Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
ocrenter
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=ocrenter]
#5. Firepower. At some point you have to limit guns with excessive firepower. Guns are for self defense right? Why do we need assault weapons for self defense?[/quote]
OCR: So, what if we made your response above into an analogy, by replacing the phrase “excessive firepower” with the phrase “excessive horsepower”? Then we could repurpose your sentence, “Why do we need assault weapons for self defense?” to read, “Why do you need a Ferrari Enzo if the maximum speed limit (in California) is 70mph?”
Come to think of it, it doesn’t even need to be a Ferrari Enzo. The latest Corvettes, Mustangs and Camaros all feature versions that are all capable of performance in excess of 150mph, which is double the maximum speed limit.
There are numerous street legal cars that possess well in excess of 500 horsepower and even from relatively staid manufacturers, like Cadillac and Mercedes-Benz. Isn’t that “excessive horsepower”?[/quote]
The analogy is a partial fit. While both excessive firepower and excessive horsepower can kill, excessive firepower is applied to an object whose whole reason for existence is to kill or at least threaten to kill. Whereas excessive horsepower is simply excessive bling. Excessive horsepower, while increases the probability of death when involved in an accident, does not increase the number of death. Excessive firepower, increases the probability of death AND increases the number of death dramatically.
Participant[quote=dumbrenter]We should have mandatory registration of all knives over 4 inches long, clubs, baseball bats and dog owners.
Any dog owner letting their dog off the leash in a public area should prosecuted by a government appointed panel.[/quote]GLad you brought up dogs. All dogs are mandated to be registered. If caught having an unlicensed dog, a fine is assessed. An unlicensed dog involved in an altercation you are now looking at charges of an at large dog and having a vicious dog. Dogs that exchange hands need to be re-licensed, and so on.
Great example dumbrenter, thanks!
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]OCR: Thanks.
#1. Agree.
#2. Disagree. None of the gubment’s business. Plus, the BATF Form 4473 establishes, under threat of perjury and criminal penalty, that one is legally fit at time of purchase.
#3. Agree, with the caveat that all records are destroyed within 90 days and there is no federal registry.
#4. Agree.
#5. Gotta ask why on this. Assault weapons are responsible for a statistically small percentage of gun deaths annually. Why target this specific group/type of weapon?[/quote]#2. This is so the firearms are traceable. Someone can be a front, clears the background checks, then hands the gun to someone else. Also, without a registration, how can you mandate the liability insurance.
#5. Firepower. At some point you have to limit guns with excessive firepower. Guns are for self defense right? Why do we need assault weapons for self defense?
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=ocrenter]
No one is looking at removal of guns, simply better and more effective restrictions in place. I dont think that is unconstitutional.[/quote]
OCR: Sake of argument, what sort of restrictions would you propose? Who would implement them? Who would enforce them?
I’m being genuinely serious here. With a poster like KIBU, one is confronted with “argument” that’s long on propaganda, but utterly devoid of any meaningful proposals on how to solve the problem.
So, I’m curious to hear what you think.[/quote]
#1. Mandated gun liability insurance.
#2. Mandatory registration of all guns.
#3. Background check on all purchases of guns and ammo.
#4. Ban all internet sales
#5. Some type of assault weapons banParticipant[quote=CA renter][quote=FlyerInHi]Ocrenter touched on an important point.
There is definitely a gun culture in America. People arent using guns to defend shit.
They just want their toys.I have guns because of my peers. Wish I had bought many more guns because they are worth a lot money. But I’m pretty indifferent to the issue.
Some people feel very strongly about their toys. It’s a manly man cultural thing.
But really, who says that guns can’t be taxed and registered? We have right to property in America but if we don’t pay property taxes, the government will take our land.
Furthermore, when the framers of the constitution wrote it, the gun technology we have today did not exist. What’s the definition of a gun anyway?
There are many way to interpret the constitution.[/quote]
Wow. Talk about a load of hysterical nonsense. I’m female (and have been a victim of violent criminals, so not a manly-man thing), and am also a staunch defender of our right to own guns. I have used guns in self-defense, but this was never reported because they were never discharged, BTW, so those statistics don’t count in the data for guns used in self-defense — and this is very common. I have NEVER considered the ownership of guns to be anything like owning “toys” or some other kind of status symbol. Your perspective about gun owners is horribly warped.[/quote]
If somebody owns a single gun with just a few rounds of ammo, locked up but in an easily accessible location in the event of an armed break-in (which is extremely rare), ok, that’s self defense. But most gun owners have multiple types of firearm, and a lot of them stockpile ammo as well. That’s what you call a toy collection. No one is trying to limit gun ownership of the self defense type. But the profit from the gun industry is coming from the toy collectors, so to protect their profit, they pull out the single woman gun owner living alone needing a gun to protect herself. Nicely played, the toy makers are happy, the toy collectors are happy, what more can you ask for?
