On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 23:33:14 -0400, mm
wrote:

On 6 Apr 2007 13:08:56 -0700, "dpb" wrote:


The lock itself is relatively cheap, granted. The rest isn't cheap at
all -- either in dollars or philosophical bent of continuing the
(started to say "drift", but it's long passed the drifting stage )
rush towards a nanny-state.

Nanny-state refers to protecting us from ourselves, and I can give you
many examples of how I hate that. Seat-belt laws, helmet laws for
non-children, anti-smoking laws for bars, anti-transfat laws.

But it's already the obligation of the state to protect us from
others.


Actually, it's settled constitutional law that the state
doesn't HAVE to protect you from anyone.

On Apr 8, 10:33 pm, mm wrote:
....
Nanny-state refers to protecting us from ourselves, ...
....

I think of it in the broader context than that in the "do-gooders"
trying to expand role of government to eliminate perceived risk from
any and all ordinary actions in daily activities.

But it's already the obligation of the state to protect us from
others.

I submit that is not the obligation of the state but our collective
obligation to each other to use common sense and restraint to "first
do no harm". The only function of the state imo is to try to offer a
corrective remedy to alleviate the events of either the true accident
or that of the idiots or worse who do stupid or criminal things either
on purpose or by the side-effect of poor decision-making. Either way,
it's the individual who bears the responsibility, not the state...

On 9 Apr 2007 09:12:22 -0700, "dpb" wrote:

On Apr 8, 10:33 pm, mm wrote:
...
Nanny-state refers to protecting us from ourselves, ...
...

I think of it in the broader context than that in the "do-gooders"
trying to expand role of government to eliminate perceived risk from
any and all ordinary actions in daily activities.

But it's already the obligation of the state to protect us from
others.

I submit that is not the obligation of the state but our collective
obligation to each other to use common sense and restraint to "first
do no harm". The only function of the state imo is to try to offer a
corrective remedy to alleviate the events of either the true accident
or that of the idiots or worse who do stupid or criminal things either
on purpose or by the side-effect of poor decision-making. Either way,
it's the individual who bears the responsibility, not the state...

And you see where that gets us, when we rely on individusala includng
the many who don't give a damn about who gets hurt because of them.
Drunken drivers, drunks who start fights in bars so that people
actually get hurt, people who leave guns around so that their kids
shoot visitors, or their own brother or sister. Etc. Etc.


I don't know the best exact boundary for what the law should say about
gun locks, but I know that preaching individual responsibility when we
already know how many people aren't responsible at all is a bunch of
crap.

On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 10:49:39 -0400, Goedjn wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 23:33:14 -0400, mm
wrote:

On 6 Apr 2007 13:08:56 -0700, "dpb" wrote:


The lock itself is relatively cheap, granted. The rest isn't cheap at
all -- either in dollars or philosophical bent of continuing the
(started to say "drift", but it's long passed the drifting stage )
rush towards a nanny-state.

Nanny-state refers to protecting us from ourselves, and I can give you
many examples of how I hate that. Seat-belt laws, helmet laws for
non-children, anti-smoking laws for bars, anti-transfat laws.

But it's already the obligation of the state to protect us from
others.


Actually, it's settled constitutional law that the state
doesn't HAVE to protect you from anyone.

I didn't say the Constitution required it in every case. I said it is
already the obligation of the state to protect us from others.

I hope you can see the difference.

On Apr 9, 7:28 pm, mm wrote:
On 9 Apr 2007 09:12:22 -0700, "dpb" wrote:

On Apr 8, 10:33 pm, mm wrote:
...
Nanny-state refers to protecting us from ourselves, ...
...

I think of it in the broader context than that ...

But it's already the obligation of the state to protect us from
others.

I submit that is not the obligation of the state but our collective
obligation to each other to use common sense and restraint to "first
do no harm". ...
....
And you see where that gets us, when we rely on individusala includng
the many who don't give a damn about who gets hurt because of them.
Drunken drivers, drunks who start fights in bars so that people
actually get hurt, people who leave guns around so that their kids
shoot visitors, or their own brother or sister. Etc. Etc.

I don't know the best exact boundary for what the law should say about
gun locks, but I know that preaching individual responsibility when we
already know how many people aren't responsible at all is a bunch of
crap.

