Fri
Aug 10 2007
05:12 pm

UPDATE: SayUncle responds, as does the original poster. Some of the comments are hilarious. At least SayUncle seems to sort of get the point.

Every now and then I go over to see what they're talking about at SayUncle's, because I've met the guy and he's OK (other than being maybe a little too obsessed with guns and the 2nd Amendment), and occasionally there's an interesting post about blogging or local politics (except for some off-the-deep-end posts by #9 which he allows there).

But apparently Uncle's gone on vacation, and given the keys to his blog to a bunch of his gun-nut blog buddies. Usually I just ignore that stuff, but this post was rather shocking.

More...

They're analyzing a Fox News video of a lawyer getting shot down outside a court house, and debating the finer points of "aimed fire" v. "point shooting" v. "stopping power," with the added observation that "On a humorous note, watching a lawyer dodge bullets is always funny."

Good God, people. An innocent man was shot and nearly killed by a deranged, gun-toting criminal outside a court house. And this is funny? And provides valuable technical instruction on how better to kill innocent people with a handgun?

Look, I'm all for the 2nd Amendment, with some reasonable interpretations that might prohibit my neighbor from owning rocket propelled grenade launchers and nuclear weapons. (Why is it these guys always forget to mention the "well regulated" part?)

But this kind of stuff is where they lose me, and most mainstream, rationally thinking Americans. These guys sit around fantasizing about their guns and the day they will finally get to use them, like it's some kind of video game with no consequences.

I imagine if they asked any law enforcement officer who has had to use their weapon to take someone's life about the real-world legal, emotional, and spiritual consequences, they would learn that their dangerous arrested-adolescent fantasies are just that.

(And ironically, most of them are of age to suit up and go over to Iraq where they might actually get to use guns to show off their elite killing skills. Yet they don't, despite the fact they are mostly wingnuts who support the invasion and occupation.)

Disclaimer: I own guns, and I know how to shoot them. But to me they're just another tool, and I have no more emotional attachment to them than I do a hammer or a blender, except I hope I never have to use the guns.

Topics:
Dax's picture

nuts

Someone will have to defend our families when the open border invasion is in full tilt. I remember nuts on the other side chuckling when George Wallace was shot. I remember Julianne Malveaux saying that Rush Limbaugh's wife should poison him. Words are free to use by nuts on every side. P.S. People cheered inside the movie theaters when a T-Rex ate a lawyer. que sera, sera

Carole Borges's picture

People are free to say anything they want, but

I agree with Neal. The mentality that is exposed by what they say frightens me. I'm less afraid of an invasion by Mexican housekeepers and vegetable pickers than I am of weirdos running around my neighborhood toting machine guns in their belts. This idea that the constitution was written to encourage people to shoot one another is crazy.

Hunters seeking to kill animals (for food) should be allowed to have sporting guns, and the use of handguns used to protect your castle are also logical, but no one has a right to be wielding the kinds of deadly weapons we see on the streets now. Guns unfortunately don't offer the protection many people think they do. In reality, few true disputes or attacks are solved or repelled by guns. We learned that a long time ago.

If you don't want Knoxville to look like Mosul then you should think twice about encouraging a militia minded society. The guys on that site can say anything they want, but because of what they say I feel a strong need for gun laws that will protect me and my fellow citizens.

The original militias were designed to ensure people bought their own guns in case the country came under attack. The founding fathers wanted to be sure no governmental agency would take over the country against the will of the people.

For this reason I support the right to bear arms, but we need laws to protect us from idots run amok.

Your inference about the border suggests you might actually have a fantasy of killing people.

Believing were all savages is not as Rumsfeld and Cheney are so fond of saying "helpful".

Andy Axel's picture

P.S. People cheered inside

P.S. People cheered inside the movie theaters when a T-Rex ate a lawyer.

Jurassic Park was a work of fiction.

____________________________

I'm a guy in a Reagan mask -- and I'm running for President!

