentally than kill or injure a home intruder. That is a FACT some here can't seem to comprehend.
"Guns in the home are 30% more likely to kill or injure accidentally than kill or injure a home intruder".
Ok, I must be missing where I ever said that that wasn't a fact. I agree with that statement 100%.
What I'm saying is that, If you drive in a car you would probably be somewhere around 98% more likely to die in a car accident than someone who does not use a vehicle, but no ones trying to ban cars.
Kids get into household cleaners and die, but no ones trying to ban those.
Your child is more likely to drown in your back yard if you own a pool. No ones trying to ban pools.
The list is long and follows the same pattern. For some reason gun grabbing nuts want to put all their effort into banning guns, while neglecting all these other dangers in the home.
You can't argue with that.
Hello redeyedrider, You and crimeriddendump are discussing two different topics: the likelihood of death or accidental injury from guns to those living in the home as being greater than the possibility of wounding or killing a home intruder and your contention that, excluding suicide, "gun violence is MUCH MUCH MUCH less likely to kill or injure an innocent person that is not engaging in a criminal activity than that of vehicle use". You said that you agree with crimeriddendump's statement "100%". So you are essentially conceding that one of the justifications for gun ownership, namely home protection, is more myth than fact since the dangers of having a gun IN THE HOME statistically outweigh any protection it supposedly offers. I am NOT advocating the ban of ALL guns, but people DO need to recognize fact versus fiction when it comes to gun ownership and responsibility. As you noted in a follow up post, we don't ban household cleaners, cars, or pools, all which have been responsible for deaths. However, we DO put restrictions, regulations, and warnings on them. We are NOT, as you claim, "neglecting all these other dangers in the home". In households with children, it is recommended that parents use child-proof locks or place cleaners out of a child' reach. That is simple common sense. For those with pools, it is required that these pools be fenced and gated if children are in the family. Common sense also tells us to supervise our children around water. There are laws governing who can drive a car (licensed), when one can't drive (intoxicated), and rules of the road to be followed to promote vehicle safety (speed limits). While I am not interested in BANNING guns, I am very much concerned with lessening the negative consequences and impact of a gun-obsessed culture.
What are the back-up sources for your "MUCH MUCH MUCH less likely" assertion? Often, superficial figures don't tell the whole story. What I mean is, the number of people who are injured or killed in car accidents may be greater than the number of gun accidents or deaths (excluding suicide and criminal activity). But are you looking at those numbers in the context of how many people are riding in cars daily as opposed to how many people (excluding, as per your specifications, criminals and those who commit suicide) own guns? How many people ride in a car, taxi, or bus on a daily basis? Compare this number with the number of vehicle-caused injuries or deaths. That will give you a clearer picture of the percentage of deaths per cars. Then do the same with gun ownership and gun-related deaths. My point is that while, on the surface, you could accurately claim that there were more deaths due to cars than gun-caused deaths, the percentage, factoring in the numbers of those who own guns or ride in cars, COULD be the opposite. It's more meaningful to have assertions in context, otherwise facts and figures can be easily manipulated to underscore one's point. Sincerely, Karen
"My point is that while, on the surface, you could accurately claim that there were more deaths due to cars than gun-caused deaths, the percentage, factoring in the numbers of those who own guns or ride in cars, COULD be the opposite. It's more meaningful to have assertions in context, otherwise facts and figures can be easily manipulated to underscore one's point".
Just this statement alone speaks volumes about how ridiculous the gun control debate is. No ones talking about banning cars. Obviously they both kill or injure throngs of people. I am just making a point that one should not champion banning guns while going about there daily life, living hypocritical, using the death traps we call cars. You can't pick and choose which methods of people being killed you are OK with society having readily available and widely used. Either you are ok with things that we humans manufacture that cause death or you are not. Picking and choosing is SO hypocritical.
For the record, I'm good with restrictions, regulations, and warnings. But to what degree is where my the questions lie. Should be ban 20 or 30 round clips. Not unless we're a society that is ready to accept government regulating that cars not be manufactured to exceed 70 MPH. Or that we are subject to random inspections of our household cleaners. I guess we might as well prohibit pools in homes with children under 12 because gates and fences don't always work. The question is, how much government intrusion and restriction is one willing to accept in the name of "safety".
Hello redeyedrider, Honestly, I would be perfectly okay with cars that couldn't go over 70 miles an hour or that wouldn't start if they could sense that the driver was intoxicated. Both those things WOULD make driving safer, although not eliminate all accidents. I guess that my tolerance for so-called "government intrusion and restriction" is higher than yours. I actually like knowing that there are strict national standards for food safety and penalties for violations. I'm glad that passengers aren't allowed to carry weapons onto planes or bring on other items that could jeopardize the well-being of their fellow travelers. I respect the sentiments behind child labor laws that protect our youngest citizens from workplace abuses. As an allergy sufferer, I am not thrilled with the inconvenience of having to provide personal info in order to purchase certain allergy medication, but understand that if it puts a dent in meth manufacturing, it is worth the relatively minor hassle. I do understand your point about levels of government intrusion or control, but I am more concerned when that government interference relates to enforcing someone else's morals on personal decisions such as a woman's choice to have an abortion or not, rather than safety. Sincerely, Karen
Well our tolerances are much in line. I to hold dear many of the mentioned rules and regulations. I do feel that a woman a person should be held accountable for their actions to God, not the government. I do not think that marriage and government should co-mingle. I do feel on this issue that the governments gun control agenda is a huge waste of resources, so I guess the gun issue is where our views start to divide. I do not for a moment understand how one could promote banning guns, yet use a motor vehicle.
Why do certain people keep harking on "banning guns" when nobody in power has said they want to ban all guns?
Why? Because absurd straw man arguments are all these people have.
To KarenPearsall's point, if it is OK for some states to regulate a women's CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to an abortion to the point of effectively banning it, then states have the same rights to ban guns. That door swings both ways.
I do find it hypocritical that the same people that say we can't ban guns are more or less the same people that are trying to ban abortions when gun and abortions both are equally protected under the Constitution.
" I do understand your point about levels of government intrusion or control, but I am more concerned when that government interference relates to enforcing someone else's morals on personal decisions such as a woman's choice to have an abortion or not, rather than safety." - These are well thought out and reasoned statements, unlike the radical and extreme statements of fear that we hear from those on the right. There are so many shades of grey that sound decisions can be made on, but it appears the extremists on the right do not understand that.
The main issue is, the right does not have the ability to see issues in a multifaceted way that will solve many of our issues, they only have a simplistic, and emotionally driven solutions which may sound good to them, but do not work in practice, and instead come off as mean spirited. It might be different if there were at least one great thinker amongst the Conservatives, but, that is not to be, we are only confronted by simpleminded, juvenile extremes from them.
Hello redeyedrider, You write, "I do not for a moment understand how one could promote banning guns, yet use a motor vehicle". Please cite your sources as to which government representative is pushing for the banning of ALL guns. I have never heard this. Also, I think you are setting up a false comparison. People who want SOME restrictions on the types of guns available for ownership also expect and accept that we have regulations on owning and driving cars. We can not get behind the wheel of a car and drive drunk or 90 miles an hour without facing legal consequences. We are fined if we are caught driving while talking or texting on hand-held cell phones, for not wearing seat belts, or failing to place children in proper car seats designed for their protection. These laws are created and enforced to promote public and individual safety. If you can concede that reasonable car restrictions and regulations make sense, then can you perhaps acknowledge that REASONABLE gun laws and SOME restrictions are also beneficial to society as a whole? The real focus of debate should be not on strawman arguments that "they" want to ban all "our" guns and take away our Constitutional rights, but rather on what kind of restrictions make the most sense and how can they be practically and efficiently enforced? One can pass hundreds of gun laws, but without a practical and effective means of enforcement, these laws are essentially meaningless. Sincerely, Karen
karen, my point exactly on the false assumption that anyone is promoting the banning of "All" guns...
I've read and reread this column. I am fascinated watching the non-conservative group stroking each other and huddling together like a herd of wildebeest with a lion on the prowl.
What amazes me even more is the logic... and lack of it... being used. I am just as guilty. I see it time and again in blog after blog, but for some reason this time it really stands out, like a San Francisco nudist in the middle of Times Square.
Everybody has their point of view on gun control, assault weapons, and firearms violence. We all rightly believe our position is the logical and correct one. We all dredge up support for our position and reinforce it with statistics, facts, opinion, and arguments. It matters not what your specific position is, because no matter what, each of us truly believes his or her point of view is the right one. As humans, we debate everything from politics to dinner. Sometimes the majority wins... we are going out for pizza; or the most powerful person wins... I'm taking Mom out to dinner.
So I've been looking at this blog I've started and watched it go from a 'factual' report of a meeting that I felt was not too controversial given the subject, to a battle of comparisons of Constitutional rights and illogical comparisons. While not completely off topic, it is hard to discuss views on firearm violence and gun control in comparison with abortion rights and drunk driving. Those are deserving of debate in their own rights.
it seems humorous to compare an M-16 rifle with a hammer when discussing gun violence. Yes, both are tools with a purpose, but they are hardly interchangeable. There are hundreds of items used on a daily basis that when handled properly function as designed. These same items are capable of and have caused tragic deaths. Mr. Spock would find arguments for banning assault rifles because of the associated deaths 'illogical' given than many things cause death and are not banned. There are degrees of government control that we allow. Mandatory vaccinations for school children has virtually eliminated polio. This is certainly an infringement on personal liberty. The Government has no right to force a needle in my arm and inject a substance in me, yet for the good of the public, we allow it. This is but one of the challenges we face in dealing with guns and violence.
I am sick of statistics. Anyone who has passed a basic junior college class on statistics knows that you can skew any data base and statistics to suit your purpose. Remember the old comparison of a glass half full or half empty? It is identical, but you feel a positive sense when it is half full, while a negative impact when half empty. I will use stats just like anyone else if I think it will clear up or support a position. It is a powerful; statement when you say of 300 million legal gun owners, 99.9 percent NEVER have had an incident of gun violence, injury, or illegal use. Now when someone says "Guns in the home are 30% more likely to kill or injure accidentally than kill or injure a home intruder" that sounds scary. It is meant to. I like this better - "Guns in the home are 70% less likely to kill or injure accidentally than kill or injure a home intruder"". You got to love statistics...
Discussions should focus on the matter being debated. You can flood your comments with silly statistics about deaths from household cleaners, pools, and suicide, but all it does is confuse people and stray from the main issue.
It may sound harsh, but if the question concerns the government banning specific types of firearms, I don't care about drunk drivers, suicides, and pesticides. I want to discuss the reasoning behind the government's decision. What makes one firearm different from another? How are they classifying what is and is not an assault weapon? How will a law or restriction actually benefit society? Are the proposed restrictions legal? What should the federal government control and what should be left to the states?
There are just some points that defy logic. Why is there such a clamor to ban assault weapons when the number of people killed with rifles is less than those killed with clubs and hammers? The number of handgun deaths exceed astronomically deaths from any other firearm or weapon, yet little is being said about addressing that issue. Could it be that assault rifles are just so much easier to target and deal with?
I don't pretend to have the answer. I am reasonably sure those that are pushing banning some weapons and magazines don't have it either. The time has been far too short between the tragedy and the emotional desire to do something to have really accomplished anything. There needs to be real discussions with real people that are in a position to make the decisions necessary for our future safety, and not a political dog and pony show by the Vice President that was long on appearance and short on substance.
Speaking for myself, I can only suggest some things that may help solve this crisis. One is recognizing that the human factor IS the main issue to address in gun control. As has been pointed out time and again, a loaded gun is no more lethal to anyone than a steak knife or a car - until a human pulls the trigger, stabs someone, or runs over a child.
--- Better controls need to be put in place to identify and prevent those who should not ever have access to a firearm from getting one - through family, crime, or legally.
--- A national database accessible by law enforcement, firearms dealers, and medical personnel of individuals with mental health issues should be created and maintained. Just like police officers must pass a psych exam to be armed, if someone is identified with potential mental issues, that person MUST be cleared by a medical professional before being allowed access to firearms anywhere.
--- Current federal and state laws need to be enforced with no leniency. We do NOT need MORE laws and regulations, but we need the ones currently on the books to be ENFORCED! Use a gun - go to prison. Gang enhancements and three strikes violator laws need to be used and used fully. The current revolving door in our state prison system must be closed.
--- Background checks of all firearms purchased or transferred must be conducted. We need to close the loopholes that allow a father to give his adult son a gun without the son being checked. No gun sales or transfers at public gun shows without a full background check. These checks are for ALL firearms that are functional, regardless of age or type.
--- Anyone purchasing a firearm must attend a state sponsored firearms safety class that not only addresses the weapon, but the laws requiring proper and safe storage, access to firearms, and transporting guns safely.
--- Any legal gun owner who is negligent in the safe storage and handling of their gun(s) should be charged with a crime, lose their guns for a specified time, and not be allowed to have guns until it is proven that corrective safety measures have been taken. A second offense is mandatory surrender of all firearms for destruction. Any negligence resulting in injury or death causes the gun owner's right to own firearms to be revoked and subjects them to criminal sanction.
These are things that will have a positive impact on gun violence TODAY. The costs are minimal in comparison to doing nothing as the injuries and deaths continue. More, much more needs to be done, but unlike the 535 Congressional stooges, this is affirmative action and not stagnation. This is an emotional and controversial topic. But it is one that can be solved - with logic and common sense.