Well, there's the point made for me precisely--all the laws against
drunk driving, etc., don't really mean much do they, unless people
take the personal responsibility to not drink and drive. You can't
legislate morality and you can't legislate responsibility any more
successfully. You can, otoh, with diligence behave responsibily
yourself and teach your children and others you come in contact with
the rudiments of gun safety and how to act responsibly with them.
That effort on one's part includes properly storing them to preclude
acquisition of them by unauthorized parties, of course.

You may wish laws were effective in changing behavior, but we have
ample evidence that isn't particularly effective, too. How many laws
did the guy I heard of on the radio today break in committing his
offense(s)? They didn't help much, did they?

On Apr 9, 7:28 pm, mm wrote:
On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 10:49:39 -0400, Goedjn wrote:
On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 23:33:14 -0400, mm
wrote:

On 6 Apr 2007 13:08:56 -0700, "dpb" wrote:

The lock itself is relatively cheap, granted. The rest isn't cheap at
all -- either in dollars or philosophical bent of continuing the
(started to say "drift", but it's long passed the drifting stage )
rush towards a nanny-state.

Nanny-state refers to protecting us from ourselves, and I can give you
many examples of how I hate that. Seat-belt laws, helmet laws for
non-children, anti-smoking laws for bars, anti-transfat laws.

But it's already the obligation of the state to protect us from
others.

Actually, it's settled constitutional law that the state
doesn't HAVE to protect you from anyone.

I didn't say the Constitution required it in every case. I said it is
already the obligation of the state to protect us from others.
....

And from what piece of cloth did you weave that obligation from?
Apart from being a practical impossibility, that is...we've already
demonstrated that the passing of a law doesn't "protect" anybody, it
only provides basis in the legal system for recourse for victims or
punishment for perpetrators. Like a lock which only keeps the
basically honest that way but does virtually nothing against the
thief.

On Apr 9, 9:53�pm, "dpb" wrote:
On Apr 9, 7:28 pm, mm wrote:







On 9 Apr 2007 09:12:22 -0700, "dpb" wrote:

On Apr 8, 10:33 pm, mm wrote:
...
Nanny-state refers to protecting us from ourselves, ...
...

I think of it in the broader context than that ...
But it's already the obligation of the state to protect us from
others. *

I submit that is not the obligation of the state but our collective
obligation to each other to use common sense and restraint to "first
do no harm". *...
...
And you see where that gets us, when we rely on individusala includng
the many who don't give a damn about who gets hurt because of them.
Drunken drivers, drunks who start fights in bars so that people
actually get hurt, people who leave guns around so that their kids
shoot visitors, or their own brother or sister. *Etc. Etc. *

I don't know the best exact boundary for what the law should say about
gun locks, but I know that preaching individual responsibility when we
already know how many people aren't responsible at all is a bunch of
crap.

Well, there's the point made for me precisely--all the laws against
drunk driving, etc., don't really mean much do they, unless people
take the personal responsibility to not drink and drive. *You can't
legislate morality and you can't legislate responsibility any more
successfully. *You can, otoh, with diligence behave responsibily
yourself and teach your children and others you come in contact with
the rudiments of gun safety and how to act responsibly with them.
That effort on one's part includes properly storing them to preclude
acquisition of them by unauthorized parties, of course.

You may wish laws were effective in changing behavior, but we have
ample evidence that isn't particularly effective, too. *How many laws
did the guy I heard of on the radio today break in committing his
offense(s)? *They didn't help much, did they?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

how many more would die without the laws against drunk driving, those
numbers have fallen a lot. the harsh penalties help keep us all safer


laws against smoking in public places, protect everyone from
secondhand smoke and the bad health effects from it.

On Apr 11, 2:28 pm, " wrote:
On Apr 9, 9:53?pm, "dpb" wrote:





On Apr 9, 7:28 pm, mm wrote:

On 9 Apr 2007 09:12:22 -0700, "dpb" wrote:

On Apr 8, 10:33 pm, mm wrote:
...
Nanny-state refers to protecting us from ourselves, ...
...

I think of it in the broader context than that ...
But it's already the obligation of the state to protect us from
others. ?

I submit that is not the obligation of the state but our collective
obligation to each other to use common sense and restraint to "first
do no harm". ?...
...
And you see where that gets us, when we rely on individusala includng
the many who don't give a damn about who gets hurt because of them.
Drunken drivers, drunks who start fights in bars so that people
actually get hurt, people who leave guns around so that their kids
shoot visitors, or their own brother or sister. ?Etc. Etc. ?