SammySkull's picture

open border invasion? Is

open border invasion? Is this guy serious? Did he honestly compare the fictionalized version of a caricature/stereotype of a lawyer in a work of fiction being eaten by an extinct animal with a real situation in which a real live human was targeted by a criminal intent on inflicting bodily harm? Didn't we just see this same kind of thing play out in the comments, one side accusing the other of misdeeds while the accused answered with the concept that because someone, somewhere else did something not dissimilar that it was justified?

Virgil Proudfoot's picture

People who play with guns

People who enjoy playing with guns will say anything to support their habit. They are especially prone to misinterpreting the Second Amendment, which establishes the National Guard, not the right of every teenager to blow away his high school class.

Since they have no constitutional grounds, the gun fans rarely argue their case in a court of law. (Note the weird insult to lawyers in the mention of Jurassic Park.) Instead, they use their money and media clout to go after politicians, who are of course easily intimidated by the threat of losing campaign funds.

If otherwise responsible adults want to play with guns, it's OK with me, but I wish they'd just say that they really like to play with guns and not make up a lot of nonsense about the Constitution. After all, it they're worried about the Constitution, then why did they overwhelming vote for George W. Bush, who has managed to get rid of habeas corpus, aka the Fourth Amendment?

Dax's picture

Dax apologizes for voting

Dax apologizes for voting for Bush. He is a constitutional disappointment at best who should be impeached for the eavesdropping constitutional violations. If I had my vote back, I would vote for a Libertarian or write in Virgil.

JaHu's picture

Dax apologizes for voting

Dax apologizes for voting for Bush.

Dax, there's hope for you yet!

Adrift in the Sea of Humility

Hoseman19's picture

Firearm education

Give an idiot an audience, and he will say anything to get noticed. Yes, I own several firearms, and enjoy hunting, and target shooting. But, all of them are secured. I have 3 children, 7, 9, and 11. And they all know "age-appropriate" firearm safety. I am not worried about them accessing my firearms, I am worried about them at a friends home, and someone else picking up a gun. All 3 know not to touch a firearm, unless they are properly supervised, i.e., me. And when they get a little older, I will take them to a hunter safety course. If they decide to hunt, target shoot, or never to touch a firearm again, at least they will have some knowledge about firearm safety. I hope they guy who shot at the lawyer got his just rewards, and the people who think it is funny should never touch a firearm again.
And if we are ever invaded by the Mexican housewife brigade, I will just turn my Chihuahuas loose on them.

JaHu's picture

"I have 3 children, 7, 9,

"I have 3 children, 7, 9, and 11. And they all know "age-appropriate" firearm safety. I am not worried about them accessing my firearms, I am worried about them at a friends home, and someone else picking up a gun."

Hoseman19, Have you considered that you might be a little naive? When you were a child did you do everything your parents wanted you to do while they were away? Didn't curiosity ever get the better of you or were you one of the exceptions? I'm not saying that you shouldn't own guns, even with kids, but I would 'always' be worried concerned about my children accessing my firearms.

Adrift in the Sea of Humility

Hoseman19's picture

Firearm education, part 2

No, I do not consider myself to be naive. As a matter of fact, I well remember my childhood, and doing things I shouldn't. That is why I keep my firearms secured in a safe. Not a safe place, or a hiding spot, but a gun safe. (I probably should have stated that the first time.) And only my wife and I know the combination. And no, the combination isn't written down where they can get it, either.
I'm not claiming to be the perfect parent, but I do claim to put a lot of effort into my parenting. A little bit of prevention can go a long, long way.
P.S. - The ammunition is also secure.

JaHu's picture

Hoseman: "I'm not claiming

Hoseman: "I'm not claiming to be the perfect parent, but I do claim to put a lot of effort into my parenting. A little bit of prevention can go a long, long way."

I'd like to retract the naive part, and I really didn't want to imply that you weren't a good parent. Sounds as if you are! I certainly shouldn't be throwing stones when it comes to parenting, but unfortunately I still cast a few and have also been the recipient of some. So with that said, and as you stated, the fear is that not all parents are as dilligent about gun safety as you, and that's the reason there should be some regulation. But how to do it, I am clueless. When our forefathers wrote the constitution it was impossible for them to envision the types of weapons that we have in use today and how these weapons would be abused, or I would think they would have added some provisions into the constitution to somehow cover the misuse. I wish there were a middle ground that would make everyone happy but there doesn't appear to be any.