ICRD - D55
“Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end” - Cmdr. Spock / Leonard Nimoy
“Since when was an emotional argument won by logic?” - Robert A. Heinlein
@baca & karen
I'm not talking about people "in power". I'm talking about gun control nuts and gun grabbers like the ones during Katrina (registration does and has lead to confiscation) and they come take our guns when we need them most!
"The main issue is, the right does not have the ability to see issues in a multifaceted way that will solve many of our issues, they only have a simplistic, and emotionally driven solutions which may sound good to them, but do not work in practice, and instead come off as mean spirited. It might be different if there were at least one great thinker amongst the Conservatives, but, that is not to be, we are only confronted by simpleminded, juvenile extremes from them".
It's comical listening to people from the "left" make comments like these because although they hold true, they have the same exact faults. They're continually throwing these assertions at each other and it's so funny CAUSE THEY ARE BOTH CORRECT!
Your mixing statistics around is not correct. Your statement "Guns in the home are 70% less likely to kill or injure accidentally than kill or injure a home intruder" is not at all correct. 30% MORE LIKLEY does not equate to 70% less likely!!!! This is a classic logical fallacy. Perhaps you should take that "basic junior college class on statistics" before trying to improperly use it.
I do like your list. However, like some medications and food additives that are BANNED by the FDA, I feel banning some potentially dangerous weapons is also prudent and further feel that individuals not including such restrictions in maters of gun control are selfish and short sighted in valuing superstitions and imagination as more important than basic human life and common sense.
Finally, one of your proposed restrictions is the following: " Any legal gun owner who is negligent in the safe storage and handling of their gun(s) should be charged with a crime, lose their guns for a specified time, and not be allowed to have guns until it is proven that corrective safety measures have been taken."
I like this idea quite a bit! What would be the penalty for implying violence against a door-to-door sales person just trying to do their job? How long would someone "lose their guns for" after being "negligent in the safe storage and handling of their gun(s)?????"
redrider, if not "People in Power" then who else can "take your guns away"?
Bull, so you see yourself as a Conservative "Lion" stalking the Liberal "wildebeest"?
Your imagination works in predictable ways. Did you know there are no Lions in Australia, real or imagined?
Hello redeyedrider, You can glean from Bull153's postings whatever advice or comments that inspire you. As for me, I'm perplexed by his "do as I say, not as I do" attitude. After saying that he is "sick of statistics" and noting that "you can skew any data base and statistics to suit your purpose", he goes on to paradoxically announce, "I will use stats just like anyone else if I think it will clear up or support a position". As if this isn't inconsistent or mind-boggling enough, he then proclaims, "Discussion should focus on the matter being debated. You can flood your comments with silly statistics about deaths from household cleaners, pools, and suicides, but all it does is confuse people and stray from the main issue". In other words, Bull153 can use statistics to "clear up or support" HIS position, but YOUR use of stats or analogies to make YOUR point is just, according to him, "silly", "confusing" and "strays from the main point". I disagree. I think that some of your analogies and comparisons make sense on the surface but are questionable when one examines them more deeply, but I certainly don't think your points are silly, puzzling or off topic. Another example: Bull153 says that "it seems humorous to compare an M-16 rifle with a hammer when discussing gun violence. Yes, both are tools with a purpose, but they are hardly interchangeable." I agree with him here. However, he later comments, "Why is there such a clamor to ban assault weapons when the number of people killed with rifles is less than clubs and hammers?" Okay, he is using a supposed statistic here and comparing rifles to hammers, two things he just criticized. But perhaps it's only bad when OTHER PEOPLE use these tactics? So while he finds it "hard to discuss views on firearm violence and gun control in comparison with abortion rights or drunk driving", I'm glad that you and I do not have that particular difficulty and can rationally debate, logically analyze each other's assertions, and either come to appreciate the other's point of view or respectfully disagree. It IS funny, though, how despite his aversion to vehicle analogies or other implements of accidental or intentional death, Bull153 seems to have no problem insisting that "a loaded gun is no more lethal to anyone than a steak knife or a car - until a human pulls the trigger, stabs someone, or runs over a child". I admit that I am a little dizzy from the head-spinning contradictory advice and assertions in BUll153's postings.
His last post does have some valid points worthy of discussion. He suggests creating a national data base of individuals with mental health issues and that firearms dealers, the police, and medical personnel should all have access to this registry. Would he support a national data base that listed ALL firearm owners? Here is a concept worth exploring and debating - for "public safety" whose privacy is protected and whose is compromised? Sincerely, Karen
Larry, you've gotten it all wrong again! I see myself as an observer, not a participant. I watch you seek safety in numbers from an unseen and most likely non-existent threat, like a cameraman filming a wildlife documentary.
My imagination is just fine, although your sanity sometimes worries me. I hate to burst your information technology bubble, but you are quite wrong, my friend.
While there may not be prides of lions roaming the wilderness in Australia, believe me, there are real lions in Australia. There are 39 public zoos, animal refuges, and private sanctuaries in the land down under, many of which have lions and tigers as well as other live animals, including wildebeests.
Additionally, there are thousands of real Lions and Wildebeests in the rural and urban areas of Australia. Just check out their websites!
Australian Lions: http://lionsclubs.org.au/
Australian Wildebeests: http://www.wildebeest.com.au/index.htm
I am always happy to correct your sarcastic statements and blatant misinformation. Just ask me anytime, I don't mind.
ICRD - D56
“I was not the lion, but it fell to me to give the lion's roar.” - Winston Churchill
“Reality is merely an illusion, although a very persistent one” - Albert Einstein
I'm sorry that you are 'perplexed', I did not intend to have a "...do as I say, not as I do..." attitude. We have had discussions in the past where we agree that the written word is the least desirable form of communication. You just don't get sarcastic voice in_flections or eye rolling aids to help understanding and comprehension with writing. One has to be very clear and once more it appears I have not been. My 'sick of statistics' comment was more in line with my similar 'I hate lawyers' sarcasm. I should have said I am sick of 'overuse, silly, and skewed statistics' as well as clarified what bothered me.
Readers pick and choose what they accept as support in any discussion. I'm sure you recall how both Wikipaedia and the Manteca Bulletin have been ridiculed as sources by many here. Anything anyone uses from Fox News is right wing propaganda, but MSNBC is readily accepted. It is the same with statistics. What you find as an accurate portrayal of data may be thought silly by others. So, I am expressing my opinion of the statistical data others present when I say "silly statistics". You may find them accurate and meaningful. Just another area we may agree to disagree on.
I wish we could find a happy middle ground. What is the difference between a statistic, which I might not find acceptable, and a fact that I might? You used my statement about comparing M-16s and hammers and when I talked about the clamor to ban assault rifles, you said I was using a 'supposed statistic' and 'comparing rifles to hammers', two things I had just criticized. To me, if more people die from one method than another, that's a fact, not a statistic. A statistic is when you say '9,000 more people died from hiccups than from sneezing.' Now I know, statistics are also facts. So how does one clarify my contention that I find comparisons of pool drowning and accidental poisoning to firearms in discussing gun violence less acceptable and even silly than a comparison of handgun deaths and hammer/club deaths to firearms? We begin to stretch the envelope of understanding when we are trying to solve violent gun deaths and start using comparisons to abortion and drunk driving to make a point. You told Redeyedrider that "I'm glad that you and I do not have that particular difficulty [comparing firearms violence to other things] and can rationally debate, logically analyze each other's assertions, and either come to appreciate the other's point of view or respectfully disagree."
I honestly thought I'd penned a logical and thought provoking addition to my blog. So I guess I'm asking why you are having a problem with contradictions when I say something like "...a loaded gun is no more lethal to anyone than a steak knife or a car - until a human pulls the trigger, stabs someone, or runs over a child".
Please help me understand where I am confusing you and others. Tell me what is factually incorrect with my statement.
You asked if I would support a national data base that listed all gun owners. The simple answer is yes, but with some caveats.
Just like the mental health data base, access should be limited to law enforcement and mental health professionals. I know that many say they are against the data base because it makes it easier for the government to track down and confiscate guns. That is a silly argument. First, I don't believe for a minute that there is a plan afoot to take away all guns. You have to register to get married, you are in a data base. You have to get a drivers license to drive, you are in a data base. Your doctor keeps records of your health and medical care, you are in a data base. I don't think it is unreasonable for someone purchasing a firearm to have to register it... and be part of a data base.
Just like it is unlawful for people to access your drivers license data and your medical data, firearms registration should also be protected so we don't have another irresponsible news media posting such information in their paper. There are limits on the public's right to know for a reason.
The registry should be accessible nationwide and implemented upon signature of the appropriate law. The data base would begin by having each state submit the registrations they have on file after verifying each is valid. From that date forward all gun purchases nationwide would be submitted to the national database. In states that do not currently require gun registrations, they would be required to establish a system to implement registrations the day the law takes effect. Any sale, transfer, theft, lost/found, or destruction of a firearm would be required to be entered into the database. Any weapon taken into police custody would have to be properly registered before returning to the owner if the gun was not previously registered. Any weapon coming into police custody would be tested forensically and the data entered into NCIC's cold case and active case data base for possible matches before being returned or destroyed. In addition to any criminal databases, any criminal involved with a firearm in any capacity would be entered into the nationwide firearms data base. I hope this answers your question.
ICRD - D57
“Sometimes I'm confused by what I think is really obvious. But what I think is really obvious obviously isn't obvious...” - Michael Stipe
“There are two kinds of statistics: the kind you look up and the kind you make up” - Rex Stout
“Definition of Statistics: The science of producing unreliable facts from reliable figures.” - Evan Esar
Bull153 has some valid points, however, there is so much hyperbole, hypocrisy and double talk in Bull153's posts it is almost impossible to respond directly.
I'm still laughing that if we followed Bull153's suggestion s, Bull153 would not be allowed to own guns since he has admitted to threatening others with his guns.
At this point, Bull153 refusing to admit that more guns directly correlates to more gun violence is just willfully refusing to live in a "fact based world."
The TeaParty actively trying to ban Constitutionally protected women's health care in Mississippi, North Dakota, and Arkansas; yet at the same time saying putting any limits on gun that have the same protection under the Constitution is illegal.
Just the same as these people pick and choose parts of the Bible to obsess over and others to ignore completely; these people do the same with the Constitution. Obsess over the Second Amendment ignore the other 26 and everything else above it.
Hello Bull153, I'll try to clarify my points of contention with you. You astutely note that statistics can be manipulated. I also understand that many of us tend to find data that supports the viewpoint that we espouse, hence the examples of the 99.9% figure that you embrace and crimeriddendump's 30% figure that you do not. However, when you judge other posters' use of statistics or facts as "silly", while insisting yours are meaningful, you lose credibility and sound like: 'other people have a right to express their opinion, but we all know I'm the one who is right'. You use your M-16 and hammers example as a supposed "fact" rather than a statistic because you did not cite actual numerical figures. Yet you criticize redeyedrider's contentions about household cleaner deaths and pool accidents, when he DID NOT use any numbers in those two examples either. With the pool comparison, he used the phrase "more likely", as in households with backyard pools are more likely to experience child drownings than those without, to counter a point that crimeriddendump brought up about households and firearms. So how exactly do you support your assertion that redeyedridder's comments were "silly", while defending your own postings for doing much the SAME thing? That is what I find perplexing. You seem to believe that it is perfectly logical and acceptable for YOU to use hammer, steak knife or car examples and comparisons when it suits YOUR purpose, but when redeyedrider contrasts gun deaths with deaths resulting from car accidents, accidental child poisonings from household cleaners, or backyard pool drownings, you criticize him for being "silly", confusing and straying from the main issue. Do you see the double standard that you present here? As an aside, you have AGAIN gone to the overused excuse that your supposed "sarcasm" is being "misunderstood". Since this seems to be a reoccurring theme for you, perhaps you should avoid trying to use sarcasm for a time so that your point comes across more clearly. If it was only myself that was having a problem catching your attempts at sarcasm, I would acknowledge that maybe I was just having some comprehension difficulties, but others have noted that your use of sarcasm (or what you THINK is sarcasm) does not translate well on this forum. You recognize this difficulty, yet continue to repeat it. In another thread, you claimed that you were not "doing it wrong" (in reference to use of sarcasm), but was simply being misunderstood. Unfortunately, when a diver belly flops into a pool, it is because his skills were lacking, not because watchers misinterpreted the beauty of his dive.
You have provided insightful fodder for a thought-provoking discussion with your comments about a national data base for gun owners. You have presented well-reasoned assertions, observations, and suggestions that could help as we all wrestle with the best ways to balance 2nd Amendment rights and public safety. Sincerely, Karen
I appreciate your response and will endeavor to give your points careful consideration. I know we often disagree on many issues and the manner in which they are presented, but you have always been consistent in your analysis and comments. Your criticisms have always been constructive and never vindictive. I really do appreciate your input.
Your contention that I embrace my statistics while ridiculing others bothers me. I certainly didn't intend for it to come out in that fashion. I've gone over my post and I don't see that I was any more critical of other's statistics than my own. I used the term 'silly' once and in a general sense. It is just my opinion. I never claimed all statistics were silly, just the ones that I don't believe support the main argument.
Gun violence and how to control it is the issue. I have trouble making a connection between abortions and gun control. Both are separate issues and deserve to be debated. I have the same difficulty with drunk driving and gun control. I assert that trying to draw some sort of comparison between these issues as well as deaths by drowning, poison, or clubbing, muddies the water rather than offers clarification. Perhaps I am too close to the issue having weapons as a major part of my life, I don't know. But as I said in my post, "... if the question concerns the government banning specific types of firearms, I don't care about drunk drivers, suicides, and pesticides. I want to discuss the reasoning behind the government's decision."