I don't know the best exact boundary for what the law should say about
gun locks, but I know that preaching individual responsibility when we
already know how many people aren't responsible at all is a bunch of
crap.

Well, there's the point made for me precisely--all the laws against
drunk driving, etc., don't really mean much do they, unless people
take the personal responsibility to not drink and drive. ?You can't
legislate morality and you can't legislate responsibility any more
successfully. ?You can, otoh, with diligence behave responsibily
yourself and teach your children and others you come in contact with
the rudiments of gun safety and how to act responsibly with them.
That effort on one's part includes properly storing them to preclude
acquisition of them by unauthorized parties, of course.

You may wish laws were effective in changing behavior, but we have
ample evidence that isn't particularly effective, too. ?How many laws
did the guy I heard of on the radio today break in committing his
offense(s)? ?They didn't help much, did they?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

how many more would die without the laws against drunk driving, those
numbers have fallen a lot. the harsh penalties help keep us all safer

Well, maybe, maybe not...

For the period of 1995-2005 (last data reported I could find) total
alcohol-related deaths from NTSA figures averaged 17,150 annually. A
regression line through the data shows that the slope of the line is
-35 +/-42 -- that is, the uncertainty in the slope is greater than the
magnitude of the coefficient itself at the one-sigma level -- it isn't
significant statistically. Or, in other words, the annual
fluctuations in numbers are larger than the tendency for an actual
decrease over time.

Consequently, it seems that at best the law has reached an impasse
where no measurable improvement is being made despite ever-harsher
laws.

laws against smoking in public places, protect everyone from
secondhand smoke and the bad health effects from it.

This one is pretty easy to avoid on your own if you're so inclined to
do so...I'm against those rules against owners of establishments
outlawing legal actions by some. If you don't want to partake, fine,
that's your pergogative and if you can convince sufficient others, the
proprietor will undoubtedly change his policy to recover business. If
not, so be it.

But, my point wasn't that we should do away with laws but that laws
are really only for dealing with a situation _after_ a person has
already taken an action. Passing more laws doesn't change fundamental
behavior for a large segment of the population who are the ones who
are breaking the law in the first place. The desire to control any
and all behavior of whatever level of deemed malevolence to
inconvenience is a propensity of many it seems, but should be resisted
as unwarranted excursion into our basic liberties for one and as being
mostly ineffectual for the latter.

On Apr 11, 9:13�pm, "dpb" wrote:
On Apr 11, 2:28 pm, " wrote:





On Apr 9, 9:53?pm, "dpb" wrote:

On Apr 9, 7:28 pm, mm wrote:

On 9 Apr 2007 09:12:22 -0700, "dpb" wrote:

On Apr 8, 10:33 pm, mm wrote:
...
Nanny-state refers to protecting us from ourselves, ...
...

I think of it in the broader context than that ...
But it's already the obligation of the state to protect us from
others. ?

I submit that is not the obligation of the state but our collective
obligation to each other to use common sense and restraint to "first
do no harm". ?...
...
And you see where that gets us, when we rely on individusala includng
the many who don't give a damn about who gets hurt because of them.
Drunken drivers, drunks who start fights in bars so that people
actually get hurt, people who leave guns around so that their kids
shoot visitors, or their own brother or sister. ?Etc. Etc. ?

I don't know the best exact boundary for what the law should say about
gun locks, but I know that preaching individual responsibility when we
already know how many people aren't responsible at all is a bunch of
crap.

Well, there's the point made for me precisely--all the laws against
drunk driving, etc., don't really mean much do they, unless people
take the personal responsibility to not drink and drive. ?You can't
legislate morality and you can't legislate responsibility any more
successfully. ?You can, otoh, with diligence behave responsibily
yourself and teach your children and others you come in contact with
the rudiments of gun safety and how to act responsibly with them.
That effort on one's part includes properly storing them to preclude
acquisition of them by unauthorized parties, of course.

You may wish laws were effective in changing behavior, but we have
ample evidence that isn't particularly effective, too. ?How many laws
did the guy I heard of on the radio today break in committing his
offense(s)? ?They didn't help much, did they?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

how many more would die without the laws against drunk driving, those
numbers have fallen a lot. the harsh penalties help keep us all safer

Well, maybe, maybe not...