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]OCR: Really? We’re treated to a constant flow of nonsensical and remarkably fact-free flow of vitriol from this poster and solely focused on guns. Anyone who disagrees is accused of all sorts of negative behaviors and from someone who appears to read at a grade school level.
Repeated requests to come up with any sort of meaningful argument to support his/her position have either been ignored or met with the sort of gibberish seen above. You can call my response vicious, but I met like with like.
As to something I cherish: Yeah, I’m kinda funny about the Constitution that way. You know, having sacrificed friends for it and all.[/quote]
The point made was the ease in obtaining massive quantity of guns and ammo. Far beyond what is truly needed for self protection. I think you clearly saw that point as well.
Somebody posted the stat indicating reduction in gun related death and injuries, but the reason behind the reduction is a dramatic reduction in crime in general. So if crime is down, how can you argue gun ownership is for self protection? By that logic, a society with reducing crime should find gun ownership down as well.
No one is looking at removal of guns, simply better and more effective restrictions in place. I dont think that is unconstitutional.
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]KIBU: Did you actually read the study you offered as evidence to support your position? I’m thinking you went out on the interwebs and simply grabbed the first academic looking thing that seemed to support your contention. A careful reading, especially in the middle going, will show the authors’ position is one of “careful reconsideration” regarding the use of HANDGUNS for protection.
You open your post with more hysteria and hyperbole about “proguns” (I’m presuming this hackneyed malapropism refers to those of us in support of the 2nd Amendment) “screaming” in our “self delusional” way. I’m guessing you’re either foreign-born (and English is your second language), or you’re not particularly well educated.
My point, which bears repeating as it is actually supported by real evidence, is that for every isolated Santa Monica-type shooting (and, yes, statistically speaking, they are isolated), there are thousands of instances where firearms (not just HANDGUNS) are used to protect life and property.
You might not like facts, data and evidence, but they are irrefutable. Trotting out a SINGLE STUDY WITH A SMALL DATA SET does not change that. Nor does continuing to use hysterical and hyperbolic language. You, in essence, are engaged in the very behavior you accuse your opponents of.
Again, educate yourself. As the saying goes, One is entitled to one’s own opinion. One is not, however, entitled to one’s own facts.[/quote]
That was a very harsh, full frontal, personal and vicious attack.
One can only conclude that KIBU attacked something you cherish and love dearly. Akin to stealing your security blanket or your favorite teddy bear. Wait, he did, he attacked your guns and ammo. Release the hounds!!!!
Participant[quote=Jazzman]Hong Kong is an interesting choice to hide. Iceland may be safer, but is probably as pro US as Sweden. If some dirt is dug up on him, we should worry. Internet idealists are a little naive, as you can never have true privacy on a global communications network. Maybe this will give rise to a new technology.[/quote]
Agree, I was thinking the same about HK. His explanation about picking HK also seems quite odd. He sad something along the line of people of HK can protest. So what? They can’t even vote for the entire legislature let alone the chief exec. And to have the illusion that the HK government is independent of Beijing and does not answer to the CCP? That is quite silly and naive.
SO he either picked HK so he can defect to China, the US’s chief rival, or he is just way over his head.
June 10, 2013 at 10:13 PM in reply to: Calif. utility to retire troubled San Onofre nuclear power plant #762609Participant[quote=no_such_reality]OC, the leases aren’t like regularly leases, that’s why system are over-sized. The lease is more like a discounted car rental than a long term car lease.
You pay a discounted rate for KWH used whether produced by the utility or the panel on your roof.
Any net excess production credit goes to the operator, not the homeowner. The economics of panels and inverters favor oversized systems. A 10% cost increase for the inverter and you can double the number of panels. The panels themselves aren’t that expensive, the labor is as much and the labor cost is frankly the same whether you install 15 panels or 30 panels. When we installed ours that’s what we did, nearly doubled the system capacity for right around 10%.
Except for the selling issue, leasing is pretty attractive.[/quote]
I guess there are different leasing schemes out there. The quote I received involved a fixed payment monthly for the lease of the system. As for the price of the system I was quoted, increase in capacity by 10% was accompanied by increase in price by 10% as well. I also went to the wholesale solar site just to see the cost of the system without installation, the capacity vs cost increase were identical. Doubling the capacity led to doubling of cost. But maybe that’s because I’ve been looking at smaller systems.
