Hiker writing 'The Kindness of America' memoir shot on freeway.

Part of the deal is that because everyone has a camera and phone on them at all times, nothing happens without somebody seeing/recording it. Any idiot can tell their story and somebody will write about it. With the advent of social media, youtube, etc. there really isn't any privacy anywhere; at least in the developed countries.

Originally Posted by crpgnut
Part of the deal is that because everyone has a camera and phone on them at all times, nothing happens without somebody seeing/recording it. Any idiot can tell their story and somebody will write about it. With the advent of social media, youtube, etc. there really isn't any privacy anywhere; at least in the developed countries.

True that. I think we should all rally for some kind of celebrity compensation by the government and the big media corps since we are all potential celebrities being stalked by invisible paparazzi at all times. I think I'd even settle for a mere $1 million/year. Well, and there should also be some kind of profit-sharing system in place in case you get to star in a really popular movie, of course.

Originally Posted by Pladio
I think the US is just a crazy place !

Where else do you have people who want all of these :
- guns at home (in easy reach for children)
- eating eye balls and faces
- to be shot in the arm to get on Oprah and sell a slug of metal
all in one place ?

What can I say, It's the land of opportunity. And for the record children properly raised around guns rarely have any issues. My brother in law was trusted to use a rifle responsibly and without supervision by the time he was 10 years old. My grandfather too. Pop had one at 15. Nary an issue/bad happening amongst them. A'course we're just simple country folk

Ha, it's still the wild west in Montana!

Originally Posted by CrazyIrish
What can I say, It's the land of opportunity. And for the record children properly raised around guns rarely have any issues. My brother in law was trusted to use a rifle responsibly and without supervision by the time he was 10 years old. My grandfather too. Pop had one at 15. Nary an issue/bad happening amongst them. A'course we're just simple country folk

What? Personal responsibility again? Really? You can't do that. Damn fascist. They don't believe in that sort of thing over in the Lands of Enlightenment.

Originally Posted by crpgnut
Part of the deal is that because everyone has a camera and phone on them at all times, nothing happens without somebody seeing/recording it.

The problem is is that the vast majority of the time, that video you're watching is only half the story, at best. There is usually a lot more that you dont see. Sometimes by design.

Originally Posted by CrazyIrish
What can I say, It's the land of opportunity. And for the record children properly raised around guns rarely have any issues. My brother in law was trusted to use a rifle responsibly and without supervision by the time he was 10 years old. My grandfather too. Pop had one at 15. Nary an issue/bad happening amongst them. A'course we're just simple country folk

Do you really want to bet your security on everyone knowing how to raise children?

Übereil

Originally Posted by Ubereil
Do you really want to bet your security on everyone knowing how to raise children?

No, he doesn't. Which is exactly why he values his constitutional right to have the means to protect himself. You know, the one you'd just assume take away. You're the one betting on the goodness of others around the world, and just how does that work out most of the time?

Originally Posted by Ubereil
Do you really want to bet your security on everyone knowing how to raise children?

Übereil

The phrase "bet your security" makes me think it is something you rely on others to provide for you. I provide my own, so I worry very little about what other people do.

Originally Posted by dteowner
No, he doesn't. Which is exactly why he values his constitutional right to have the means to protect himself. You know, the one you'd just assume take away. You're the one betting on the goodness of others around the world, and just how does that work out most of the time?

A couple of cold ones to you good sir.

This isn't even a case of guns being the problem. The car could've simply run the guy down absent of guns. Cars kill more people than guns. Cars pollute more than guns. Outlaw cars, not guns.

It is also really strange that a random drive by shooting would happen in Montana. California? Yeah, they've got tons of gangs armed with guns, but Montana? Sure everyone has a gun there because there are bears, wolves, and cougars all over the state, especially in western Montana.

This article updates the story.

Originally Posted by dteowner
No, he doesn't. Which is exactly why he values his constitutional right to have the means to protect himself.

What he said is that pepole who's been properly raised aren't a danger to anyone, even if they have guns. Which means that pepole are a danger to others if they have access to guns even though they haven't been taught how to handle them.

Since the remark was an argument in favor of guns being legal I assume the logic is that since pepole are properly raised they won't cause any problems even though they have access to guns. I guestioned the wisdom of assuming pepole are properly raised.

Originally Posted by CrazyIrish
The phrase "bet your security" makes me think it is something you rely on others to provide for you. I provide my own, so I worry very little about what other people do.

When I read interaction design I heard a saying: "The best error handling mechanism there is is to ensure no errors occur in the first place". If you live in a society there's going to be pepole around you. If you want to minimize the risk of getting shot you should minimize the pool of potential shooters amongst those pepole. Making it really hard for pepole who haven't been taught how to handle a gun to obtain a gun is one step that works in that respect.

Another step is to invest in education for everyone. Because criminals (especially violent criminals) tend to be uneducated pepole, due to having grown up with poorly educated parents and going to schools with little in the way of resources.

But if you want to bet on you being able to do a better job than you and the rest of society together then go ahead.

Übereil

Originally Posted by Ubereil
What he said is that pepole who's been properly raised aren't a danger to anyone, even if they have guns. Which means that pepole are a danger to others if they have access to guns even though they haven't been taught how to handle them.