For the period of 1995-2005 (last data reported I could find) total
alcohol-related deaths from NTSA figures averaged 17,150 annually. *A
regression line through the data shows that the slope of the line is
-35 +/-42 -- that is, the uncertainty in the slope is greater than the
magnitude of the coefficient itself at the one-sigma level -- it isn't
significant statistically. *Or, in other words, the annual
fluctuations in numbers are larger than the tendency for an actual
decrease over time.

Consequently, it seems that at best the law has reached an impasse
where no measurable improvement is being made despite ever-harsher
laws.

laws against smoking in public places, protect everyone from
secondhand smoke and the bad health effects from it.

This one is pretty easy to avoid on your own if you're so inclined to
do so...I'm against those rules against owners of establishments
outlawing legal actions by some. *If you don't want to partake, fine,
that's your pergogative and if you can convince sufficient others, the
proprietor will undoubtedly change his policy to recover business. *If
not, so be it.

But, my point wasn't that we should do away with laws but that laws
are really only for dealing with a situation _after_ a person has
already taken an action. *Passing more laws doesn't change fundamental
behavior for a large segment of the population who are the ones who
are breaking the law in the first place. *The desire to control any
and all behavior of whatever level of deemed malevolence to
inconvenience is a propensity of many it seems, but should be resisted
as unwarranted excursion into our basic liberties for one and as being
mostly ineffectual for the latter.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

anti smoking laws are largely to protect the employees, who need a job
but can get ill from second hand smoke.

"dpb" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Apr 9, 7:28 pm, mm wrote:
On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 10:49:39 -0400, Goedjn wrote:
On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 23:33:14 -0400, mm
wrote:

On 6 Apr 2007 13:08:56 -0700, "dpb" wrote:

The lock itself is relatively cheap, granted. The rest isn't cheap
at
all -- either in dollars or philosophical bent of continuing the
(started to say "drift", but it's long passed the drifting stage )
rush towards a nanny-state.

Nanny-state refers to protecting us from ourselves, and I can give you
many examples of how I hate that. Seat-belt laws, helmet laws for
non-children, anti-smoking laws for bars, anti-transfat laws.

But it's already the obligation of the state to protect us from
others.

Actually, it's settled constitutional law that the state
doesn't HAVE to protect you from anyone.

I didn't say the Constitution required it in every case. I said it is
already the obligation of the state to protect us from others.

The state has no obligation to protect you from anybody. The cops can sit at
the donnut shop while you are beaten to death and your wife is raped and
nobody can do ****. The courts have repeatedly found no obligation to
provide police protection to any particular individual, only to society at
large. That translates to the state doesn't have to do **** for you. If you
think the state is going to protect you all I can say is lotsa ****ing luck
hope you don't find out the hard way how wrong ya are.

On Apr 11, 9:15 pm, " wrote:
On Apr 11, 9:13?pm, "dpb" wrote:





On Apr 11, 2:28 pm, " wrote:

On Apr 9, 9:53?pm, "dpb" wrote:

On Apr 9, 7:28 pm, mm wrote:

On 9 Apr 2007 09:12:22 -0700, "dpb" wrote:

On Apr 8, 10:33 pm, mm wrote:
...
Nanny-state refers to protecting us from ourselves, ...
...

I think of it in the broader context than that ...
But it's already the obligation of the state to protect us from
others. ?

I submit that is not the obligation of the state but our collective
obligation to each other to use common sense and restraint to "first
do no harm". ?...
...
And you see where that gets us, when we rely on individusala includng
the many who don't give a damn about who gets hurt because of them.
Drunken drivers, drunks who start fights in bars so that people
actually get hurt, people who leave guns around so that their kids
shoot visitors, or their own brother or sister. ?Etc. Etc. ?

I don't know the best exact boundary for what the law should say about
gun locks, but I know that preaching individual responsibility when we
already know how many people aren't responsible at all is a bunch of
crap.

Well, there's the point made for me precisely--all the laws against
drunk driving, etc., don't really mean much do they, unless people
take the personal responsibility to not drink and drive. ?You can't
legislate morality and you can't legislate responsibility any more
successfully. ?You can, otoh, with diligence behave responsibily
yourself and teach your children and others you come in contact with
the rudiments of gun safety and how to act responsibly with them.
That effort on one's part includes properly storing them to preclude
acquisition of them by unauthorized parties, of course.

