Trayvon Martin

[Texsox]

LOL. Come on now. You don't seem to be painting an accurate picture of Sanford Florida. The ends did not justify the means in this scenario. This wasn't mid 80s Cabrini Green with Zimmerman being a self appointed Batman to save the day.

 

 

OK, I will agree then that in the case of this town and this town only. But there are a lot more towns that would benefit from people doing more than hiding from the criminals.

[Texsox]

Is there a number of kids that it's ok to kill to accomplish that goal?

 

 

Is the rule then one death and we stop using it is that was involved?

[StrangeSox]

If I tell myself "I'm safe using it", I'm going to wind up dead. I tell myself "Here are the procedures we have established to take care of this chemical, I'm going to rigorously follow those", and meanwhile, I'm going to be calm but terrified while doing so. And I will not sit here and tell you that I'm safe to use it, unlike whatever other person out there does something different...because it isn't safe to use, having it around puts you in mortal danger, and if you skip or neglect any safety step because you're confident it's ok...you're going to die.

 

See I'm not terrified when I'm using a power saw. I'm careful and cautious, but I'm not scared or afraid. This is true of the few times I've handled firearms as well. I was careful and deliberate in every action, but I wouldn't say I experienced fear.

 

Where I won't disagree with you is that there are many people who are careless or at least less-than-stringently-careful with their firearms and that it leads to death and/or injury for them and others.

[Balta1701]

Is the rule then one death and we stop using it is that was involved?

So you're going with 2?

[Y2HH]

Hydrofluoric acid.

 

If you get a drop of that on your skin, you won't feel it.

 

Until 3 hours later when you're in ungodly pain because the stuff has leached down to your bones and begun to dissolve them, pulling the calcium out towards your skin.

 

It's an industrial chemical we use constantly in sample preparation.

 

What exactly do you do? Are you a geologist? If an asteroid is ever hurtling toward earth, will you be the one to save us?

[Balta1701]

What exactly do you do? Are you a geologist? If an asteroid is ever hurtling toward earth, will you be the one to save us?

Yes, geologist, and maybe, depends on if JPL decides to hire me or not.

[Jenksismyhero]

See I'm not terrified when I'm using a power saw. I'm careful and cautious, but I'm not scared or afraid. This is true of the few times I've handled firearms as well. I was careful and deliberate in every action, but I wouldn't say I experienced fear.

 

Where I won't disagree with you is that there are many people who are careless or at least less-than-stringently-careful with their firearms and that it leads to death and/or injury for them and others.

 

And again, this goes back to just about anything that is inherently dangerous to a person's safety, like a car. So because a kid gets hit and killed by a drunk driver we should all be kept from driving cars. That's the logic train you guys are on with this Martin case.

[Y2HH]

Yes, geologist, and maybe, depends on if JPL decides to hire me or not.

 

I know this does not belong in this thread, but I've no where else to ask it that makes sense...as a Geologist, what exactly do you do? Do you like configure chemical compounds to make better concrete and stuff like that? I'm honestly wondering, it sounds like a very cool job -- I took Geology in college and really liked it.

[StrangeSox]

And again, this goes back to just about anything that is inherently dangerous to a person's safety, like a car. So because a kid gets hit and killed by a drunk driver we should all be kept from driving cars. That's the logic train you guys are on with this Martin case.

 

Because a kid gets hit and killed by a drunk driver and drunk driving penalties were laughably lax if enforced at all, MADD launched a decades-long campaign to get police and legislatures to address this serious problem and crack down on this unsafe behavior.

 

Comparing it simply to driving cars is silly equivocation.

[Balta1701]

And again, this goes back to just about anything that is inherently dangerous to a person's safety, like a car. So because a kid gets hit and killed by a drunk driver we should all be kept from driving cars. That's the logic train you guys are on with this Martin case.

Or, because a kid gets hit and killed by a car, you require a certain level of training, a certain level of safety, you set limits on where and how those devices can be operated, (speed limits), you strengthen those requirements in certain areas (stricter speed limits in residential areas), you require the device to be maintained in proper working condition, and require the installation of various types of safety equipment to try to prevent those incidents.