Since the remark was an argument in favor of guns being legal I assume the logic is that since pepole are properly raised they won't cause any problems even though they have access to guns. I guestioned the wisdom of assuming pepole are properly raised.

Actually, that's not what he said, although your misinterpretation might be more a case of translation issues than sinister intent. The "raised properly" modifies "around guns" as opposed to modifying "children" as a general case. His point is that someone raised to respect the weapon and trained (even if informally) in its proper use is highly unlikely to commit wanton violence with it.

Originally Posted by Ubereil
—snipped to the part directly addressed—
But if you want to bet on you being able to do a better job than you and the rest of society together then go ahead.

Übereil

I had planned a different response for the second half of your post, but I think I like the following better. It's a little more generalized, but I don't think it's too far into the weeds to distract from the thread topic.

I would certainly bet on "my approach" being better than "mine plus the rest of society" for the simple reason that nobody, nowhere, no how, will have my interests more closely held than me. Adding in outside influences must, by definition, move away from self interest, and therefore be a lesser solution.

Originally Posted by Ubereil
What he said is that pepole who's been properly raised aren't a danger to anyone, even if they have guns. Which means that pepole are a danger to others if they have access to guns even though they haven't been taught how to handle them.

Never said they weren't a danger to anyone. The whole point of carrying a gun is to be dangerous. Dangerous people tend to get ignored by predators. Occasionally they even thin out the predators.

Originally Posted by Ubereil
Since the remark was an argument in favor of guns being legal I assume the logic is that since pepole are properly raised they won't cause any problems even though they have access to guns. I guestioned the wisdom of assuming pepole are properly raised.

The remark was actually refuting the implication that only nutjobs would let children anywhere near guns. If we want to talk why guns, in general, should be legal then I have a whole other sermon prepared

Originally Posted by Ubereil
When I read interaction design I heard a saying: "The best error handling mechanism there is is to ensure no errors occur in the first place". If you live in a society there's going to be pepole around you. If you want to minimize the risk of getting shot you should minimize the pool of potential shooters amongst those pepole. Making it really hard for pepole who haven't been taught how to handle a gun to obtain a gun is one step that works in that respect.

Another step is to invest in education for everyone. Because criminals (especially violent criminals) tend to be uneducated pepole, due to having grown up with poorly educated parents and going to schools with little in the way of resources.

But if you want to bet on you being able to do a better job than you and the rest of society together then go ahead.

Übereil

If minimizing personal risk is your only goal then everything you said is spot on. My own personal safety/well being has never been and never will be my top priority. I feel sorry for people that feel it is.

Originally Posted by Ubereil
What he said is that pepole who's been properly raised aren't a danger to anyone, even if they have guns. Which means that pepole are a danger to others if they have access to guns even though they haven't been taught how to handle them.

Since the remark was an argument in favor of guns being legal I assume the logic is that since pepole are properly raised they won't cause any problems even though they have access to guns. I guestioned the wisdom of assuming pepole are properly raised.



When I read interaction design I heard a saying: "The best error handling mechanism there is is to ensure no errors occur in the first place". If you live in a society there's going to be pepole around you. If you want to minimize the risk of getting shot you should minimize the pool of potential shooters amongst those pepole. Making it really hard for pepole who haven't been taught how to handle a gun to obtain a gun is one step that works in that respect.

Another step is to invest in education for everyone. Because criminals (especially violent criminals) tend to be uneducated pepole, due to having grown up with poorly educated parents and going to schools with little in the way of resources.

But if you want to bet on you being able to do a better job than you and the rest of society together then go ahead.

Übereil

I think this quote by Ben Franklin sums up about how I feel concerning restricting guns:

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Not surprised though that this guy was stupid enough to not only shoot himself but get caught in a lie.

Originally Posted by blatantninja
I think this quote by Ben Franklin sums up about how I feel concerning restricting guns:

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

That's a great one. I always like to add this one as I think they complement each other well:

"The price of freedom is constant vigilance."

I won't say anything my friends here haven't already done a good job with. I am a native Montanan though (I moved to Idaho about six months ago but continue to revere and will always love Montana), and I never felt safer than while I was there, despite the gun laws. Montana also has a unique societal political perspective, one which favors individualism, family values, environmentalism, and liberty.

Did it as a 'desperate act of self-promotion.' Cops release 52 year-old guy who had been charged in the case.


http://www.dispatch.com/content/stor…riff-says.html

Originally Posted by CrazyIrish
If minimizing personal risk is your only goal then everything you said is spot on. My own personal safety/well being has never been and never will be my top priority. I feel sorry for people that feel it is.

Who said anything about minimizing personal risk being the only goal? I certanly didn't. What I did say was that if personal safety is something you care about arming yourself isn't as smart as reducing the need for arming yourself.

Originally Posted by blatantninja
I think this quote by Ben Franklin sums up about how I feel concerning restricting guns:

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

I find the idea that access to guns is an essential freedom is one of the weirdest ideas to come out of the states (because most pepole I've encountered who believes it are Americans). What is it guns bring into my life that makes them essential?

Übereil

Guns represent the idea that you can protect yourself from anyone or anything. Being allowed to have something that is so potentially dangerous is freedom represented.