You may wish laws were effective in changing behavior, but we have
ample evidence that isn't particularly effective, too. ?How many laws
did the guy I heard of on the radio today break in committing his
offense(s)? ?They didn't help much, did they?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

how many more would die without the laws against drunk driving, those
numbers have fallen a lot. the harsh penalties help keep us all safer

Well, maybe, maybe not...

For the period of 1995-2005 (last data reported I could find) total
alcohol-related deaths from NTSA figures averaged 17,150 annually. ?A
regression line through the data shows that the slope of the line is
-35 +/-42 -- that is, the uncertainty in the slope is greater than the
magnitude of the coefficient itself at the one-sigma level -- it isn't
significant statistically. ?Or, in other words, the annual
fluctuations in numbers are larger than the tendency for an actual
decrease over time.

Consequently, it seems that at best the law has reached an impasse
where no measurable improvement is being made despite ever-harsher
laws.

laws against smoking in public places, protect everyone from
secondhand smoke and the bad health effects from it.

This one is pretty easy to avoid on your own if you're so inclined to
do so...I'm against those rules against owners of establishments
outlawing legal actions by some. ?If you don't want to partake, fine,
that's your pergogative and if you can convince sufficient others, the
proprietor will undoubtedly change his policy to recover business. ?If
not, so be it.

But, my point wasn't that we should do away with laws but that laws
are really only for dealing with a situation _after_ a person has
already taken an action. ?Passing more laws doesn't change fundamental
behavior for a large segment of the population who are the ones who
are breaking the law in the first place. ?The desire to control any
and all behavior of whatever level of deemed malevolence to
inconvenience is a propensity of many it seems, but should be resisted
as unwarranted excursion into our basic liberties for one and as being
mostly ineffectual for the latter.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

anti smoking laws are largely to protect the employees, who need a job
but can get ill from second hand smoke.

What happened to the drunk-driving stiffer legislation argument?

As for the anti-smoking, that was a ploy/tactic used in getting them
passed, certainly. My opinion is the employees do have choice in
where they choose to work and the same market forces should prevail --
if the employer can't find help for the reason stated, they can make
do w/ what they do get or change their policy.

Again, my whole purpose is to try to raise awareness against the
practice of trying to legislate everything away with the false hope
that creating a law against something will make that something
disappear. These are just examples...

On Apr 6, 10:03 am, " wrote:
On Apr 6, 9:53?am, Banty wrote:





In article , Tim Smith
says...

In article . com,
"professorpaul" wrote:
They were really interested in what breed, if the dog bit, if it was
confined to the property, etc. I have a Lhasa Apso/Shih Tzu mix that
weighs out at 18#. As to the firearms, they were concerned if children
were in the house (mine are grown), what ones I had (I basically said
they were legal to have, and more than that, it was really none of
their business), and if they were secured, whatever that might mean to
them. BTW, the dog is used for pet therapy work in nursing homes.

Note, however, that they probably aren't asking what kind of guns you
have just to be nosy. ?Presumably, they have analyzed claims payments,
and determined that people with one kind of gun cost them more than
people with another kind of gun. ?If you don't want to tell them what
kind you have, they might play it safe, and assume the kind that costs
them the most, and charge you accordingly.

Yep. ?Even if there are no kids in the house, visitors can be an issue with
guns.

A lot of my extended family hunt and have hunting dogs - your dog isn't a
fighting breed, so just answer the questions (you *do* take safety precautions
with the guns, right?) and you'll be fine. ?Don't make problems for yourself.

Banty- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think a federal law should be created, all guns MUST have trigger
locks in place at all times.

So a kid gets a unsecured gun and shoots someone, the gun owner should
do 5 years mandatory sentence and lose everything.

soon things would be much safer, no more crying grandpas on tv about
their grandchild going to jail after using their gun to kill a
neighbor kid by accident.

altogether preventable

We keep our guns in a locked safe. We don't permit
children in our home. Leave us alone.

Cindy Hamilton

On Apr 12, 11:03�am, "dpb" wrote:
On Apr 11, 9:15 pm, " wrote:





On Apr 11, 9:13?pm, "dpb" wrote:

On Apr 11, 2:28 pm, " wrote:

On Apr 9, 9:53?pm, "dpb" wrote:

On Apr 9, 7:28 pm, mm wrote:

On 9 Apr 2007 09:12:22 -0700, "dpb" wrote:

On Apr 8, 10:33 pm, mm wrote:
...
Nanny-state refers to protecting us from ourselves, ...
...