I can understand someone wanting to own a gun to protect their family, but it can be taken too far? It's been taken too far when protecting someones individual rights by allowing them ownership of a weapon capable of killing a multitude of people has made it more dangerous for society as a whole. Randy made a list of reasons of how owning a gun isn't a guarantee to protect you. I wonder how many of those cases the person's own gun was used against them?

Adrift in the Sea of Humility

Firedawg13's picture

"But this kind of stuff is

"But this kind of stuff is where they lose me, and most mainstream, rationally thinking Americans. These guys sit around fantasizing about their guns and the day they will finally get to use them, like it's some kind of video game with no consequences."

Why thank you Mr. Neal! It aint ofton that someone publicly admits how biased, uninformed, and idiotic they truly are but at least you're honest about that if nothing else.

Cheers!

Dax's picture

Anyone is free to disarm

Anyone is free to disarm themselves. Call 911 (dial a prayer) when you need help. Or better still, just surrender to whoever is more powerful than you. We have lost the gene pool of the founders. It is being replaced by a wuss gene. Sorry people, I am a leftover of the founders. My ideas are no longer welcome in this socialist namby pamby society.

talidapali's picture

Then please feel free...

to volunteer for George W. Bush's Wild West Show now playing in an Iraqi battle theatre near you. You'll get to do lots of home invasions and shoot 'em up drills. By the way...unless you are past the ripe old age of 41...the Army needs YOU!

_________________________________________________
"You can't fix stupid..." ~ Ron White"
"I never said I wasn't a brat..." ~ Talidapali

Firedawg13's picture

Rational?

"But this kind of stuff is where they lose me, and most mainstream, rationally thinking Americans. These guys sit around fantasizing about their guns and the day they will finally get to use them, like it's some kind of video game with no consequences."

Mr. Neal, your comment shows that you're anything but rational, let alone mainstream. But it does show that you're biased and ignorant, which is aweful nice of you to share with us rational, mainstream Americans.

Andy Axel's picture

We have lost the gene pool

We have lost the gene pool of the founders. It is being replaced by a wuss gene. Sorry people, I am a leftover of the founders.

I doubt that very much. Our founders could read, comprehend, and tell the difference between fact and fiction.

And I don't think they found murderous gunplay funny.

____________________________

I'm a guy in a Reagan mask -- and I'm running for President!

Dax's picture

to the genetic challenged wusses

All wusses start name calling when someone defends the constitution and exhibits rugged individualism. I am not threatened or challenged by wusses. You are what is ruining the America our founders bled and died for. Actually, I pity people like you. Freedom scares them. They need a Big Brother. I only need to be left alone. I feed and clothe myself and my family.

Incidentally, when did I state that murderous gun play was funny? There is nothing funny about taking a life. You must be responding to someone else. Was it fiction when Ms. Malveaux said Rush Limbaugh's new wife should poison him? I guess that is not murderous. Perhaps you could instruct me in reading and comprehension.

JaHu's picture

"All wusses start name

"All wusses start name calling"

Did you even read what you wrote? After these five words you lost your credibility!

Adrift in the Sea of Humility

Carole Borges's picture

Isn't standing behind a big gun pretty wussy?

You could say real men use their brains to resolve problems.

Who uses guns (other than to hunt with of course) anyway?

Mostly murderers, mobsters. gang members, snipers, teenage lunatics, and carjackers.

The chances of anyone actually having to use a gun for defense in this area is pretty small. When was the last time you read a newspaper story about an average person thwarting a crime with their gun? That's a myth.

There are plenty stories of guns killing people by accident though. A friend of mine was cleaning his gun and it went off and killed his beautiful wife. He's a drunk now and will never get over the guilt and shame.

Everytime I hear someone promoting gun use, I think of Charley. He had it all, and he blew it all away for nothing.

No one had ever attacked him before he killed his wife. He has also never been attacked since the day he turned his back on guns. He paid a huge price because he was afraid. How manly is that?