I did not realize that I gave the perception that it was only OK for me to make comparisons. I try and be selective when I respond and use the points that others make in my response. When I am unclear then it confuses the issue. I'll work on that. I will also work on being fair with my criticisms of others when I do the same thing, as you point out with redeyedrider.
As for sarcasm, like many things it and humor often fall flat based on the audience, circumstance, and presentation. I really got a chuckle out of your 'belly flop' analogy... Since this isn't the first time you've taken me to task for my sarcastic remarks, I'll try and refrain from being sarcastic for the remainder of my time here.
I think clarity and equality are the issues here, and I will try and be both fair and clear in my future comments. I hope we can reach some agreement on presentation, even if we never agree on substance.
ICRD - D57
“I always find that statistics are hard to swallow and impossible to digest. The only one I can ever remember is that if all the people who go to sleep in church were laid end to end they would be a lot more comfortable.” - Unknown
“It is still not enough for language to have clarity and content... it must also have a goal and an imperative. Otherwise from language we descend to chatter, from chatter to babble and from babble to confusion.” - Rene Daumal
"I never claimed all statistics were silly, just the ones that I don't believe ... " Seems like that is supporting KarenPearsall's point even further. Sad.
Again, until this poster and one's like him can recognize the HYPOCRISY of their words and actions, it would seem they continue to reject the "fact based reality" that most of us choose to live in.
Hello Bull153, You DID use the term "silly" only once, but once was quite enough because it was NOT "in a general sense", but pointedly referenced redeyedrider's SPECIFIC comments. Sometimes, it seems that your words do not accurately mirror your intended sentiments. I think that we can all agree that "gun violence and how to control it is the issue". Where we diverge is on opinions concerning the best methods of control and justifications for our particular viewpoints. Diversity of opinion can actually be beneficial, but it helps to treat each other in a respectful manner and rely on the logic of our own arguments without resorting to demeaning language personally directed at others. For some reason, just like abortion rights, the gun control issue evokes high emotions and passionate responses. When emotions run high, it is hard to stay focused on rational debate.
I'm glad that you enjoyed the "belly flop" analogy. I tried to come up with something that would evoke a striking visual image to illustrate my point. We do not need to agree all the time, whether it be on substance or presentation. However, introspection or constructive criticism can help us improve our writing or recognize areas of weakness that need addressing. I take issue with some of your postings, not because of personal animosity toward you, but because I believe that you are capable of better, otherwise I wouldn't bother. I look forward to rational debates on issues where assertions and opinions are based on factually-supported evidence. Sincerely, Karen
I was perplexed, even a bit miffed, at your contention that my use of 'silly' only once was directed specifically at redeyedrider. I was sure I didn't direct any animosity towards him, and was referencing everyone's use of statistics, even mine.
It wasn't until I reread the posting for the umpteenth time that it hit me. Once again I used the generic 'you' without being clear I was not directing that comment only to redeyedrider. I apologize for my misstep, but believe me, it was an honest error. I should have said "People can flood their comments with silly statistics about..." I just didn't do a very good job and I see clearly why you pointed that out.
I am still puzzled a bit however. Even had I meant the comment in the manner it came across, how is that such a personal transgression when other posters make far worse acrimonious statements in their posts than I have? You only need to scroll through the comments on this blog to see an apparent double standard.
I just wonder why some poor conduct is ignored and apparently acceptable while other such conduct is not. Could it be that one major violator has so worn everyone else out that it has just become acceptable to ignore his behavior than to confront it? Has everyone accepted that he is unsalvageable and therefore a waste of time to even try rehabilitation? It bothers me a bit on a personal level, but since my remaining time is becoming shorter and shorter, I think I will simply endeavor to make my own postings and comment better rather than worry about another's lack of courtesy. After all, once I'm gone, you folks will still have to deal with him.
ICRD - D58
"Courtesy is as much a mark of a gentleman as courage." - Theodore Roosevelt
"Every human being is entitled to courtesy and consideration. Constructive criticism is not only to be expected but sought." - Margaret Chase Smith
To be blunt, people are sick of your constant disingenuous and hypocritical remarks. If you simply made your point without the disingenuous comments and hypocritical remarks, and backward sense of "sarcasm," you would be a very good poster. However, you REFUSING to do so shows a lack of willingness to be a productive member of this forum and instead it seems you only want to obstinately maintain your unwelcome behavior.
I find it IRONIC how you attack anyone that questions your claims of moving to Australia as "It really is none of your business" yet, seem to have no problem trying to be MELODRAMATIC about the whole thing. Really Bull153, it is just another example of your disingenuous attitude that pretty much everyone is completely sick of hearing. If your "move" is really "none of [our] business" then why do you keep bringing it up???
Here is my advice - stop with the hypocrisy, double talk, and disingenuous comments. OR, finally just do what you have been saying you were going to do since the election in November.
Did you carefully read Karen's last comment to Bull153 '' I take issue with some of your postings, not because of personal animosity toward you, but because I believe that you are capable of better, otherwise I wouldn't bother''
In stark contrast we have your comment to Bull153 with such little tid bits '' people are sick of your constant disingenuous and hypocritical remarks''
''It seems you only want to obstinately maintain your unwelcome behavior.''
Your comment is heavy with ''personal animosity'' the comment is personal and crosses even further lines by bringing up'' yet again'' the Australia thing which you constantly elude to throughout other blogs as a bogus trip,which frankly to be blunt I'm SO tired of it being brought up ..who really cares if its real, why do YOU care so much should be a point of worry.
If Bull153 's comments are troublesome at times then you can imagine how your comments are as well.
Many of your comments are either directed to Bull153 or about him now just how productive is that since ''you brought up his productiveness as a member in your comment '' You have always appointed yourself as the person who is deciding if what he post is true or not, if he is being a member who is productive or not, if he's welcome here or not, if others who post here are him or not using different names, and it goes on and on.
If you were sincerely coming from a detached and impersonal place such as Karen does one could say you were not displaying animosity but that's NOT the case and its well known. For years!
Your behavior has much to do with what is wrong as well.
You should look at that as hard as you do the member that you find so much fault with.
It goes both ways, and has never been just one sided.
Hello Bull153, I can see how your comment can lead to confusion. Instead of using "you" it might help to use the word "one" or your suggested alternative "people", but that is only part of the problem. If you didn't intend to only pinpoint redeyedrider, it would have been better to include other examples, (pillows, clubs, hammers or whatever) in that particular sentence, rather than just referencing the specific illustrations used by redeyedrider. Then it is clearer that you are including general comments from anyone.
As to your other puzzlement, I try not to get too involved in the insult fest between you and LarryBaca, you and TheSovereign, or you and crimeriddendump because the disrespectful behavior exhibited is MUTUAL. You needle, name-call, and stereotype EACH OTHER. I may not like that, but I don't control any poster's behavior, other than myself. As I explained to rozemist, I'm not eager to be this forum's moderator or "den mom". However, when you jump into the conversation and make critical and what I consider condescending and disrespectful comments to redeyedrider when he has provided you no provocation, then I feel that needs intervention or at least noting. It is somewhat ironic, but if you wade through the insulting comments and baiting of crimeriddendump's last post, he DOES offer a good observation: with some self-correction you ARE a "very good poster". Sometimes, when reading your comments or crimeriddendump's postings or any other contributor's offerings, I disregard the bits that bother me (snide "witticisms", over-generalizations, personal attacks) to reflect on the kernels of wisdom that are buried within the negativity of the post, kernels that are worthy of serious contemplation, discussion, and debate. Most of contributors here do have interesting perspectives to share, but some just couch these opinions in ways that are more off-putting or offensive than thought-provoking, at first glance. Sincerely, Karen
Bull, "... I watch you seek safety in numbers from an unseen and most likely non-existent threat, like a cameraman filming a wildlife documentary."
I would argue that a cameraman filming a wildlife documentary (say on Lions) is not exactly facing a "Non-existent threat".
As for Lions in Australia, I wasn't counting zoos. Almost every country in the world has zoos. If there are really wild African type lions in Australia, I sure haven't seen them in my many trips there, real or imagined....
As for my sanity, my wife tells me that is actually subject to debate...
Whether you accept it or not, I wasn't pinpointing or picking on redeyedrider. I generalized my examples and it was unintentional that it appeared I only used his in my comment. Speaking of ironic, he and I are on the same side for the most part on this topic, why on earth would I antagonize him? I'd be interested in his input, if he ever cares to share it.
Thank you for your constructive criticism and explanation of the double standard here. I get it. I can see that Hoffman does provide some kernels that are buried in his comments, but they are not so much wisdom as they are what my cats bury in their litter box.
ICRD - D58
“Treat all as your own self. Do not have a double standard.” - Sri Sathya Sai Baba
"By three methods we may learn wisdom: First, by reflection, which is noblest; Second, by imitation, which is easiest; and third by experience, which is the bitterest." - Confucius
You just don't get it, that's fine. A lion by any name is still a lion. There are lions in Australia that are not in zoos or reserves. Just click on the references.
So, do you and Hoffman travel down under together to bid on the commissary contracts for their prisons? Or is your business comedy club tours? After I'm settled and if you find your way to Melbourne, let me know and we'll have a brew or two.
As for your sanity, there is nothing to debate...
ICRD - D58
“Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It is already tomorrow in Australia.” - Charles M. Schulz
"The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four Americans is suffering from some form of mental illness. Think of your three best friends. If they're okay, then it's you." - Rita Mae Brown
Tomahto, tomato, when one mentions lions and wildebeests one naturally thinks of African Lions and African Wildebeests not Mountain Lions and Antelope.
I'll pass on that brew you got from Costco while watching the Melbourne Olympics at your fortress of solitude. :-)
Whatever works for you, my friend... ;-)
ICRD - D58
“The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but that the lightning ain't distributed right.” - Mark Twain
“All generalizations are false, including this one.” - Mark Twain
Hello Bull153, It may indeed have been unintentional that you only used redeyedrider's specific examples in your comment. However, it did not "APPEAR" that you used only his examples in that particular sentence - you ACTUALLY DID. It amazes me that you can't acknowledge this. Only you know your original intentions and I am not doubting you when you say you didn't mean to single him out, but the way you framed your sentence was NOT "generalized" at all. By your own word choices, you leave yourself open to that particular criticism.
As to what you consider kernels of wisdom as opposed to cat droppings is up to your own interpretation. Myself, I try to find something of worth in others' postings, even though some definitely require a thorough examination to discern the value. Sincerely, Karen
I don't understand why it is so important to you that I acknowledge I used only redeyedrider's examples in my discussion. I don't know how many ways I can say what I did was unintentional, apologize, and point out where I erred. But if you want an admission, fine. You win. I admit I used only redeyedrider's examples in my comment about 'silly statistics'. There you go, you can rest in peace knowing I admitted I did a terrible wrongdoing to a fellow blogger.
Now, can we abandon the litter box and move on?
By the way, I enjoyed your letter to the editor about people being labeled. It was excellent and to the point. Very well done.
ICRD - D58
“Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, there is a field. I will meet you there.” - Jalal ad-Din Rumi
Hello Bull153, It is actually not that important for me whether or not you acknowledge how your words specifically detailed redeyedrider's examples. I am only focusing on that because, contrary to your words in this last posting, you didn't seem to really accept what you did and appeared to be in denial by claiming your comments were "generalized", not specific. We need to recognize our mistakes, however trivial, so that our writing can improve. Defensiveness doesn't often lead to personal growth. When you finally admitted your unintended error in the last post, I didn't feel that "I win". It was less about me and "winning" and more about hoping you could recognize how you could strengthen your writing style and word choices so that your written comments were more closely aligned with your intentions. I admit that your "rest in peace" comment was somewhat unnerving, as it sounded like you were standing over my grave. Yikes! If you want to characterize your less than stellar phrasing and word selection as "a terrible wrongdoing to a fellow blogger", then so be it, although I don't really see the need for such exaggeration. Thank you for your critique of my "labels" letter. I tried to offer a counterpoint based on logical arguments rather than character assassination. I completely agree with your suggestion that we "move on". This discussion seems to have run its course. Sincerely, Karen
Just to self-edit for clarity, I mean the discussion on word choice versus intended meaning is no longer productive (in my opinion). The topic of gun control and the debate over reasonable restrictions on firearms still has much to explore for those interested in the subject. Sincerely, Karen
Unfortunately, it because difficult to have a rational debate or discussion when one side refuses to live in a fact based reality and responds with nothing but hyperbole and baseless paranoia.
There already are gun regulations - we can't buy fully automatic weapons for example. If that ban has merits, why suddenly does expanding that ban to include military style assault weapons of all firing types become unconstitutional or irrational?
Again, I wish there was intellectual consistency from the gun advocates. It would be worthwhile to have a meaningful discussion as opposed to chicken little cries and straw man nonsense.
Since the tragic events at Newtown, many Americans and legislators both at the state and federal levels have embraced tougher gun control laws. Yet months after the tragedy, few meaningful laws have been enacted and the debate continues. Could it be that even though there are loopholes to close and some common sense improvements to be made, Americans do not want knee jerk emotional reactions to sway any new legislation?
California, long known for both its violence by guns and strict gun laws, usually leads the nation in trend setting legislation. Women's rights, LGBT equality, and ecology friendly rules and regulations, have long been part and parcel of Sacramento politics. Why, then has California, with former Governor 'Moonbeam' and his liberal supporters back in charge, failed to make any significant impact on this new, and arguably most important, issue?