I think of it in the broader context than that ...
But it's already the obligation of the state to protect us from
others. ?

I submit that is not the obligation of the state but our collective
obligation to each other to use common sense and restraint to "first
do no harm". ?...
...
And you see where that gets us, when we rely on individusala includng
the many who don't give a damn about who gets hurt because of them.
Drunken drivers, drunks who start fights in bars so that people
actually get hurt, people who leave guns around so that their kids
shoot visitors, or their own brother or sister. ?Etc. Etc. ?

I don't know the best exact boundary for what the law should say about
gun locks, but I know that preaching individual responsibility when we
already know how many people aren't responsible at all is a bunch of
crap.

Well, there's the point made for me precisely--all the laws against
drunk driving, etc., don't really mean much do they, unless people
take the personal responsibility to not drink and drive. ?You can't
legislate morality and you can't legislate responsibility any more
successfully. ?You can, otoh, with diligence behave responsibily
yourself and teach your children and others you come in contact with
the rudiments of gun safety and how to act responsibly with them.
That effort on one's part includes properly storing them to preclude
acquisition of them by unauthorized parties, of course.

You may wish laws were effective in changing behavior, but we have
ample evidence that isn't particularly effective, too. ?How many laws
did the guy I heard of on the radio today break in committing his
offense(s)? ?They didn't help much, did they?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

how many more would die without the laws against drunk driving, those
numbers have fallen a lot. the harsh penalties help keep us all safer

Well, maybe, maybe not...

For the period of 1995-2005 (last data reported I could find) total
alcohol-related deaths from NTSA figures averaged 17,150 annually. ?A
regression line through the data shows that the slope of the line is
-35 +/-42 -- that is, the uncertainty in the slope is greater than the
magnitude of the coefficient itself at the one-sigma level -- it isn't
significant statistically. ?Or, in other words, the annual
fluctuations in numbers are larger than the tendency for an actual
decrease over time.

Consequently, it seems that at best the law has reached an impasse
where no measurable improvement is being made despite ever-harsher
laws.

laws against smoking in public places, protect everyone from
secondhand smoke and the bad health effects from it.

This one is pretty easy to avoid on your own if you're so inclined to
do so...I'm against those rules against owners of establishments
outlawing legal actions by some. ?If you don't want to partake, fine,
that's your pergogative and if you can convince sufficient others, the
proprietor will undoubtedly change his policy to recover business. ?If
not, so be it.

But, my point wasn't that we should do away with laws but that laws
are really only for dealing with a situation _after_ a person has
already taken an action. ?Passing more laws doesn't change fundamental
behavior for a large segment of the population who are the ones who
are breaking the law in the first place. ?The desire to control any
and all behavior of whatever level of deemed malevolence to
inconvenience is a propensity of many it seems, but should be resisted
as unwarranted excursion into our basic liberties for one and as being
mostly ineffectual for the latter.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

anti smoking laws are largely to protect the employees, who need a job
but can get ill from second hand smoke.

What happened to the drunk-driving stiffer legislation argument?

As for the anti-smoking, that was a ploy/tactic used in getting them
passed, certainly. *My opinion is the employees do have choice in
where they choose to work and the same market forces should prevail --
if the employer can't find help for the reason stated, they can make
do w/ what they do get or change their policy.

Again, my whole purpose is to try to raise awareness against the
practice of trying to legislate everything away with the false hope
that creating a law against something will make that something
disappear. *These are just examples...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

well certinally if in the case of tobacco taxes are raised enough
while laws are passed making it illegal to smoke in any public place,
less smoking will occur...............

We keep our guns in a locked safe. We don't permit
children in our home. Leave us alone.

Cindy Hamilton


I keep my guns locked up also. I take them out regularly and teach my
children how to use them properly and safely. Proper gun control is teaching
your children how to use them safely, how to hit what they aim at, and when
to shoot and when not to shoot. *That* is how you prevent accidents.
Education, not laws, rules, and regulations.

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 21:14:58 GMT, Charlie Morgan wrote:

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 13:28:50 -0700, "Ook" Ook Don't send me any freakin' spam
at zootal dot com delete the Don't send me any freakin' spam wrote:



We keep our guns in a locked safe. We don't permit
children in our home. Leave us alone.