JaHu's picture

"He paid a huge price

"He paid a huge price because he was afraid. How manly is that?"

Carole, You sure no how to put things in perspective.

Adrift in the Sea of Humility

Joe328's picture

Gun myth

When was the last time you read a newspaper story about an average person thwarting a crime with their gu? That's a myth.

MYTH: Lumpy Lambert apprehends suspected thief using his own hand gun.

MYTH: Suspected thief captured by Lambert, charged with murdering truck driver behind Walgreen's on Clinton Hwy.

MYTH: Both stories were reported in KNS.

SammySkull's picture

Once again, are these people

Once again, are these people serious? Using Lumpy Lambert happening to be able to use a gun to successfully thwart a crime as an example?

SammySkull's picture

wish I knew how to close the

wish I knew how to close the tag and end the bold, but I'm not that savvy.[b]

Joe328's picture

Lumpy

Yes, I am serious, Lumpy did apprehend a murder, and never fired a shot. Most people who use a gun to stop a crime, never fire a shot. I also agree with some of the other comments, that we have problem with guns.

Any citizens can own a machine gun by paying a $250.00 federal transfer tax. The $250.00 tax went into effect about 1930, and has never increased. If the tax had kept up with inflation, very few machine guns would be in the hand of private citizens. I don't own one, and I don't think any citizen should be allowed to own one. This tax also covers a silencer, which should be outlawed, except for military use.

The Geneva Convention prohibits the military from using hollow point bullets, but any citizen is allowed buy and use them in the United States. A hollow point bullet is designed for maximum damage and usually results in death. I don't use, or own any hollow point bullet. In my opinion, they should be outlawed for any caliber that fits a handgun.

Yes, I did serve in the military, I do have a gun permit, I don't keep a gun in the car, and I don't keep a gun in every room.

Bbeanster's picture

Uh, Carole,Link...I'm not

Uh, Carole,

(link...)

I'm not a gun nut or a Lumpy fan but facts is facts.

And it got worse:

(link...)

Carole Borges's picture

Lumpy the hero or Lumpy the idiot?

That's a debatable point as most gun related incidents tend to be. Who is to say what would have happened if Lump didn't have a weapon? Yesterday I saw on TV that a little girl faced with an armed robber at her mother's store screamed and yelled at him and he fled. Would it have been better if there was a gun in the store, so the kid could have pulled a rod on the man and blown him away? I doubt it.

Then there's this report that said slapping an armed man was affective.

(link...) "An armed robber fled after a cashier in a betting shop pulled off his mask and slapped him round the face.

Ana Zuric, 47, unfazed by the robber's gun, told him: "Don't be such a silly boy."

Or how about this one? Laughter alone stopped this armed assailant in his tracks.

(link...) "In one of 2007's earliest bids for the title of Rubbish Criminal of the Year, an armed robber fled after a shop assistant started laughing at him and told him he looked like a schoolboy."

Ha ha! The armed gunmen in these cases seemed not to have to need a gun pointed at them in order to stop them from committing their crimes.

There are a million stories on both sides of the gun control issue. Most of them published by the NRA which spends gadzillions of dollars trying to protect honest gunowners from losing their right to bear arms, but along with that freaks and idots and criminals are also being protected and the NRA doesn't seem to give a damn who is behind a gun as long as they maintain their right to own it.

More than guns even is the mentality of the people who use them. The orginal poster here threatened the lives of people who had committed a crime that did not carry a death sentence. That's the problem. The average person is not always equipped to make rational decisions about who to shoot or not shoot.

The problems stemming from gun possession seem to far outweigh the good they actually do. Especially in the lethal automatic weapon catagory. Who in their right mind would advocate people owning grenades, bazookas and flame throwers? Can't gun advocates seperate these two kinds of gunpwnership in their minds? Why in god's name do they keep trying to protect the people who buy these menaces?

Beam me up quick, Scotty. It's really getting beyond weird down here.

Bbeanster's picture

Carole, you ignored the

Carole, you ignored the facts of this situation when you said this: "The chances of anyone actually having to use a gun for defense in this area is pretty small. When was the last time you read a newspaper story about an average person thwarting a crime with their gun? That's a myth."