Sure, if you listen to those far right pro-gun advocates, California is poised to strike a major blow to the Second Amendment. They say there are hundreds of new laws that not only will strip you of the ability to purchase firearms, but will make it easy, and in some cases mandatory, for the local establishment to take away your guns. If you listen to the anti-gun proponents, Sacramento is being held hostage by the extreme right wingers who would rather die with a rifle in one hand and the Constitution in the other than to give up their right to own a military style weapon and all the ammunition in the world.
We need to step back, take a breath, and see what the facts are. Yes, there are a number of new laws pending in the California legislature concerning firearms. So what? There always have been and will always be potential laws that one side or another either fights desperately to pass or fights equally hard to block. What horrible or needed laws are they cooking up in the rotunda in Sacramento?
First, there are several new laws that took effect on January 1, 2013 that were generated before the Newtown tragedy. AB 1527 prohibits the open carry of rifles and shotguns in public places, adding them to the restrictions on handguns enacted some time ago. SB 1315 allows Los Angeles County to enact stricter ordinances regarding the manufacture, sale, possession, or use of replica guns (i.e. b-b guns) that a reasonable person might believe is an actual firearm. Finally, SB 1367 allows the carrying of a concealed firearm by a licensed individual while bow hunting deer in season, but prohibits using that firearm to take or attempt to take any deer. These seem to me like well thought out and reasonable laws.
Next, several laws were passed that take effect next year. AB 809 requires the registration of newly purchased long guns beginning Jan 1, 2014 just as handguns have been required to be registered in the past. AB 1559 provides that the Department of Justice (DOJ) will charge one fee for a single transaction on the same day for taking title or possession of any number of firearms. There seems to be little of controversy here either.
Then there are the laws passed and implemented last year that remain in effect. SB 610 standardizes the application process for obtaining a concealed carry permit (CCW) and removes the requirement to obtain liability insurance before obtaining a permit. SB 819 permits the DOJ to use dealer registration funds to pay for the enforcement of California firearm possession laws. AB 144 makes the open carry of an unloaded firearm illegal. Once more there seems little to object to here.
Of course, these are but a few of the 813 laws in general passed by the California Legislature for 2013. There are supposedly some twenty two pages of gun specific laws being proposed or debated in Sacramento. Allegedly these laws if passed will restrict ammunition magazines to seven bullets and add to the already huge list of 'assault weapons' banned in California.
So, what additional bills are being submitted and proposed by those we elected to represent our will?
--- AB 48 - Mandates the reporting of ammunition sales, requires licensing of ammo dealers, and establishes further controls on bullet sales similar to current controls on gun sales.
--- AB 169 - People exempted from restrictions on purchasing guns deemed "unsafe" by the California DOJ would be banned from selling or transferring ownership of those guns to anyone who is not also exempt.
--- AB 170 - Limits the issuance of permits for assault weapons and machine guns to individuals only. No more permits for organizations, such as corporations and other associations.
--- AB 174 - Aims to end the grandfathering of existing weapons which are now illegal to purchase but are still legal to possess.
--- AB 187 - Places a tax on the sale of bullets in California with proceeds going to a "high crime prevention fund" that targets jurisdictions with high crime rates.
Then there are these proposals:
--- Trafficking - Bans those involved in gun or ammo trafficking from possessing guns or bullets for 10 years.
--- Gun Safety - Tightens gun safety laws currently in place to "protect children" and adds a safe storage requirement when a person banned from gun possession is in the home. Allows the DOJ to extend the waiting period when "necessary" for background checks.
--- Bullet Tax - Places a $0.05 tax on the sale of bullets with proceeds going to the screening of children in grades 1- 3 for any sort of "mental illness."
--- Pension Fund Divestment - Requires CalPERS and CalSTRS to divest pension fund investments from companies that manufacture, sell, distribute or market guns or bullets and stop future investments in such companies.
On the face of these, there is little that appears objectionable. Before I would take a stand for or against these bills and proposals, I'd want to see the full scope of the legislation. Take AB 174 that aims to end the grandfathering of existing weapons. How exactly is that going to work and what will the law accomplish? Or the proposal that a sales tax goes for screening children 6-9 years old for mental illness. Mental health is certainly an issue of importance in gun control, but when was the last time a nine year old plotted a mass shooting with an assault weapon?
We have to decide on several things. If gun control is a strictly federal issue under the 2nd Amendment, why does each state have their own laws regarding sales, possession, and use of firearms? What proposed and existing gun laws at the federal and state levels actually make us safer and which are designed to limit personal freedom? How does the Constitutionality of gun legislation relate to the Constitutionality of other laws?
This is a huge issue affecting millions. We have to get it right and there are no simple answers or solutions. Not everyone will be happy and satisfied regardless of the outcome. There may not be winners or losers here. It may come down to the most acceptable terms and solutions versus the least acceptable ones.
I don't know, if I had all the answers I would have run for president myself. Since I don't, it is up to all of us to make decisions and try to in_fluence our legislators in Sacramento and Washington to do the right thing - the safe thing - the logical thing. It will take time to find out just exactly what that is.
ICRD - D61
"Whatever the immediate gains and losses, the dangers to our safety arising from political suppression are always greater than the dangers to the safety resulting from political freedom. Suppression is always foolish. Freedom is always wise." - Alexander Meiklejohn
"An action doesn't have to be wrong just because it is not logical. It doesn't have to be right just because it has its logic." - Lion Feuchtwanger
Hello Bull153, Thank you for the lengthy, well-reasoned posts. You have raised many important issues and valid points. The part that best sums up, in my opinion, the gist of your posts is when you write, "We need to step back, take a breath, and see what the facts are." Each proposed or recently passed law should be scrutinized and re-evaluated a certain time after being enacted, in terms of effectiveness of intended purpose. Both ineffective and effective laws should be examined and refined, if necessary. Enforcement of said laws is also key.
I don't know why that particular age group (first through third graders) is being singled out (I was going to write "targeted", but with the recent tragedies, that word connotes more than I want it to). Perhaps those who are pushing for that law believe early intervention, in terms of mental health issues, has the best chance of identifying troubling mental illness symptoms and addressing them. Or perhaps screening is for depression, which, sad to say, can even affect children. Depression and access to firearms in household with guns (where weapons aren't properly secured) can be a deadly combination. But that is all purely speculation on my part. These laws bear further researching, as you suggest. It is important to look at gun laws objectively from both sides, and not let pure emotion or hysteria drive EITHER direction. If we can stop dehumanizing those who think differently about this issue than we do, whatever our perspective may be, we can start to reach some sort of reasonable consensus. Sincerely, Karen
I appreciate your kind comments, thanks. It seems we both agree that now is not the time for rapid, knee-jerk, emotional actions than may cause more harm than good. All laws need to be re-evaluated periodically, this will prevent laws remaining on the books that make it illegal to walk your duck downtown on Sunday, for example. Enforcement of valid, well written, and effective laws IS key, without a doubt.
There is no doubt that children need to be cared for and protected from dangers like firearms, illnesses, and predators. Like you, I am not certain what the reasoning is to focus on 1st through 3rd grade students for mental health screening. I am sure there are children of that age that suffer from mental health issues like depression. I am not sure how that correlates so closely to protection from firearms.
Most states, like California, already have legal protections in place to prevent juveniles from accessing firearms. Just as you lock dangerous chemicals away and teach your kids the dangers of hot stoves and boiling water, firearms must be rendered safe around children. Trigger locks, locked cabinets, and gun safes are all available to prevent tragedy. Of course, they are useless if not used.
I would rather see such screening done for older kids who are more likely to obtain a gun for tragic outcomes like suicide or retaliation. There are a number of cases where young kids have been caught with guns at school for 'protection', but the danger from suicide is much greater as the juvenile ages. I see few 6-9 year olds killing themselves deliberately.
This is all a good reason why all legislation needs to be viewed, discussed, debated, reevaluated, and then looked at again. In my opinion, poor confusing and ineffective legislation is worse than no legislation at all.
ICRD - D61
“We spend the first twelve months of our children's lives teaching them to walk and talk and the next twelve years telling them to sit down and shut up.” - Phyllis Diller
“Nobody has a more sacred obligation to obey the law than those who make the law” - Sophocles
Your post contains information that is much needed,and you provided details and links to support them.
I find it very interesting the laws that were already in the works before the tragedy at Newtown even happened , and wonder how many people like myself didn't even know about them.
Thanks again for the info...
Hello rozemist, I just noticed your "send message" to me, a couple of days ago. I always forget about that feature of this forum. I have sent you a reply. Thanks. Sincerely, Karen
you know I don't always check that either, I often dont see the message alert as well, so you're not the only one who forgets.
I'll check now
You are quite welcome. Would you not agree that it is much better to debate and discuss a topic of interest and controversy with facts and information instead of insults and false accusations?
Gun control and the tragic events involving misuse of firearms will always be an emotional discussion regardless of what side of the issue one takes.
It's a shame there are those who prefer character assassination and 'nonsense' over reasoned and rational debate.
ICRD - D61
“Insults should be written in sand, compliments should be carved in stone” - Arab Proverb
"There is no nonsense so gross that society will not, at some time, make a doctrine of it and defend it with every weapon of communal stupidity." - Robertson Davies
Hello Bull153, Hopefully, since you and crimeriddendump BOTH seem to agree that reasoned and rational debate and meaningful discussion is preferable to "hyperbole", "chicken little cries and straw man nonsense", "character assassination", "insults," and "false accusations", we will see less heated exchanges between you two and more of a presentation of well thought out points, supported with provided sources. It is WAY past time to leave the personal attacks out of this forum. Although some may enjoy all the verbal sparring, I prefer the intellectual challenges that the combat of ideas and opinions provides, rather than just a mutual personal needling. The latter takes much less effort on the part of those who are posting and offers much less intellectual stimulation for readers. Sincerely, Karen
Let me assure you, there have been no heated exchanges between Hoffman and I for the past 61 days. Nor do I intend that there will be any in the future. But I reserve the right to make a calm and sensible statement about character assassination, insults, and nonsense when I am targeted.
I don't enjoy verbal sparring, but I will not let my input be degraded by default. I intend to continue my presentations with well thought out points and substantiation from viable sources.
It strikes me as funny (well, not really) that after I offer one reasoned comment you deem it necessary to bring 'personal needling' to the attention of those commenting, when in this blog alone crimeriddendump has on at least ten occasions 'needled' others with no factual basis nor provocation.
If your desire is really intellectual stimulation as well as reasoned and rational debate, perhaps you should direct your efforts more to the one creating the problem rather than the one responding to it in a mature and sensible manner.
ICRD - D61
“Fairness is what justice really is.” - Potter Stewart
“The greatest challenge to any thinker is stating the problem in a way that will allow a solution” - Bertrand Russell
A bit hypocritical of you writing about wanting intellectual stimulation while spending the majority of your post attempting to attack and insult quite contrary to what you claim to want.
If the above and your cat bowel movement comments and tales of threatening anyone that comes to your door with gun violence, is in your mind "mature and sensible" you have a VERY distorted view of reality.
Words matter Bull153. I look forward to the day when you actually walk that walk.
Hello Bull153 and crimeriddendump, I really didn't have high hopes that EITHER of you would recognize and ADDRESS your OWN part in your "dysfunctional dance". I just think it is funny how BOTH of you CLAIM to want rational discussion and reasoned debate, which BOTH of you are quite capable of and have actually displayed ON OCCASION, but still can't resist or break away from the little jabs at one another. (Bull153, your cat litter reference was not exactly the highlight of a mature, thought-provoking discussion and was more current than 60 days ago. Crimeriddendump, your often excellent points are obcured by your continual personal digs at Bull153.) Crimeriddendump's are more outright and obvious, while Bull153's are more in a passive/aggressive mode. I should have addressed my previous post to BOTH crimeriddendump and Bull153, since that post was directed to EACH of them. Hopefully, this post will clarify my intentions, although I doubt that either one will accept true responsibility for their own words and actions, rather than just give lip service to reform or directing attention to the faults and flaws of the other. Sincerely, Karen
Really, Karen? If you didn't have any high hopes regarding what you call our 'dysfunctional dance', why on earth did you even bring it up?
I was quite content with our discussion of the new laws in California and what I felt was the lynchpin of the discussion. I have been ignoring directly Hoffman for the past 60+ days yet defending myself occasionally when needed, and I get no understanding or credit. Yet Hoffman is permitted to continue his daily jibes and insults while you've been ignoring his behavior. Can you say 'double standard'?
Listen, I give up. I really do. If you consider my comment regarding kernels in the litter box a "heated exchange" then I feel sorry for you. You have your own complicity to deal with in this whole matter.
I am what I am, and I will continue to try to stay on topic while Hoffman continues with his crap. I just don't understand how you can get upset with my litter box comment while refusing to challenge Hoffman's blatant lies (I have never THREATENED anyone who came to my door with gun violence, Hoffman is simply a liar).
I'm tired, really tired, of your sense of fairness and equality. Maybe you should try to walk the walk after you talk the talk. Meanwhile, I am going to move on, there is nothing to be gained by pursuing this aspect in what was becoming a very good discussion of the main topic - Gun control and gun violence.
ICRD - D62
“Man is a rational animal who always loses his temper when he is called upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason.” - Oscar Wilde
“When I disagree with a rational man, I let reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will; one of us will win, but both will profit.” - Ayn Rand
If you think that Bull153 and crimeriddendump are going to give up on their fued you are deluded. They have been at it for so long, all they have is their dislike for each other.