June 10, 2013 at 2:19 PM in reply to: Calif. utility to retire troubled San Onofre nuclear power plant #762572Participant[quote=no_such_reality]
Ten sounds about right.
Meanwhile, 97 cent monthly electric bills with the AC set to 72 is PFN. 🙂
The leases make sense if you’ve got very high electric bills each month, think regularly into tier 5. Leases are problematic if you want to sell, the buyer needs to assume the lease.[/quote]
thanks for the reply, that makes a lot more sense. The tier 5 comment also explains why most of the homes that went with solar in the neighborhood are often 30 panels and higher. We have only been in tier 4 a few times so had no idea there’s such thing as tier 5.
I was thinking of the same thing about lease systems in regard to sale of the home. The buyer would need to assume the lease, but the buyer may also be assuming lease of panels that may be outdated at the time of purchase.
June 9, 2013 at 4:49 PM in reply to: Which public schools are better: Carmel Valley or La Jolla #762528Participant[quote=carli]I don’t feel personal about this at all. I don’t live in either La Jolla or Carmel Valley and as nice as each community is in its own way, I wouldn’t choose to live in either. La Jolla is too touristy and difficult to get in and out of and Carmel Valley is too cookie cutter for us. Just trying to fill the data in with some local color. Although you mention the blog is data driven, we’re all providing opinions at this point, at the request of the OP. Your opinion is in the mix, too, when you state your assumption about which demographic(s) are helping create the delta in real estate prices between La Jolla and Carmel Valley.
This is where we differ – on our opinions. My opinion is that these are vastly different communities and many families who are attracted to Carmel Valley would not choose La Jolla over Carmel Valley. They live in Carmel Valley because it is extremely family oriented, which La Jolla is not.
I guess we’ll never know. But it’s not personal. The OP can live wherever she wants to live; just trying to provide anecdotal background, trying to be helpful to a fellow east coaster who’s moving out here….when we first arrived in the area, we too were smitten by the charm and walkability of La Jolla and started our search there, like many others. But once you live in the area, you begin to see the nuances of each community appear and opinions evolve. Hopefully, that’s helpful, but if not, feel free to ignore. :-)[/quote]
Agree with your assessment. To me, La Jolla and Carmel Valley do attract two very different crowds. The CV crowd is very school/children-centric, this is essentially the case with the entire 56 cooridor. We are looking at the upper class professionals, essentially the upper 2-5%. Whereas La Jolla attracts the true one-percenter with whom money is truly no object. Of course, La Jolla also attracts the well-to-do retirees and the young trendy set who mostly rent.
The best example would be the Romneys. The younger Romneys with schhol age kids ended up in 4S, a more comparable community to CV. Whereas the well-to-do retiree aka Mitt Romney ended up in La Jolla.
Participant[quote=Jazzman]
I’m dumbfounded by the comments that follow the story. I simply cannot believe I’m on the same planet. I’m serious.[/quote]
Not sure why you are dumbfounded. A nation full of cars should expect car accidents. A nation full of guns and ammo should expect shootings.
We collectively have decided guns are a very important part of being American. So we collectively need to change our expectations when we hear about these shootings.
Participantit is just another shooting.
Anywhere else in the industrialized world, this should of course be big news. But this is the US of A. Where We the People should have already accepted this type of events as just a price to pay for our freedom and liberty.
My wife mentioned this one to me the other day:
I read the comments, a bunch of remarks about how this is such a tragedy. But I fail to see how this is a tragedy. We have a country that can’t even pass legislation for universal background checks. We have parents that bring kids to gun shows as if it is the county fair. People can walk into the local walmart and walk out with semi’s and boxes of ammo.
All of these shooting stories are simply consequences of the above, they are fully to be expected given the amount of guns and ammo out and about.
June 7, 2013 at 5:38 PM in reply to: Calif. utility to retire troubled San Onofre nuclear power plant #762501Participant[quote=no_such_reality][quote=The-Shoveler]Time to get the solar panels installed and buy a back-up generator.
[/quote]You need a very expensive battery off-grid arrangement. Otherwise, when the grid is down, it pulls your system down too.[/quote]
Did the calculation a few month ago, breakeven for solar panels were still over 10 years, counting gov rebates. The lease schemes all involve pretty high interest rates that they do not want to disclose.
Am I wrong about this? Anyone gotten solar recently?
-
AuthorPosts