 

I'm not here telling you that autos should be banned...but I am telling you that the person who tells you he or she is a good driver...isn't.

[Balta1701]

I know this does not belong in this thread, but I've no where else to ask it that makes sense...as a Geologist, what exactly do you do? Do you like configure chemical compounds to make better concrete and stuff like that? I'm honestly wondering, it sounds like a very cool job -- I took Geology in college and really liked it.

Personally, I'm an igneous rock guy...the Ph.D. was spent melting rocks in a lab and looking at the chemistry of the magmas generated. Currently, I'm measuring compositions of rocks from Mars and from the asteroid Vesta and using those measurements to look at the history of those rocks and how they were generated.

[Texsox]

Police and their guns have killed many innocent people. Our military and their bigger and scarier weapons have killed tens of thousands of innocent people. The list of items that have killed people is long. We can not make a risk free society, there are risks in almost everything we do.

 

I would rather people called police and continued to keep an eye on someone. I don't mind them carrying a baseball bat, a pocket knife, a gun, or whatever. I will support that position until the day after the last criminal carries a weapon.

[StrangeSox]

Or, because a kid gets hit and killed by a car, you require a certain level of training, a certain level of safety, you set limits on where and how those devices can be operated, (speed limits), you strengthen those requirements in certain areas (stricter speed limits in residential areas), you require the device to be maintained in proper working condition, and require the installation of various types of safety equipment to try to prevent those incidents.

 

I'm not here telling you that autos should be banned...but I am telling you that the person who tells you he or she is a good driver...isn't.

 

90% of people are above-average drivers!

[BigSqwert]

Personally, I'm an igneous rock guy...the Ph.D. was spent melting rocks in a lab and looking at the chemistry of the magmas generated. Currently, I'm measuring compositions of rocks from Mars and from the asteroid Vesta and using those measurements to look at the history of those rocks and how they were generated.

Well you're certainly not modest....oh wait, you said igneous and not ingenious.

[Texsox]

but I am telling you that the person who tells you he or she is a good driver...isn't.

 

 

So how bad of a driver are you? My dad, a truck driver has logged well over 1,000,000,000 accident free miles with no tickets. Are you really suggesting when he says he's a good driver he's not?

[Jenksismyhero]

Because a kid gets hit and killed by a drunk driver and drunk driving penalties were laughably lax if enforced at all, MADD launched a decades-long campaign to get police and legislatures to address this serious problem and crack down on this unsafe behavior.

 

Comparing it simply to driving cars is silly equivocation.

 

Would you agree with the below?

 

(1) Is the use of a gun, if done in accordance with various safety procedures and protocols, dangerous or unsafe? No.

 

(2) Is the use of a vehicle, if done in accordance with various safety procedures and protocols, dangerous or unsafe? No.

 

(3) Is the use of a gun, if done carelessly and negligently in violation of various safety procedures and protocols, dangerous or unsafe? Yes.

 

(4) Is the use of a vehicle, if done if done carelessly and negligently in violation of various safety procedures and protocols, dangerous or unsafe? Yes.

 

[Balta1701]

Police and their guns have killed many innocent people. Our military and their bigger and scarier weapons have killed tens of thousands of innocent people. The list of items that have killed people is long. We can not make a risk free society, there are risks in almost everything we do.

 

I would rather people called police and continued to keep an eye on someone. I don't mind them carrying a baseball bat, a pocket knife, a gun, or whatever. I will support that position until the day after the last criminal carries a weapon.

I'd like to note, I'm not complaining about police carrying weapons. They're trained constantly on the use of those weapons, and they know that if they choose to use them they're going to face an investigation to make sure that their use was appropriate. In that position, their presence is necessary, and the organization acts like it.

[Jenksismyhero]

Or, because a kid gets hit and killed by a car, you require a certain level of training, a certain level of safety, you set limits on where and how those devices can be operated, (speed limits), you strengthen those requirements in certain areas (stricter speed limits in residential areas), you require the device to be maintained in proper working condition, and require the installation of various types of safety equipment to try to prevent those incidents.

 

I'm not here telling you that autos should be banned...but I am telling you that the person who tells you he or she is a good driver...isn't.