Hello DLangdon, I understand your point. I did have hope (however slim) that since BOTH crimeriddendump and Bull153 were calling for reasoned and rational debate and meaningful discussion that they might actually MEAN it.I guess that was "delusional" on my part, as evidenced by the defensive, blame the other guy, it's not my fault, I'm only standing up for myself, you are not being fair, etc. etc. etc. excuses provided in Bull153's latest post. Sinceely, Karen
"... all they have is their dislike for each other." So, Dan - you don't find anything of interest or value in my blog or many of my comments above?
I guess since two of the most respected members of this blog are more concerned with 'feuds' than discussing the topic of the blog, I am truly wasting my efforts in trying to be productive.
If the focus is bad behavior, perceived unfairness, and name calling, I've been deluded in believing that debating gun control, our current fiscal situation, and the disastrous effects of Obamacare were topics more worthy of discussion.
Forgive me, I have been so wrong. Perhaps it really is time for me to stop contributing anything since I have so little of worth to contribute.
ICRD - D62
“It is easier to stay out than get out.” - Mark Twain
“Action speaks louder than words but not nearly as often” - Mark Twain
As before, it would be refreshing if Bull153 actually said what he ment. How many times is this now he has played the whole melodramatic "take my ball and go home" routine now? The whole act is really getting old.
Many have tried to meet Bull153 in the middle on many issues. Take here with gun control, most agree that enforcing existing regulations is crucial, most agree we need more background checks to prevent criminals and/or people without firm grips on reality from obtaining and owning guns and keeping accurate registration records for all guns. Also, pretty much everyone agrees that no one coming by and taking guns.
However, it amazes me that people like Bull153 demand compromise from other while himself refusing to take any steps toward that same compromise and simply ACKNOWLEDGE FACTS that guns in the home are statistically more likely to harm family members than intruders and that outright sales bans on some types of guns is prudent. I fail to see what the point is in having a conversation with such obstinance in refusing to "believe" the facts unless the directly support one's biased predispositions.
As I have said many times before, Bull153 could be a good poster if he just stopped with the HYPOCRISY and MELODRAMA!
And as I've come to realize " finally"there is always atleast one person who is unreachable, unteachable ,doesn't hear, doesn't see and never takes responsibility for anything .
They are easily recognized as they like to pretend they're never wrong!
It is a shame that the readers of the Manteca Bulletin are so comfortable with hypocrisy, double talk and outright lies or this problem would have resolved itself long, long ago.
It's really a shame that ONE poster can't act responsible, know their wrong and move on
That is how "the problem " gets resolved.
It's so simple and easily accomplished but the sad part is one would rather continue being comfortable in believing they are RIGHT and everyone else is WRONG.
Like I said, too bad some are so accepting of hypocrisy, double talk and outright lies.
So let me get this straight rozemist; Someone CONSTANTLY lies, double talks and indulges in outright hypocrisy labeled as "sarcasm" and that is perfectly OK with you? But, someone trying to eliminate hypocrisy, lies and bigotry is WRONG???
Seems completely backward if you ask me. But hen again, this is Manteca we are talking about and there is allot of backwardness.
Hello crimeriddendump, Do you REALLY believe that by insulting and generalizing about Manteca and its citizens that you are underscoring your point? For me, it is just the OPPOSITE - you weaken your position with absurd and baseless characterizations. On what criteria do you make your claims - reactions to the Bulletin or this forum? The Bulletin reaches only a fraction of Manteca citizens and this forum has only about a dozen regular participants and contributors. Of these dozen or so participants, Bull153 has been taken to task for his misuse of sarcasm and double standards by you, LarryBaca, CapitalistsNightmare, The Sovereign, and myself, among others. That is a pretty decent percentage, in my opinion, of those who are willing to debate or refute attitudes, opinions, or words that we find questionable or outright wrong. Even rozemist has occasionally disagreed or rebuked Bull153. I notice that you have been very disrespectful to her in the past. Instead of simply stating the reasons why you disagree with her, you have questioned or attacked her moral character and made unsupported genralizations, much as you have done here to Manteca as a whole. For a person of your obvious intelligence and capabilities that is very badly done. Sincerely, Karen Sincerely, Karen
First, attacking someone for being steadfast against ALL hypocrisy, yet seemingly having no problem with actual hypocrisy is morally backward. That is a basic fact I think anyone can agree with. Feel free to tell me if this is somehow not accurate. What it would seem is you are just being biased since your friend is involved.
Second, I base my assertion on actual DATA! Frank's point of view seems to be supported by roughly 65% - 70% of Manteca voters. Look at the results of the 2012 ELECTION http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epol... if you want to see the actual facts regarding how widespread Frank's brand of "thinking" really is in Manteca. Out of curi-osity, what data are you basing your conter argument on?
Hello crimeriddendump, I do not believe it is "biased" to defend someone, whether forum friend or stranger, from unjustified personal attacks. You have unfairly assumed that, because those of us on this forum who, unlike you, do not have a personal grudge match going with Bull153, we turn a blind eye to the flaws in the logic of his arguments, or don't challenge his faulty assertions or offer rebuttals to his opinions. That is just not true or paraphrasing your words, "based in reality". Just because we don't join in with your CONSTANT refrain of "Bull is a hypocrite", doesn't mean we can't recognize when he is using a double standard or skewed arguments. I have challenged him on this just recently (about a post from redeyedrider), and no, he doesn't take well to the criticism. However, for YOU to extrapolate what YOU feel is an insufficient challenge to Bull153 on this specific forum to generalize about Manteca as a whole IS just as wrong as any perceived hypocrisy. Besides, you know as well as I (and I've already pointed it out) how few people participate on this forum or write blogs. Are you going to condemn ALL Bulletin readers ("so comfortable with hypocrisy, double talk and outright lies") for failing to contribute on this forum? That is their CHOICE and doesn't reflect their attitude towards the things you mentioned at all, of which they could be blissfully unaware since they may not even be reading any of these blogs and comments.
Second, we were discussing Bull153 on this thread and you have suddenly thrown Frank Aquila into the mix. Switching gears here to accommodate you, even if 65% of Mantecans voted Republican in 2012, that does not automatically mean that they give Aquila or his extreme views actual credence or believe that he truly represents their party. Remember, his group, of which he is president, was created by HIM and I don't think is even officially sanctioned by the Republican platform! Don't you recall the Tea Party article awhile back where he basically repudiated the Republican party and threw it under the bus to curry favor with Tea Party supporters? As to MY data, I already gave you the example which I based on this forum's estimated numbers and actual written responses. Sincerely, Karen
You feel attacked everytime your disagreed with
but you don't have a problem with anyone else who's at the end of your wrath and are subjected to your insults how well I know this since I've been on the receiving end.
Karen's NOT being biased, it's the same Always she like others dare to not agree and they are suddenly biased, morally backwards, ok and accepting of hypocrisy (theres a bunch of other labels you pin on others did I just about get the best one's)
"fact anyone can agree with " speak for yourself please, what's really backward is the only person you seem to be able to agree with on anything is you. As I said unreachable...
People don't have to be told over and over again of how they don't fit into the idea of how YOU think they should be, telling others a dozen or more times a day that they're morally backwards isn't going to make your argument credible, or make for any rational discussion it only serves to push someone away that might
consider discussing issues with you if you could only slightly attempt a "reasonable, and respectful approach"
I think for me I've grown so frustrated with this that I will just ignore when you become rude, I've given the advice of ignoring to others when an impasse is obvious, you and I are there now
I'm going to take my OWN advice.
Now you are just being rude and engaging in the very type of personal attacks you say you are against. "he only person you seem to be able to agree with on anything is you" That is HARDLY true.
And if you feel attacking someone for being offended by hypocrisy while seemingly encouraging hypocrisy is not backward, I feel sorry for you.
I have not characterized Manteca "as a whole" I have generalized it based on actual statistics and facts. The SAD fat is there are far too many that subscribe to the Frank Aquila/Sean Hannity skewed view of reality. Bull153 is more or less the forms embodiment of that extremist far-right mentality. Saying Manteca is a "Tea Party City" is quite accurate based on most data available. Further, it is also a FACT that Manteca has one of the lowest literacy rates in both California and the United States as whole. Put two-and-two together.
Now, I bring this up because clearly Bull153 is toeing that exact same Tea-Party line. He is more or less using exact wordings from NRA press releases in his comments. It's not even worth having a discussion with these people as it is not getting to any real social consensus when one side is just repeating repaired statements and not thinking about anything. I mean look how all the sudden they all started talking about hammers. Sean Hannity or Rush say "jump" and these folks say "JUMP JUMP JUMP JUMP!!!"
Oh well. If Manteca is a place where "fact anyone can agree with" are attacked and argued, I think it's fair to say Manteca is backward.
Hello crimeriddendump, How can you think it "fair" to say that Manteca is "backward" while at the same time claiming you aren't characterizing Manteca "as a whole"? You ARE generalizing Manteca and treating it as a whole, as if EVERYONE living here is whatever negative label you care to slap on us, whether or not you are using supposed "statistics and facts". Who exactly has brought up hammers on this forum - one or two people? Do you really consider THAT number as reinforcing your claim that "they all started talking about hammers"? They all? I don't see hammer discussions as being rampant on these blogs. The funny thing is that even though you and Bull153 have very real ideological differences on the surface, your behavior is much the same - an inability to truly recognize and ACKNOWLEDGE your own flaws, an incredible defensiveness to ANYONE who offers a valid criticism of you, and a stubborn insistence that, above all others, YOU are right. (Those observations apply to each of you). That rarefied air you breathe unfortunately doesn't leave much oxygen for an informed productive discussion. I am sorry to realize this, because I DID feel that you had insights of value to contribute, but all the other quirks are just getting too off-putting and make it difficult for me to see the worth in continuing the debate. It seems we are at an impasse and can, at best, simply agree to disagree. Sincerely,Karen
I acknowledge that my behavior in the past has been unacceptable, and even recently we have had our discussions on hammers, facts, and ideological differences. I've been honestly trying to clean up my act.
The current pile of manure Hoffman is spreading is all his. I've stayed out of it and I don't appreciate being lumped in with his latest garbage when I've been making an effort to improve.
Kindly leave me out of the line of fire until I do something that places me on the target range as well. Thanks...
ICRD - D63
“Ideological differences are no excuse for rudeness” - Judith S. Marin
“A man's character may be learned from the adjectives which he habitually uses in conversation” - Mark Twain
I have no idea what you are talking about anymore. What have I done besides point out the rampant hypocrisy, half truths and outright lies told by Bull153.
How exactly is it "wrong" again to be offended by lies and hypocrisy?? What I'm gathering is that you/rozemist simply don't care and would rather attack me than deal with the lies and hypocrisy directly. That is just sad.
Frankly, I think Manteca is backward because the people who COULD make a difference seem to not care enough to do anything. Just like MUSD that was railroaded into paying for a charter school no one wanted simply because they lacked the fortitude to fight it while at the same time having one of the lowest school aptitude scores in the state and lowest rates of literacy. Just like SSJID that feels it is OK to POSION Manteca water with arsenic. Just like the MPD that kills on the street and is met with applause rather than horror. Just like the Manteca City Council that syphon money from schools and public safety to fund sweetheart deals for construction projects no one wants and for DECIMATING the value of existing homes.
None of that is backward to you? All that is A.OK?? I haven't even listed the instances of ideological backwardness.
P.S. It's a bit hypocritical how you and rozemist chide me for harping on about Bull153's hypocrisy when now, you two are more or less mirroring my attitude toward Bull153. Odd that it is "stubborn insistence" or "rarefied air" when it comes from me, yet you and rozemist have no problem dishing out the same "hot air" yourselves.
Since I'm included in crd's last comment I'll tell you how I intend on dealing with it. I plan on completely ignoring ALL future comments that he directs my way, it will be hard because he goes to great lengths to get reactions, history has shown what he's capable of once he becomes "displeased " with any forum member.I know you will find your own way to deal with him and you will do it well, but for me I feel some people thrive on discourse, will seek it out and create it as it suits them ,no amount of attempted reasoning can change such a persons behavior.
Only the person themselves.
I prefer to participate in this forum on issues that are constructive and interesting and not waste anymore of my time on NONSENSE with crd.
Time is too valuable.Life is too short.
Never thought I would see a post just about as HYPOCRITICAL as a post from Bull153. You are more or less doing the EXACT SAME THING YOU CHIDE ME FOR IN YOUR OWN POST!!!
Seems with every post you act more and more like Bull153. Have you ever said you were going to ignore Bull153's hypocrisy? NO! Every say you were going to ignore the lies? NO! You have reserved that for me, a person who's only transgression is "harping on about it???" Support the hypocrite, shun the person who is against hypocrisy. Makes sense in a backward world I guess ...
Ironic how KarenPearsall said calling people in Manteca supporters of hypocrisy was wrong, yet, rozemist, you here gives yet another example of of that is the sad reality of Manteca.
P.S. Unlike Bull153, I'm not pandering for some popularity contest. I'll still be against ALL HYPOCRISY whether you care or don't. I do think it is sad that you feel my vigilance against hypocrisy is more wrong than actual hypocrisy and lies.
P.P.S. Maybe I should just say I was being "sarcastic" and you and KarenPearsall would get a good laugh and just carry on like nothing happened???
