h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I watched one of those videos. I think it's safe to say that a Tech 9 is not in use by competent law enforcement agencies. Watching those bimbos with guns was cringe worthy.

"freedom to do something" or "freedom from something" Alfster?
(my tutor would be so proud...)

I think at this stage i'm more aghast at the thought of being bankrupted with all that entails for my children etc, by being shot but not killed by some eejit with a gun, that really don't know what to say.

Except: what is wrong with those people who think that's ok. Because at least they are "free"

That clip was from the Jackie Brown DVD bonus features.

In regards to the old man in Gwinnett County who shot the guy who was lost, he was arrested. We're not alone in the fact that we have people who commit crimes, and we can deal with people who commit those crimes.

I don't see how the government is responsible for making a person whole when they've suffered at the hands of a criminal who isn't associated with the government. That's why we have insurance and civil courts to reimburse people for their losses.

As this issue is sorting itself out, I think the lines are becoming more clear. We have more people standing up to the administration inlcuding law enforcement groups. The Georgia Sheriff's Association, which is made up solely of the 159 sheriffs in Georgia has spoken out against depriving law-abiding people of their right to own guns. That includes sheriffs of our major metroplitan areas.

Additionally, we have guys like the sheriff of Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke urging people to attend gun class to proetect themselves.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEibmLh5qRI

I think the question was how was that reaction to that normal?

And yes, if your rights mean that you have a society that finds guns perfectly fine,and is unable to find a solution to the crimanality that results in other people injuries and death through gun crime, then you do have a responability as a society to pick up the bills

Any truly humanist organised society (call it socialism
if that helps) should be committed to assisting all its
citizens - even the hopelessly self-destructive drunks
and addicts. If a person is injured because of some
unforeseen accident at a government facility they should,
and would likely be, compensated - so it is only logical
that when someone is injured because of lax government
regulations the government should also be held liable.

I read in ancient travelog a quote that said, "Where there
is organised religion, there you will find food." It seems
that should also extend to all the religious capacities
of charitable concern for our fellows' health and welfare.
Shelter, clothing, work opportunities, medical care...

But I do understand it is hard to make a profit if everyone
gets a fair share of everything. How can we be expected to
care for our fellows when we depend upon gouging them with
'market driven' prices for their necessities of life.

I see Blackberry stock is well up today.
Shoulda bought shares last week.


~jwf~

If all property is theft then it is not surprising that people end up dead over it.

"I don't see how the government is responsible for making a person whole when they've suffered at the hands of a criminal who isn't associated with the government"

The government is not responsible. Society, every other person around them in their community, including you, is responsible, personally and individually. I have no problem, living as I do within a civil society and benefiting from the advantages thereof, with paying for those advantages. This applies even, perhaps especially, to the ones I don't use directly myself.

This means I pay for childcare and education, even though I don't have kids. I pay for firefighters, even though I've never in my life needed to call them out. I pay for cancer treatments, although I do not (yet) have cancer. I pay for unemployment benefits, although I am employed. I understand that I'm NOT a rugged individual - I'm a member of an interdependent society. The price of that is that there is a small minority of moochers who will scrounge off that system and get more than they deserve. This is, to me, a far preferable state of affairs than an alternative where I pay for none of those things until I need them, but when I need them if I'm not a millionaire I lose my home.

The "I'm alright Jack, and everyone else can go f^%k themselves" attitude apparent in many USAians is, I think, the most depressing and unpleasant thing about them. It's understandable, in a historical context - there's this fantasy Americans are apparently sold that
(a) they're all rugged frontiersmen who must protect their property and family by force, themselves, personally, because nobody else will do it for them and
(b) they too can be a millionaire if they just work hard enough

It's these two pernicious fantasies that I think are a large part of the attitudes on display from the US right wing.

>> small minority of moochers who will scrounge off that system and get more than they deserve <<

They call that the freeloader / free rider problem. [Etymology anyone - freeloader / free rider?]

I think that 'freeloader' business came from the Great Depression.

People were broke. They needed to get somewhere. They risked life and limb to hop on freight trains. The railroad companies responded by hiring 'bulls' - railway police - to stop them.

Some of our greatest writers, including John Steinbeck, 'rode the rails' in those days, and brought us great stories.

I don't think I have to say it, but I will, anyway - I am proud of you people for pointing out the extent to which we are, in fact, our brothers' keepers.

Any human population can be divided statistically
into at least seven distinct groups based on their
natural health and social attributes. Similar patterns
are revealed in any study of opinions, incomes, ages,
beliefs, commitments, indebtedness, artistic abilities,
education, willingness to work, physical strength, length
of romantic relationships, desire to join a circus...

Anyone familiar with the bell curve graphic used
by statisticians will know that there will always be
a bulge in the middle representing the 'average joe'
and some statistically insignificant group at both the
lower and upper end of any graph.

(In 1990 a full 11% believed Elvis was still alive and
12% claimed to have been abducted by aliens)

As many past societies have discovered you can't just
shoot all the losers. And as most dictators and selfish
governments discover, if you don't keep the majority
happy they will eventually tear down the castle walls.

Chaos versus order. It's a question of finding the
Golden Mean and suffering the fools. But why let
all the fools have guns.


~jwf~

I think we go can back further than Dmitri, The Poor Relief Act 1601 I expect people took advantage of that as well

I see the injuries suffered at the hands of a criminal to be the responsibility of the criminal. If you make government responsible for every wrong where does it stop? If hominem steals my car, should the government replace it. I was harmed by a criminal. It's probably the governments fault because our sentencing isn't harsh enough or because the Fourth Amendment keeps the police from randomly stopping and searching people without suspicion.

Surely parole boards should be liable for the crimes of any prisoner they release. But for their actions the criminal would be in jail.

'The government' isn't an entity. 'The government' is the people. (I don't think that remark is original with me.)

If the people of a country decide that they are less worried about 'getting even with' lawbreakers, and more concerned with minimising the damage to all involved, I say they have passed a basic thest of maturity as human beings.

It's not about whose fault it is. It's about what's best for society as a whole.

What if the criminals dead? Or doesn't themself have the financial resources to pay for medical bills, which seems incredibly likely?

Personally I don't have the slightest problem with bringing hospitals under the purview of the government the same way, say, firefighters are, and paying for it through taxes. I think it would have a lot of benefits.

But then I also think social security should be abolished, which I'm sure nobody would be happy to hear. (Not all at once of course.)

On the gun control and legal debate front, in case our European friends would like a summary, here is Stephen Colbert on the subject last night:

http://garthright.blogspot.com/2013/01/nullification.html

I'm linking to a blog because I understand some people can't access 'Colbert Nation'. I'm not specifically endorsing the blogger's POV.

Although I endorse Colbert's statements about Mississippi and the he gave when he saw Jeff Smith's moustache.

Thanks for the explanation to freeloader Dmitri

While we're making the government liable for the harm suffered because of the independent actions of third parties, perhaps the government should also be liable for injuries suffered by people who would have had a gun when they were harmed if it wasn't for gun control laws.

Prehaps then you could just compensate victims of violent crime,for death and injury, even if a gun wasn't used as chosen weapon of vioence

As for the car thing, that is so totaly different to require everyone to have levels of insurance

The point is that you are asserting your rights to have guns, you should take an equal level responsibility for the consequences of that

A collective one,you can argue for the responsible ownership of guns, but have to conceed that guns are also going to be used irresponsibly and to harm, that is the price you are prepared to pay so the very least you could do is cough up for it

although no amount of compensation is going to be enough for Newtown, or this http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/31/girl-performed-obama-inuaguration-shot