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
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 shit. 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 shit for you. If you
think the state is going to protect you all I can say is lotsa fucking luck
hope you don't find out the hard way how wrong ya are.
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
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?
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.
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
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.
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...
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
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 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:
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
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
Education, not laws, rules, and regulations.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.