Hello crimeriddendump, I find it perfectly acceptable for you to voice your OPINION on who you think in this forum is being hypocritical. What I find objectionable is you taking a specific instance (in this case your disagreement with rozemist or me) and blowing that all out of proportion by accusing ALL of Manteca of sharing our so-called (at least in your eyes) faults. That is illogical. Mr. Spock would have a field day with you. If it were possible for you to objectively distance yourself from the situation (I know that is a hard thing to do) and go back and re-read yours and Bull153's last postings to me, perhaps you could recognize how BOTH responses illustrate and reinforce my point about your mirrored attitudes of "I'm not at fault, the other guy is the problem". But perhaps that is beyond you. In any case, I am tired of your self-proclaimed "one man stand" against hypocrisy. There are other posters, namely LarryBaca, TheSovereign, and Capitalists_Nightmare to mention a few, who take on hypocrisy on a regular basis. Honestly, your self-righteousness does nothing to advance your assertions. But what has started out for me to be constructive criticism genuinely meant to improve this forum, has degraded into an impossible task of trying to get either you or Bull153 to modify unproductive behavior by challenging your actual words. It seems like we are trapped in a vicious spiral of criticisms that are devolving into a worthless "spat". Let's just stop. Agreed? Sincerely, Karen
Once more I am asking politely to leave me out of your current battle with Hoffman. You are certainly entitled to your opinion of what my attitude may or may not be. I don't happen to share it and have been working on improving my conduct and behavior.
Please, continue to hold me accountable for my words and actions, but quit trying to compare me to Hoffman. In the past we may have mirrored each other's bad behavior. That isn't true anymore and I am going to hold you just as accountable as anyone for your misstatements.
Regarding Hoffman, one of us is working to be an acceptable blogger, the other doesn't give a damn. Feel free to opine on which is which.
ICRD - D64
"Fairness is not an attitude. It's a professional skill that must be developed and exercised." - Brit Hume
"I think perfect objectivity is an unrealistic goal; fairness, however, is not." - Michael Pollan
So you are saying that being against hypocrisy is self-righteousness??? Your saying that simply because we say "stop hypocrisy" once and anything more is a far worse offense then lies or actual hypocrisy???
Are you also saying that Manteca is not dominated politically by the Tea-Party/extreme conservatives??
I honestly don't follow your thinking and would appreciate some elaboration. If not here in the public forum then send a direct message.
Hello Bull153, I fully acknowledge that you have the best INTENTIONS of improving your on-line contributions. However it is in the execution of that worthy intention where you sometimes stumble. You claim that you are no longer "mirroring" crimeridddendump's bad behavior, yet your ACTUAL words and the disrespect in your posts belie this. You refer to him by another disputed screen name, you claim he is "spreading a pile of manure" (paraphrased) and that he contributes "garbage". Sorry, but such word choices do not jive with your stated goal of self-improvement and elevating the forum. That is how you leave yourself open to charges of "hypocrisy". (Please, let's not go down that road.) If we really want to set an example, then we have to personally live up to it. You are not quite there yet, although I do appreciate your efforts. Also, I don't consider myself in a "battle" with crimeriddendump, as I have no feelings of personal animosity towards him. I merely disagree with some of his tactics and am willing to point those tactics out, much as I have done with you. BOTH of you seem reluctant to truly embrace change, but that is your choice. I don't claim to be infallible in my OPINION, so you, as well as other forum participants, are free to disagree with me. Sincerely, Karen
I was going to say it first, but, I waited for you. Thanks for the acknowledgement of the obvious. One more thing, I have NEVER used foul language here and I'm not sure why the Bulletin bans some very basic and everyday common words while allowing actual foul language to be posted. I don't understand it.
As to this actual blog topic; we can agree limiting access to guns though expanded background checks is proper. Now, if we could just have the simple acknowledgment of the facts from the other side that 1) some guns and gun accessories should not be sold to the public and 2) a gun in the home is statistically proven to be more likely to harm a family member than an intruder, then we might be getting somewhere.
I think it is safe to say that at time, all of us stumble. It is what one does after the stumble that defines that person. I've stumbled and I try to recover and be better. It's your opinion I still have some work to do, fine.
There is NO dispute over Hoffman's identity. There is quite a bit of empirical evidence to substantiate that Hoffman continues to haunt these forums. As they say, a Hoffman by any other name is still a Hoffman. Even he refuses to directly deny it, always coming up with some round about verbiage that doesn't quite meet the definition of a denial. The Germans say 'Machts nichs' - doesn't matter. I agree. Hoffman was the name he used when first we clashed. I have suffered through twenty or more false identities since - but it is always Hoffman, and Hoffman it shall be.
I'm sorry you don't appreciate my word choices. Sometime I don't pay particular attention to my wording and go with what I am feeling at the time. My bad. It is my intent to be factual, and being from the law enforcement community, often what is accurate to a cop is not appreciated by a lay person. Manure, garbage, refuse, trash, falsehood, lies - they all reflect my opinion of the material Hoffman presents in his blogs.
My choice of the word 'battle' to describe your interaction with crimeriddendump was from my perspective, having battled him for years. I apologize for that choice, and will describe it as your 'disagreement' with him from now on.
I believe we agree on my intent, if not in my semantics. Our perspectives are skewed by our own life experiences. I do wish I could be the blogger that you and rozemist are. I may never get there, but I am not going to quit trying.
ICRD - D64
“Opinion is the medium between knowledge and ignorance.” - Plato
“If you don't like my opinion of you, you can always improve” - Ashleigh Brilliant
Much like "sarcasm." you seem to have a different definition of the words "empirical" and "factual." You stance here is reminiscent of the police officer in NYC that lied under oath invented his own "factual" recollections and "empirical" evidence that all turned out to be figments of his own imagination.
Your baseless opinions are not the same as empirical evidence. How you seem to keep insisting that it to be so is completely beyond me.
OK, Larry... or Sov... or someone (except Hoffman)...help! Somebody who is smarter than I am, please explain what those who oppose legal gun ownership and push harsh, unnecessary regulations are trying to accomplish here.
"Bill would require anger management course to buy ammo"
How is this latest insanity supposed to prevent tragedies like Sandy Hook and Tucson from occurring? You folks who criticize me for wanting to own rifles with magazines and folding stocks, explain this nonsense - please.
This bill introduced in Florida by state Senator Aubrey Gibson, and applicable only in Florida, is just the thing that opponents of lawful gun ownership would love to see nationwide. The only problem - it doesn't do a darn thing to make our lives safer.
Just on the surface, one could simply go out of state or via the internet to purchase ammo. The course, for $20.00, could be taken on line. Proof can easily be falsified electronically. The 'Certificate of Managed Anger' is valid for ten years - Ten Years! If you don't take the course, the bill requires a three day waiting period to buy a gun or ammo. In California there is a ten day waiting period to purchase a firearm, and you don't need to take any classes. The wording is unclear, in that you cannot purchase ammo (for three days) without the class. So, if I am mad and don't want to take the course, I only have to wait three days (to let the anger build), then I can go get the ammo now that I am really mad at somebody, and even more angry because I had to wait three whole days to buy bullets... Insane!
I can appreciate the desire to find solutions to the problem of gun violence, I do. This ain't it! "Senator Gibson says she is helping write another bill involving mental health and guns." If it makes as much sense as this one, good luck, Senator!
ICRD - D68
“When angry, count to four. When very angry, swear.” - Mark Twain
“When anger rises, think of the consequences” - Confucius
It amazes me that you say you are for gun regulations, but, with every gun regulation that is presented, you are IMMEDIATELY against it. Just makes it seem that your claims to want less violence and more gun regulations completely disingenuous. What gun regulations are you actually for? Name one pending piece of legislation you actually support.
On a similar note, California is now talking about confiscating guns from criminals and the mentally ill. People that fund it OK to threaten door-to-door sales people with gun violence might want to take note ...
Anger Management Program ONLINE and only 2 hours of it as well ,that's a new one .
Any sort of anger management program needs to be carried out professionally and with a qualified specialist that "specializes in anger management"
This solves nothing,what it does is detract from the real issue.
I can at anytime go online and fill out some sort of questionnaire regarding how I would handle my anger in certain situations , but that doesn't mean if I get them ALL right I'm A-Ok and might not flip out when I'm in a real time situation that will confront my anger.And the opposite is true as well I might miss many of the questions and then if I had an event in life that could cause me to rage I might respond with NO anger at all.
Some sort of "get your certificate" online isn't a true indicator of what might or might not go wrong.
I'd like to know who this face to face person would be if a person chose to do the in person program,would it be a licensed and professional psychologist?
Owning a gun doesn't mean you're susceptible to fits of rage .
And honesty is a question as well, people may not even be truthful when they answer the questionnaire they may say whatever they think they need to in order to get the certificate .
Thank you. I knew I couldn't be the only one who saw how ridiculous and totally worthless this piece of proposed legislation is. I am not against gun regulations, I am only those that do NOTHING to stop gun violence. Now, laws that close loopholes, keep dangerous people away from guns, and actually add to public safety I support. This is just typical of a liberal's knee-jerk attempt to pass some law so it will appear she cares and is concerned. Typical politician - long on policy, short on results.
There is so much wrong with this that you have identified, maybe the good people of Florida will also see it and make sure Senator Gibson gets the mesage.
There is no way electronic verification of anger management should even be considered. The whole proposed law is asinine... it is like selling a bottle of wine to an adult, then requiring they attend two AA meetings before the can get a corkscrew...
ICRD - D68
“Politics is the art of postponing decisions until they are no longer relevant.” - Henri Queuille
“It is ridiculous for any man to criticize the works of another if he has not distinguished himself by his own performances” - Joseph Addison
Seems fairly obtuse to call a law a failure before it is finalized, let alone implemented.
Also the bottle of wine/corkscrew analogy is not even close to accurately describing this situation. There are many ways to open a bottle without a corkscrew. There is no way to fire a gun without bullets.
A shame some people can only focus on straw man arguments and defeatist attitudes rather than actually trying to help protect people from gun violence. The whole attitude just seems so selfish and void of any empathy whatsoever.
Seen something in the paper this morning about someplace, I think it was in Maine, that wanted to mandate gun ownership for everyone in town.
Gun nuts love that one....
You have declared in the past that I am a gun nut. Even if true, I still DON'T ",,,love that one." It is just as ridiculous to mandate legal gun ownership as it is to prohibit it.
Mandatory Gun Ownership Provisions Under Consideration In Communities Across The Country
California Gun Control: First Of 30 Post-Sandy Hook Bills Approved By State Legislature
Gun Ownership and Use in America
Mental illness does not prohibit gun ownership in Maryland
In just these four articles it is blatantly clear that there is no consensus of what is legal, is best, and is safe. Much more needs to be examined and discussed before you can declare "Gun nuts love that one..." or any other one, for that matter. Get real, Larry...
ICRD - D69
“Warning: the Internet may contain traces of nuts” - Unknown
“Education is the path from cocky ignorance to miserable uncertainty.” - Mark Twain
With California's new law, you might want to think next time before pulling a gun out on a door-to-door sales person. They might get you put on a list to have your guns taken away!!
Who knows, even if your just using an airsoft gun with a fake bayonet, might get that taken away too!
Hello Bull153, In your post to LarryBaca, you write that even if you were a self-proclaimed "gun nut" you do not support mandatory gun ownership which you describe as "just as ridiculous" as laws seeking to prohibit firearms. I can completely see your position - UP TO A POINT. You write, "Much more needs to be examined and discussed before you can declare "Gun nuts love that one..." or any other one, for that matter". Agreed. Where you lose me is going on to condescendingly comment, "Get real, Larry..." How is he any less "real" than you? In your previous posts you claim, "This bill introduced in Florida by state Senator Aubrey Gibson and applicable only in Florida, is just the thing that opponents of lawful gun ownership would love to see nationwide" and later, "This is just typical of a liberal's knee-jerk attempt to pass some law so it appears she cares and is concerned". So LarryBaca is clearly WRONG to make assumptions and generalizations about so-called "gun nuts" when the situation he outlined obviously needs further examination and discussion, but you don't hold yourself to the SAME STANDARDS. YOU have generalized here about "liberals", you have made demeaning and derogatory assumptions about Senator Gibson's character and motives when you don't even KNOW her, and you have claimed, in a mirror image of Larry's tactic, (or actually his was a mirror image of your's, since YOU posted first) that "opponents of lawful gun ownership" would love to see the PROPOSED Florida bill "passed nationwide". So how is what YOU wrote really any different in terms of unsupported opinion, undocumented assumptions and extreme generalization, than what you take LarryBaca to task for? I agree with your general assertion that this proposed bill will probably not be effective and should be either greatly refined or scrapped, but when you take others to task for tactics that you have just BLATANTLY demonstrated yourself, then you damage your credibility and obscure the VALID points that you do make. BOTH gun opponent extremists and gun proponent extremists need to dial back their fears and emotions and look at the best possible solutions to mitigate gun violence and especially the murdering of children and other innocent victims from firearm usage. Pointng the finger of blame at one side while engaging in the same misguided tactics is NOT the way to accomplish this. Knowing Larry A LITTLE BIT, I suspect his remark COULD have been deliberately meant to tweak you a bit by showing the flip side of what you are doing. But I don't really know his true intentions, as I hope you can admit about the Senator's thought processes (since you are not even familiar with her AT ALL, up to this point) in the instance you mentioned. Sincerely, Karen
The comment "Get real, Larry." was a condemnation directed to him that I would support anything involving mandatory gun ownership when after all of my past comments on guns, gun ownership, and safety disprove that assertion. It was his attempt to provoke me, and my response was intended to let him know I didn't bite.
Larry was being deliberately disingenuous with his statement that gun nuts would love mandatory gun ownership laws when he also knows that legitimate legal gun owners for the most part do not support mandatory ownership. I think he was simply trying to provoke me as he has on numerous other occasions when I clearly explain a point and he continues to ignore what I say with additional ridiculous assertions.