Cindy Hamilton


I keep my guns locked up also. I take them out regularly and teach my
children how to use them properly and safely. Proper gun control is teaching
your children how to use them safely, how to hit what they aim at, and when
to shoot and when not to shoot. *That* is how you prevent accidents.
Education, not laws, rules, and regulations.


That was long ago proven to be a fallacy. KIds who have been "taught to use guns
safely" tend to think they know what they are doing, but they are too young to
have the necessary judgement. Education in tis case, only gives a false sense of
competency.

CWM

Interesting assertion, but I don't beleive it.
Got any supporting evidence or a cite, or are you just making this up?

I keep my guns locked up also. I take them out regularly and teach my
children how to use them properly and safely. Proper gun control is
teaching
your children how to use them safely, how to hit what they aim at, and
when
to shoot and when not to shoot. *That* is how you prevent accidents.
Education, not laws, rules, and regulations.


That was long ago proven to be a fallacy. KIds who have been "taught to
use guns
safely" tend to think they know what they are doing, but they are too
young to
have the necessary judgement. Education in tis case, only gives a false
sense of
competency.

CWM

I do not believe this was ever proven to be a fallacy. As I child I was
taught to use a gun safely, and my own children know how to use a gun
safely. It is the responsibility of the adult to keep guns from children
that are not old enough to have the necessary judgement to use a gun safely,
just as it's the responsibility of gun owning adults to teach children gun
safety. And lastly, if the education gives a false sense of competency, the
education itself was faulty. Proper education does not give a false sense of
competency.

Education, not laws, rules, and regulations.

On Apr 12, 6:21?pm, "Ook" Ook Don't send me any freakin' spam at
zootal dot com delete the Don't send me any freakin' spam wrote:
I keep my guns locked up also. I take them out regularly and teach my
children how to use them properly and safely. Proper gun control is
teaching
your children how to use them safely, how to hit what they aim at, and
when
to shoot and when not to shoot. *That* is how you prevent accidents.
Education, not laws, rules, and regulations.

That was long ago proven to be a fallacy. KIds who have been "taught to
use guns
safely" tend to think they know what they are doing, but they are too
young to
have the necessary judgement. Education in tis case, only gives a false
sense of
competency.

CWM

I do not believe this was ever proven to be a fallacy. As I child I was
taught to use a gun safely, and my own children know how to use a gun
safely. It is the responsibility of the adult to keep guns from children
that are not old enough to have the necessary judgement to use a gun safely,
just as it's the responsibility of gun owning adults to teach children gun
safety. And lastly, if the education gives a false sense of competency, the
education itself was faulty. Proper education does not give a false sense of
competency.

Education, not laws, rules, and regulations.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

still leaving the guns accesible, one of their friends might even kill
your son or daughter, by accident.

kids just dont have the necessary judgement

On Apr 12, 2:58 pm, " wrote:
On Apr 12, 11:03?am, "dpb" wrote:





On Apr 11, 9:15 pm, " wrote:

On Apr 11, 9:13?pm, "dpb" wrote:

On Apr 11, 2:28 pm, " wrote:

On Apr 9, 9:53?pm, "dpb" wrote:

On Apr 9, 7:28 pm, mm wrote:

On 9 Apr 2007 09:12:22 -0700, "dpb" wrote:

On Apr 8, 10:33 pm, mm wrote:
...
Nanny-state refers to protecting us from ourselves, ...
...

I think of it in the broader context than that ...
But it's already the obligation of the state to protect us from
others. ?

I submit that is not the obligation of the state but our collective
obligation to each other to use common sense and restraint to "first
do no harm". ?...
...
And you see where that gets us, when we rely on individusala includng
the many who don't give a damn about who gets hurt because of them.
Drunken drivers, drunks who start fights in bars so that people
actually get hurt, people who leave guns around so that their kids
shoot visitors, or their own brother or sister. ?Etc. Etc. ?

I don't know the best exact boundary for what the law should say about
gun locks, but I know that preaching individual responsibility when we
already know how many people aren't responsible at all is a bunch of
crap.

Well, there's the point made for me precisely--all the laws against
drunk driving, etc., don't really mean much do they, unless people
take the personal responsibility to not drink and drive. ?You can't
legislate morality and you can't legislate responsibility any more
successfully. ?You can, otoh, with diligence behave responsibily
yourself and teach your children and others you come in contact with
the rudiments of gun safety and how to act responsibly with them.
That effort on one's part includes properly storing them to preclude
acquisition of them by unauthorized parties, of course.