 

But your "ban all guns" stance doesn't jive with a "more restrictions and training" position.

Edited April 27, 2012 by Jenksismybitch

[Balta1701]

Would you agree with the below?

 

(1) Is the use of a gun, if done in accordance with various safety procedures and protocols, dangerous or unsafe? No.

 

(2) Is the use of a vehicle, if done in accordance with various safety procedures and protocols, dangerous or unsafe? No.

 

(3) Is the use of a gun, if done carelessly and negligently in violation of various safety procedures and protocols, dangerous or unsafe? Yes.

 

(4) Is the use of a vehicle, if done if done carelessly and negligently in violation of various safety procedures and protocols, dangerous or unsafe? Yes.

And I would define almost any circumstance where a person chooses to carry a gun in a residential zone (note that I said chooses, thus ruling out police) to be dangerous and unsafe, even if it is done within the current laws.

[StrangeSox]

I'm not going to continue down the road of poor analogies to cars, particularly since I haven't advocated for increased restrictions on gun ownership.

 

But we can and do restrict (generally speaking) non-government organizations and individuals from possessing a wide variety of weapons. I cannot own C4 or cruise missiles or automatic weapons manufactured after 1986. I could safely own a cruise missile if I followed all the safety procedures and protocols, yet we still deem that as an unreasonable risk.

[StrangeSox]

I'd like to note, I'm not complaining about police carrying weapons. They're trained constantly on the use of those weapons, and they know that if they choose to use them they're going to face an investigation to make sure that their use was appropriate. In that position, their presence is necessary, and the organization acts like it.

 

I'd argue strongly against the ever-increasing militarization of our police forces thanks to the War on Drugs, but that's another topic.

[Jenksismyhero]

And I would define almost any circumstance where a person chooses to carry a gun in a residential zone (note that I said chooses, thus ruling out police) to be dangerous and unsafe, even if it is done within the current laws.

 

According to Soxbadger that would still be a choice! He could get fired for not having his weapon, but it's still a choice!

[Jenksismyhero]

And I would define almost any circumstance where a person chooses to carry a gun in a residential zone (note that I said chooses, thus ruling out police) to be dangerous and unsafe, even if it is done within the current laws.

 

What if he passed and/or obtained all available certifications and training by the police? Would it be ok then?

[Balta1701]

What if he passed and/or obtained all available certifications and training by the police? Would it be ok then?

What circumstance exists which compels this hypothetical person to need the device in this neighborhood?

 

A police official has several levels of protection beyond just being a police officer. They have more stringent legal punishments. They are constantly in contact with other authorities. They have authority granted to them by their position, where they can command you to respond to their requirements. None of those things exist for this hypothetical person who completes the same training level and is consistently updated and re-trained on the devices.

 

If this person is carrying this weapon solely to protect themselves from a perceived risk of crime, then just by having the weapon, they've actually put everyone around them at more risk. So there needs to be some other reason why this person is compelled to have that weapon.

[Jenksismyhero]

What circumstance exists which compels this hypothetical person to need the device in this neighborhood?

 

A police official has several levels of protection beyond just being a police officer. They have more stringent legal punishments. They are constantly in contact with other authorities. They have authority granted to them by their position, where they can command you to respond to their requirements. None of those things exist for this hypothetical person who completes the same training level and is consistently updated and re-trained on the devices.

 

If this person is carrying this weapon solely to protect themselves from a perceived risk of crime, then just by having the weapon, they've actually put everyone around them at more risk. So there needs to be some other reason why this person is compelled to have that weapon.

 

This is not true. There's a high burden of proof for a plaintiff going after a cop (willful and wanton) than every day citizens (negligence). And it's almost unheard of for cops to be charged criminally with a shooting that ends in death.

 

But again, Zimmerman's not just some vigilante with a gun. He's the neighborhood watch. He's in regular contact with the police department. He's licensed and certified to carry a gun. If he's being trained and certified on an annual basis (to whatever degree you want him to be trained/certified) i'm guessing you still wouldn't like him carrying a gun.

 

All I know is despite the training and the badge, there are a lot of s***ty cops out there. Not sure why you think they're so much better than a well-trained private citizen.