Senator Gibson is a typical politician. I don't know her but I know politics and politicians. How many politicians do you know? How many opinions have you rendered without knowing the politician you are referring to? Yes, I generalized. Politicians, by and large and based on their actions (and inactions), have demonstrated they are not concerned with their constituencies but with their positions. We could hold an entire discussion on just how honest and effective politicians are (or aren't). I didn't take Larry to task... I opposed his false assertions as he has often done to mine.
We all share our beliefs and opinions. I'll state what my support is when there is some, for example a chart or report. If I am not specific, it's probably my opinion. My point was to let Larry know that his comment that honest, conscientious gun owners want every American armed is just silly. His attempt to anger me into an impolite and improper response didn't work, and won't in the future.
ICRD - D69
“No one can be reasonable and angry at the same time” - Unknown
“He who conquers his anger has conquered an enemy” - German Proverb
Hello Bull153, Your supposed mind reading abilities astonish me. You KNOW that Larry was being "deliberately disingenuous with his statement that gun nuts would love mandatory gun ownership laws when he knows that legitimate legal gun owners for the most part do not support mandatory gun ownership." That actually sounds like your are projecting YOUR opinion and beliefs about "legitimate legal gun owners" onto Larry, as if YOUR OPINION is accepted FACT. Yet you offer NO supporting statistics to bolster or reinforce what you THINK. It is perfectly acceptable to have an opinion, but not so much to arrogantly assume that YOURS is the only reasonable one. Why is what you claim any more reasonable than saying opponents of under restricted gun ownership, for the most part, would NOT want the Florida proposed bill "passed nationwide"?
Let me reiterate - You DO NOT KNOW Senator Gibson personally. Just because she is a senator and therefore, in your eyes, a politician deserving disrespect, does not give you free rein to make insulting remarks and smear her character or insinuate that she has ulterior motives and is a "typical politician" SOLELY BECAUSE of her profession. Perhaps she is actually a "public servant", rather than the embodiment of the dreaded "politician" label with which you saddle her. The fact is, YOU don't know. You say that you don't know her but you "know politics and politicians", as if that somehow gives you permission to negatively generalize about her. Yet you take offense when other posters relate their negative interactions with Manteca police officers and extrapolate these officers' poor behavior to the police force as a whole, and you chastise these posters for making unfair comparisons or generalizations. Ironically, this is the very same tactic you feel entitled to use when discussing politicians.
Why do you assume Larry's intent was to "anger" you "into an impolite and improper response"? I think (and this is ONLY my OPINION) that it is equally plausible that he was offended by YOUR cavalier use of generalizations and condescending attitude and was attempting to show you the "silliness" of YOUR stance, by showing you an EQUALLY far-fetched one. You seem unwilling or unable to see any fault in your comments, so it is probably best for me not to belabor the subject by continuing to point out the blatant inconsistencies in your remarks. This does not mean, however, that these inconsistencies do not exist or are not obvious to me. Sincerely, Karen
What mind reading capabilities are you referring to? I can no more read someone's mind than Hoffman can tell the truth. It IS my opinion, whether or not YOU accept it as fact or not is entirely up to you. Since when do I, or anyone else for that matter, have to provide evidence to support an opinion? If my opinion is that the sky is azure today, what proof would you like from me to support my contention, or to support your opinion that the sky is blue? I never said, arrogantly or otherwise, that my opinion is the only reasonable one, but it would be stupid to offer it if I didn't believe it.
Reasonable is in the eye of the beholder, as is beauty. I claim that mandatory weapon ownership is irresponsible - it defies logic in that there are hundreds of reasons why it is impractical, dangerous, and unenforceable. The main reason I say this is the very reason that opponents of gun ownership make their claims. There are some people who should not own guns, either for medical, psychological, or personal reasons. There are many people who are afraid of guns and shouldn't be made to own one. If someone has children in the house, they have every right not to have a gun in their house. Someone suffering from severe glaucoma, arthritis, or any one of a number of conditions should not have the burden of gun ownership thrust upon them. People who are mentally ill, well that goes without saying. So now, tell me what makes you think ANYONE with common sense would want this legislation passed, in Florida or nationwide?
The fact that I do not know Senator Gibson personally does NOT disqualify me from having an opinion on her proposed legislation and her reasoning. LarryBaca does not know Mitt Romney, yet during the campaign he seemed to have "free rein to make insulting remarks and smear [Romney's] character or insinuate that [he] has ulterior motives and is a "typical politician" SOLELY BECAUSE of [his] profession." TheSovereign does not know me. But no one, including you, seemed to have any problem with his numerous comments disparaging conservatives and their beliefs. I'm sorry, but freedom of speech allows people to express their opinions. You can say you don't like it, you can disagree all you want, but you cannot tell me I do not have 'free rein' to express an opinion I believe.
Yes, I do take offense, and I render my opposing opinion when law enforcement is criticized unfairly. I have made the point on a number of occasions that police officers are human, make mistakes, and suffer the frailties that everyone is subject to. I'm human enough to take personally insults and lies about the police, not because it doesn't happen, but because it happens rarely and as a retired officer, it IS personal.
I had to laugh at your last paragraph. Well, it is my opinion (and it is only my opinion) that you suffer from selective memory. Go back and read the comments over the last couple of months and tell me honestly that Larry hasn't been trying to 'get my goat'. He is so good at it. Hoffman is a runaway freight train and as subtle as a bull in a china shop. Larry is much more refined and calculating.
You can certainly offer whatever opinion you wish, but I only have to look at Larry's own behavior to understand what he is doing.
I don't know what fault I am supposed to find... I expressed my opinion and my reasoning. I take responsibility for my words, but I won't be responsible for your (or anyone's) interpretation of them. Agree, disagree, don't care... it matters not to me. But at least be consistent in your criticisms and your outrage. I am sure there are and will continue to be inconsistencies. I might suggest you simply deal with them or ignore them.
ICRD - D69
“One cannot live without inconsistency” - Carl Gustav Jung
“Our ideas must agree with realities, be such realities concrete or abstract, be they facts or be they principles, under penalty of endless inconsistency and frustration.” - William James
It is sad, but, I have seen the above poster here smeer female politicians at any opportunity he gets. He has often singled out Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, and Elizabeth Warren and now attacks Audrey Gibson for seemingly no reason. Combining this attitude with the posters prior remarks regarding protecting abusers of women by removing the violence against women act, how women should be discriminated against for military promoton opportunities, and wanting to eliminate women's health opinions, one might think that this is a fundamental problem of being prejudice against women.
What are yours or anyone else's thoughts on this matter?
As a side note, the National Organization of Women supports measures to reduce gun violence:
The tiny Maine township of Byron is set to launch themselves smack dab into the middle of the national gun control debate. The 140 town members will meet tonight and vote on a town ordinance that would require each household to own a firearm.
The ordinance's proponent, Head Selectman Anne Simmons - Edmund, admits the ordinance is symbolic since the ordinance would not be enforceable under Maine Law.
Then, one might ask, why propose such legislation? Simmons - Edmund, a police officer in a nearby town, said "It was never my intention to force anyone to own a gun who doesn't want to. My purpose was to make a statement in support of the Second Amendment (to the U.S. Constitution)." OK, then it seems to me the intent is honorable but the method flawed.
I might suggest that the township draft two proclamations, one in support of unrestricted gun ownership, and one that restricts gun ownership. Then have the people vote on which proclamation they want their town to support. That seems to me would be far more effective than passing an ordinance that is symbolic and unenforceable.
The Second Amendment protects our right to keep and bear arms. The Constitution guarantees citizens the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If your right to pursue happiness doesn't involve owning a gun, that needs to be respected as well.
ICRD - D70
"Strict gun laws are about as effective as strict drug laws...It pains me to say this, but the NRA seems to be right: The cities and states that have the toughest gun laws have the most murder and mayhem." - Mike Royko
Hello Bull153, I have no problem with you stating your opinion, as I have already expressed. It is when you act like your OPINION is FACT (as in what Senator Gibson's motives are, what LarryBaca's supposed intentions are, or what opponents of gun ownership think and would support) that I have a problem with your comments.
I COMPLETELY AGREE with your opinions and sentiments expressed in your second paragraph. You have provided compelling supporting statements. I would point out the irony in the fact that, although you end this paragraph with, "So now, tell me what makes you think ANYONE with common sense would want this legislation passed, in Florida or nationwide?", YOU are the one asserting that "opponents of lawful gun ownership would love to see" this. So are we to infer that NOT ONE person who opposes even legal gun ownership is lacking in common sense? Again with the generalizations!
I do not take issue with your questioning or criticizing Senator Gibson's proposed bill. As I have already note, I think it is flawed also. However, you are NOT JUST critiquing the bill, you are judging a woman whom you don't even know solely based on this one proposal. That is wrong, plain and simple. You state that she just wants to "appear" to be caring and concerned, that hers is a "liberal knee-jerk attempt", and that she is a "typical politician". You can't logically infer this simply from the flawed proposal. I am not going to defend Larry's attacks on Romney, other than to say that he often backed up his OPINIONS by citing Romney's ACTUAL WORDS or actions. YOU did (and continue to do) much the same with President Obama. You DO have "free rein" to express an opinion. It doesn't make that opinion justified or or the reasoning (or lack of reasoning) behind it correct.
It is funny to me how you talk about 'poor you', how LaryyBaca and crimeriddendump are out to get you, or bait you, but YOU start out your post with, "I can no more read someone's mind than Hoffman can tell the truth", an obvious and childish dig at someone who is not even a part of our conversation here. You can not look honestly at the flaws in your own post, but only use the trite childhood arguments of "the other guy is doing it too" or "he is worse than me,why don't you pick on him?" Yes, I can see quite clearly that you "don't know what fault (you're) supposed to find". And that is, unfortunately, not so funny. Sincerely, Karen
"The Constitution guarantees citizens the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Except for the fact that it DOESN'T! Please point out where the CONSTITUTION guarantees "the pursuit of happiness."
It's amusing/amazing to me how some people can act so high and mighty about all matters involving law enforcement, yet, don't even know the actual laws or the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
Also Bull153, the Mike Royko quote is NOT ACCURATE! The states with the toughest gun laws happen to have the most people. The PER-CAPITA RATE would be more meaningful to review. If you did, you would see that REPUBLICAN states with lax gun laws are at the top of the list. Here it is:
Again, please stop trying to act as if your opinion is the same as fact. It is clearly not.
Hello Bull153, Your last post is very reasonable. Do you see the difference between this latest one and the previous posting? In the former, you attacked and ridiculed a Senator's character and motives simply because of a proposal, in the later you gave the proponent of the ordinance (a police officer), the benefit of the doubt, noting that while the proposal itself was flawed, her intentions were "honorable". You examined and provided her ACTUAL WORDS in making your determination and expressing your opinion. That is the point of contention that I had with your previous post. I am not much on "symbolic gestures". I don't agree with your two proclamations idea, since, in my opinion, one can still support the Second Amendment while expecting and backing reasonable and common sense restrictions on firearm ownership. "Unrestricted gun ownership" by the very nature and definition of the word "unrestricted", would allow criminals, the mentally ill, or children to possess guns. Not the best case scenario, I would opine. Sincerely, Karen
Hello crimeriddendump, In my experience with reading Bull153's comments, I would say that he dislikes most politicians, in general, and that gender doesn't factor into the equation at all. The examples you cited all happen to be Democrats, so I think it is more likely (although not certain) that his criticism of them stems from ideological differences rather than sexism. I don't want to go back and search for past posts to re-read his actual words on the other topics you mentioned (that is the only fair way on which to base an opinion and not just rely on the interpretations of another poster). I disagree with much of what Bull153 says, but am not interested in accusing him of being a sexist, even if I think some of his opinions may be outdated or counter to what I deeply believe. Sincerely, Karen
You are incorrect when you state that "[I] am the one asserting that opponents of lawful gun ownership would love to see this (mandatory gun ownership)" What you infer is up to you, but I'm not inferring "NOT ONE person who opposes even legal gun ownership is lacking in common sense?".
What I said was that opponents of legal gun ownership and those who oppose mandatory gun ownership use the same arguments to make their point. Opponents of legal gun ownership cite the danger to children, so do those who are against mandatory gun ownership. Therefore, my point is that no one with common sense should mandate nor prohibit gun ownership. If that is generalization, I'm guilty.
I've explained my position on Senator Gibson and my reasoning. As you are fond of saying, we can agree to disagree. I never said my opinion was justified nor my reasoning (or lack thereof) correct. But it IS my opinion based on my beliefs, observations, and experience. You can object all you want, but just like Larry's opinion of Mitt Romney, or TheSovereign's maligning of conservatives, I'm going to express them.
Once again I am expressing my opinion based on experience. You can well see for yourself the multiple lies told by CRD and the ridiculous assertions offered by Larry. If my response is a dig, oh well. I'm sick of the argument you consistently throw up when I discuss my interaction with others. I do not claim childish arguments, that is your shtick... All I have done is point out their behavior and the unequal attention given. If that is your idea of trite childhood arguments, fine with me. Why does it bother you so much when I point out this unequal treatment but you don't seem to be the least bit bothered when it occurs? Is it because you approve? I take responsibility for my actions and words, and I will defend them as needed. I also have admitted errors and apologized when appropriate. Maybe it is time that you look at your own comments and try to find a fault or two. ...And that's not funny, either.
ICRD - D70
“To be angry about trifles is mean and childish; to rage and be furious is brutish; and to maintain perpetual wrath is akin to the practice and temper of devils; but to prevent and suppress rising resentment is wise and glorious, is manly and divine.” - Alan Watts
“If evil be spoken of you and it be true, correct yourself, if it be a lie, laugh at it.” - Epictetus
Thank you for your evaluation and comments of my prior post. If you don't care for symbolic gestures, might one ask what you would suggest that would make a statement for the township? Or do you contend nothing should be done by the town council and leave any statement making to the citizens individually?