You may wish laws were effective in changing behavior, but we have
ample evidence that isn't particularly effective, too. ?How many laws
did the guy I heard of on the radio today break in committing his
offense(s)? ?They didn't help much, did they?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

how many more would die without the laws against drunk driving, those
numbers have fallen a lot. the harsh penalties help keep us all safer

Well, maybe, maybe not...

For the period of 1995-2005 (last data reported I could find) total
alcohol-related deaths from NTSA figures averaged 17,150 annually. ?A
regression line through the data shows that the slope of the line is
-35 +/-42 -- that is, the uncertainty in the slope is greater than the
magnitude of the coefficient itself at the one-sigma level -- it isn't
significant statistically. ?Or, in other words, the annual
fluctuations in numbers are larger than the tendency for an actual
decrease over time.

Consequently, it seems that at best the law has reached an impasse
where no measurable improvement is being made despite ever-harsher
laws.

laws against smoking in public places, protect everyone from
secondhand smoke and the bad health effects from it.

This one is pretty easy to avoid on your own if you're so inclined to
do so...I'm against those rules against owners of establishments
outlawing legal actions by some. ?If you don't want to partake, fine,
that's your pergogative and if you can convince sufficient others, the
proprietor will undoubtedly change his policy to recover business. ?If
not, so be it.

But, my point wasn't that we should do away with laws but that laws
are really only for dealing with a situation _after_ a person has
already taken an action. ?Passing more laws doesn't change fundamental
behavior for a large segment of the population who are the ones who
are breaking the law in the first place. ?The desire to control any
and all behavior of whatever level of deemed malevolence to
inconvenience is a propensity of many it seems, but should be resisted
as unwarranted excursion into our basic liberties for one and as being
mostly ineffectual for the latter.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

anti smoking laws are largely to protect the employees, who need a job
but can get ill from second hand smoke.

What happened to the drunk-driving stiffer legislation argument?

As for the anti-smoking, that was a ploy/tactic used in getting them
passed, certainly. ?My opinion is the employees do have choice in
where they choose to work and the same market forces should prevail --
if the employer can't find help for the reason stated, they can make
do w/ what they do get or change their policy.

Again, my whole purpose is to try to raise awareness against the
practice of trying to legislate everything away with the false hope
that creating a law against something will make that something
disappear. ?These are just examples...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

well certinally if in the case of tobacco taxes are raised enough
while laws are passed making it illegal to smoke in any public place,
less smoking will occur.

Have you any data like I found from the NTSA on alcohol-related
traffic deaths to substantiate that wishful thinking as well?

Do you not see the irony in government (at all levels) becoming more
and more dependent on the tobacco revenues while at the same time
saying they're against tobacco usage? Label cynical, but I see it as
disengenuous at best, duplicitous in fact.

The point remains laws such as these are bound to fail to have the
promised benefits of mass changes in public behavior. Think
prohibition for the model.

still leaving the guns accessible, one of their friends might even kill
your son or daughter, by accident.

Agreed. Leaving guns accessible is foolish. That is why I lock mine up.

Leaving knives and hammers accessible is foolish. They might cut themselves,
or hit their sibling on the head like they saw bugs bunny do. I don't see
people locking those up. And more kids are hurt by knives and hammers then
guns. Maybe we need to stop discussing guns, and talk about how we can
protect kids from knives and hammers.

There are many other things in the house that are dangerous. It is
impossible to totally protect kids from all dangers, so we do the best we
can and exercise reasonable measures to do so.

kids just don't have the necessary judgment

Define "kids". There comes a point where kids do indeed have the necessary
judgment. Until then, it is the responsibility of the gun owner to train
them and keep the guns where they can't get to them.

Have you any data like I found from the NTSA on alcohol-related
traffic deaths to substantiate that wishful thinking as well?

Do you not see the irony in government (at all levels) becoming more
and more dependent on the tobacco revenues while at the same time
saying they're against tobacco usage? Label cynical, but I see it as
disengenuous at best, duplicitous in fact.

The point remains laws such as these are bound to fail to have the
promised benefits of mass changes in public behavior. Think
prohibition for the model.


It has to do with how politicians think. If they pass laws, then they have
the appearance of caring for the people and taking action. They don't really
think about whether the laws work or not. Actually, I think that some do and
know that their laws won't do much - but they enact them all the same. For
fear of becoming a broken record - education works 1000 times better then
laws do.