I agree that one can support the 2nd Amendment while still proposing restrictions on legal gun ownership. I made a poor word choice with 'unrestricted'. I certainly do not advocate that and for the exact reasons you mentioned. I suppose one should take some time and determine what proclamation the town may want and simply vote yes or no on it.
Gun control and gun violence continue to be hot button topics. As the days go by we will have many more opportunities to discuss reasonable and unreasonable legislation.
ICRD - D70
“A man who has committed a mistake and doesn't correct it, is committing another mistake.” - Confucius
Your above post would read much better if not for the immature tone of the one before it. Oh well, you getting better.
As for that, you say "I take responsibility for my actions and words" then can you take responsibility for your misleading claims about gun violence and your missrepresentation of Constitutional rights? Might help if you are banging on so much about following the letter of the law of the Constitution to full understand what is actually in it as well as to actually present facts rather than just insist your own opinion is superior to facts and statistics.
So far, I've seen a lot of movement toward center from the people advocating gun restrictions and zero movement from the more vocal weapon horders. It would help if these people recognized the simple factual reality that more guns equal more gun violence, not less and gun restrictions have worked in many other countries such as the UK, Canada and Australia. We should all live in a "fact based reality."
Wow, all I said was gun nuts would love this one and Bull raised all kinds of hell, if hell were real of course. Actually I didn't have any kind of "intentions", I just made a simple statement but I do find it interesting on what some people read into them. :-)
Let me see, what kind of response will I get from this one: Butterflies never fly at night. Bull?
Bull, I don't think I ever said you are a gun nut and I certainly don't believe all gun owners are gun nuts. That would make me a pretty big gun nut as well. I would venture to say, I probably have as many or more guns than you do and my Brother has ten times as many, including assault weapons but he lives in NM a state that is a little more lax about these kinds of things. That is where I grew up around guns of all kinds. I got my own first 22 single shot in the 7th grade but I had been using my older brothers for awhile. I could remember shooting fish in the Rio Grande with his 22 when I was in the third grade. Bull, you were in the AF I believe so you probably never would be selected for Sniper School, would you? I would assume your only real professional experience with weapons would be while you were in the Police Department, right? How many real people did you ever have to shoot at? Not many if any at all right? So what does all this mean? Nothing, I'm just asking questions and making assumptions, killing time before I go see my Heart guy. :-)
Thanks for your input, my friend. I wouldn't characterize my response to your 'gun nuts would love this one' comment as raising 'all kinds of hell', but as you've seen from prior comments here, everyone will infer what they want from anyone else's comments. I too find it interesting.
I'm not at all familiar with the nocturnal flying habits of butterflies, and I have already confused the Constitution with the Bill of Rights, so I really have no response for you.
You may never have actually said that I am a gun nut, but anyone reading all your posts regarding your unsubstantiated claims that I "threatened people at my door with my guns" certainly would infer you believe I am a gun nut. When you make statements like I "must have felt naked and vulnerable" on a trip when I was not armed certainly makes people think you believe I am a gun nut. When you belittle my preparedness and expertise in personal safety, you must really believe I am a gun nut. So, if you own more guns than I do, maybe you are a gun nut too! The point here? Who cares...
While I was growing up, my father was in the army. I spent many days with my dad crawling around sixty ton tanks and their massive 105mm main guns. I would get to watch the tanks run the range and qualify with their .50 caliber machine guns. I never owned a gun until I was in the service, but I went hunting occasionally with my brother-in-law who exposed me to guns and gun safety in my late teens.
I was in the Air Force Security Police, now known as Security Forces. I held every police position in Law Enforcement including SWAT (known as Tactical Neutralization Teams back then) except for K9 handler. It was quite possible I could have been sent to sniper school as a member of the base TNT, but I was in a command and negotiation slot, rather than sniper.
My professional experience with firearms began in basic training in the Air Force where I qualified expert with the M-16 rifle. I attended and graduated from the USAF Security Police Academy where I received additional training and qualifications on the .38 caliber revolver, M-16, M-203 grenade launcher, M-60 and .50 caliber machine guns, and 81mm mortar.
I can't tell you how many people I shot at. It is hard to tell when you are in a perimeter bunker in Thailand at night with flares going off and rounds coming it at you. There were several times on Grenada when we fired on Cuban forces trying to penetrate the airfield's perimeter. I've pulled my weapon on people too many times to count both in the military and civilian police work. So what does this mean? Nothing, I'm just answering questions and clarifying your assumptions, killing time...
I hope your visit to your heart guy is routine and nothing serious.
ICRD - D70
“Nothing in the world is more dangerous than a sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” - Martin Luther King, Jr.
“A danger foreseen is half avoided” - Proverb
--- Maine town unanimously votes against requiring guns ---
The people of Byron, Maine have spoken. In a unanimous vote Monday night, the 60 registered voters in this tiny community rejected a local ordinance that would have required mandatory gun ownership.
The vote was intended to send a message, and Bruce Simmons, the one who originally suggested the law, said the message was sent.
Personally, I am as happy as anyone. While it is important to defend the rights of citizens to own firearms, it doesn't make sense to require it. That doesn't solve the problem of gun violence...
ICRD - D71
"It's not a gun control problem; it's a cultural control problem." - Bob Barr
"I have a very strict gun control policy: if there's a gun around, I want to be in control of it." - Clint Eastwood
Good for you in listening to me - and reason - and correcting your mistake regarding the differences between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Even with it being in passing, it is refreshing to see you correct blatant missinformation.
Now, if you could also correct the false information regarding gun violence by state, the fact that gun in home are more likely to injure the gun owner or family member than an intruder, and that gun bans have worked quite well in other countries and area where thy have been implemented, THEN we might be getting somewhere.
Bull, I was just busting balls on that "Feeling Naked" comment. I'm sure you got lots of that in the A.F.... Tell me something about the Air Police thing. A cousin of mine served in the A.F., He was in the ICBM field, he told me the tech school he went to was pretty rough but what got him through it was the fear of flunking out and being sent to cook school or Air Police school. Is that true that is how they fill most of those positions? I think he was just busting balls on that one as well, maybe you can clear that up for me....
Oh, by the way, the Heart thing turned out better than last time. Looks like I got a pass this time around. Well, sort of anyway....
glad to hear things are better regarding the ticker and stable is always good news as well.
I'm having a new issue with mine, have had heart problems before so when I go to my cardiologist I'm always expecting "ok now what's next "
But what are we going to do things wear out, and as the old saying goes " if I'd known I was going to live so long I'd taken better care of myself " And even then genetics can play a strong part, have along family line of heart trouble.
I wish you all the best Larry hope things keep going well.
Yes, Larry, in my life both in and out of the military I've had people bust my b---s, it is not an unfamiliar occurrence. I have busted my share as well. Some consider it a sign of respect... or admiration.
As for your question, it sounds like your cousin was in about the same time as I was, late 60's early 70's. At that time, if you voluntarily entered the Air Force, you could pick a career field and was guaranteed that job. Each job had a minimum score on the ASVAB, or Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery test that each person had to take. Scores ran from 90-95 for jobs in language, intelligence, and computer skills to 30-40 for cooks and truck drivers.
I scored high in many areas but I wanted to be a law enforcement specialist - a street cop - rather than a security specialist - the guys that walk around airplanes and missiles. If you went to a technical school, say for a weapon system repair job, and failed, then the Air Force would select your job for you out of the areas that needed people - like cooks and drivers. That was why there was a great incentive to pass your tech school.
The people that joined the Air Force without a guaranteed job often were chosen for less desirable but necessary positions. During basic training, we even had recruiters come out and try to recruit some of us for mission critical jobs. I was selected and tested for language interpreter training and scored high on the test for Russian and Slavic languages. But since I had a guaranteed job, I didn't have to take the position.
The Thunderbirds were recruiting as well, but they were looking for engine mechanics and electronics specialists. I might have volunteered, but they didn't have any security police assigned to them, when they traveled the took members of the local Security Police Squadron when it was necessary, like to a civilian airport for a show.
I remember the last week of basic, when we lined up in formation and those of us that had guaranteed assignments got our orders to tech schools. I didn't even have to travel, basic was at Lackland AFB, and so was my Security Police academy. The others who didn't have guarantees, were given group orders. Some to the Security Police academy as security specialists, some to Illinois for firefighting training, others to schools for cooks, drivers, and the most hated assignment, clerk typist!
Sorry, I got a bit wordy...LOL - What else is new!
ICRD - D73
“It is our choices that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities.” - Joanne Kathleen Rowling
“Choose a job you love and you will never have to work a day in your life.” - Confucius
I am glad your heart issue had a positive outcome. I wish you only the best and hope you continue improving...
ICRD - D73
“Take care, don't fight, and remember: if you do not choose to lead, you will forever be led by others. Find what scares you, and do it. And you can make a difference, if you choose to do so.” - J. Michael Straczynski
“He who has health, has hope. And he who has hope, has everything.” - Proverb
I also share my best wishes for you. We all have issues with our health, some minor, others not so minor. I feel fortunate that other than aching bones, throbbing muscles, and diabetes, I am relatively healthy.
My father died of heart problems, so that has always been a major area of concern for me. Heredity and lifestyle will always affect you in some way.
In your case, you are a wise and caring individual, and I know that you will do well and be with us for a long while to come.
ICRD - D73
“The only way to keep your health is to eat what you don't want, drink what you don't like, and do what you'd rather not.” - Mark Twain
“Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.” - Buddha
Roze, hope your problems don't grow any further. I didn't even know I had a heart issue until I went into surgery for Prostate Cancer. I didn't feel anything before the Cancer thing came up. I started getting outside Radiation right after I was diagnosed. I did that every day for 5 weeks, then got the seeding done.
Anyway, the heart problems were multiple, Enlarged heart, leaking valve, erratic heart beat. My heart was working at about 20%. "Congestive Heart Failure" the doctor said. Scary crap....Suddenly I felt weak. I think it was that damn radiation. Guess that's a natural reaction, trying to figure out what the hell went wrong after all, I was a regular at the gym. I could do 8,000 situps at a time with no problem, suddenly I had problems climbing the stairs. Since then I have had a couple of exploratory procedures done and put on meds.
Long story short, my heart is now at 40% and my doctors both say I still have a leaking valve but things are improving. I seem to be getting better results at the gym. I had slowed way down then my youngest Daughter talked me into going to her gym (She is the GM at the new In-Shape). In fact, I just got back from a 4 hour workout and I am back at 192 pounds. (I was down to 165 after my Radiation). Aging sucks....
Bull, thanks for the AF info...with all the great careers the AF provides, I sure wouldn't have chosen Air Police. But I guess it turned out ok for you. Doing what you like is better money I guess.
I took a liking to Computer work when I was in college (GI Bill) and wanted to be a Programmer. I was intrigued with being able to make a computer do exactly what you wished. Anyway, that's what I did for years. It was exciting just to go to work. Later on, I was a C-Adminstrator. That was fun but not on the same scale, I still got to do some coding but not close to what I was doing before.
That can happen where you can be treated for one thing and they find another so its kind of like your treatment for Cancer led them to find this other very serious issue luckily it was found just terrible that Cancer was the reason for finding the heart issue.
I've read up that many heart problems don't always give off symptoms not like you'd think it would. Mine started with an irregular heart beat but it was more like a fluttering in the chest I sorta pushed it to having anxiety something like that I just kept sort of ignoring it, then of course the shortness of breath started I started paying more attention and knew something was wrong.
Sometimes heart disease can be very quiet, sneak up on you, not always like grabbing your chest in saying wow I'm having a heart issue. what happens is the ones that go along in progress very slowly your heart starts compensating for not being able to pump normally so we kind of adapt to the changes and don't really realize what's going on until the disease progresses significantly
It's very scary thing As you know.
But it sounds like you're doing Better That's really great news
Yes sometimes old age can really suck I like that I've learned so many things, and want to learn more, I like the person that I am now at this age then the person I was when I was in my twenties or thirties, the way I take the time to appreciate a beautiful sunset, that I have more patience now, more appreciation for everything in life .
There are many great things about being old, but I'm not so sure our bodys realizes that.
I miss being strong and healthy, I don't necessarily miss being young.
Roze, you've touched on something that I seem to be going through as well. Like yourself, it seems I can't get enough knowledge and things like family history is also rather absorbing. Maybe it's the fact that I have come to recognize my mortality. Something we never thought of when we were young. Reality is a strong stiff drink followed by a kick to the gut. You are right about this thing sneaking up on you. My doctors seemed to be more concerned about the irregular heartbeat than any of the rest. It's better but they still say a pacemaker is probably in my future. Yipee....
Has your doctor(s) mentioned a pacemaker yet? I say 'doctors' because I have two, Emani (The Plumber) and Chen (The Electrician)..that's how they describe themselves.. Emani was the guy who took care of my Wife when she had her Heart Attack, she got a stint put in about 4 years ago.
no mention of pacemaker before this latest development I don't know what they'll think up when I go for my next appointment in April.
I'm sure lot's of fun test await me to help Dr Punja. (my heart dr) decide whats next for me.
I like the way you sum up reality it's so true "stiff drink followed by a kick to the gut " yep thats about it.
Roze, guess all we can do is try to stay healthy any way we can. Meanwhile it's a waiting game....
Guess we kinda turned the topic of Gun Control into Heart Disease 101...pretty much how my mind wanders in a typical conversation.. :-) Well, in any case keep me posted on what's happening on your end of the boat..