Obviously, it's not a myth, since the Lumpy/Stackhouse incident happened less than nine months ago. It was highly publicized, and the facts are chilling.

Stackhouse is charged with murdering a Walgreens employee in a Walgreens parking lot less than a mile away from Lumpy's car lot just the night before. He was trying to steal a vehicle, just as he was doing with Lumpy, so I think it isn't smart to try use an example like this "...an armed robber fled after a shop assistant started laughing at him and told him he looked like a schoolboy" in the context of this incident.

Stackhouse has confessed to killing the Walgreen's employee in a botched attempt to get his car, and the fact that he handed Lumpy his drivers license and then pulled a gun on him suggests that he didn't intend to leave a living witness at this crime scene, either. I don't personally own a gun, but it's obviously not a bad idea for someone in Lumpy's business to have one and to know how to use it.

And, again, you say this:" Who is to say what would have happened if Lump didn't have a weapon? Yesterday I saw on TV that a little girl faced with an armed robber at her mother's store screamed and yelled at him and he fled. Would it have been better if there was a gun in the store, so the kid could have pulled a rod on the man and blown him away? I doubt it"

Carole, the facts do not suggest that Kane Stackhouse would have been deterred by a little girl yelling at him. More likely she'd have ended up like the Walgreen's guy the night before.

Carole Borges's picture

Maybe not...

Your imagination and assumptions are as good as mine, but the fact is we will never know what would have happened if Lumpy didn't have a gun.

I agree it might seem like Lumpy was lucky to have the gun, but too many scenarios suggest a shoot out is not always necessary to protect one's self. What would people be saying now if the guy had blown poor Lumpy away? Most likely they'd be saying he was stupid to draw on a guy already holding a gun.

Let's assume you're right about Lumpy being smart to have a gun that actually defused this possible murder. That one incident certainly should not be taken as a good example of how the average person might come out alive during an armed robbery.

Basing something on one incident is called a false premise.

Bbeanster's picture

And branding something that

And branding something that actually happened as a "myth" is stupid.

Carole Borges's picture

Betty, I didn't call that one incident a myth...

I trust your reporting. I read your link. It was the fallacy that having a firearm was some kind of guarentee that you would come out of a lethal situation alive that I was questioning. I still question that as a fact. It is clearly an assumption and seems based on one incident which makes it an unconvincing argument from my perspective.

I'd be open to someone presenting several actual cases (beyond the grand Lumpy one) in which an armed robber when confronted by an armed victim turned tails and ran. Not NRA stats, but news stories.

Once again, the fact that Lumpy pulled a gun on an armed assailiant and lived to tell about it is clearly a fact.

That never was my point.

This asessment makes more sense to me personally.

"The ignorance among handgun owners of the basic laws of self-defense is compounded by the distorted views of armed confrontations as seen on TV. Criminals, unlike their counterparts on the small screen, do not drop their weapons and freeze in response to a challenge. Again, the experts inform their students that:

If you analyze a number of official police reports of confrontations with armed criminals, you will reach the inescapable conclusion that sudden and violent resistance is, statistically, a much more likely response than surrender. (Unintended Consequences, p. 28) (link...)

Like all hot topics the old rule seems to apply here, " A man (or woman) convinced against their will, will be of the same opinion still."

All we can do is vote our beliefs and try to educate people as best we can of our good sense.

I don't question your right to come to your own conclusions.

R. Neal's picture

Good for Lumpy for helping

Good for Lumpy for helping catch this guy and get a vicious killer off the street.

But let's not forget the other side of the gun culture:

(link...) Authorities allege Mann shot McGhee’s father, Terrance McGhee, 60, in the head as he slept inside his Jolly Lane home and then waited for her stepmother, Alisa McGhee, 41, to return, fatally shooting her.

(link...) Knoxville police reported Ieshia Jackson shot by her mother, Kimberly Matthews, in Western Heights at 9:15 p.m. Saturday.

(link...) An 18-year-old Athens man has been charged with the July 19 shooting death of 17-year-old Zack Webb,

(link...) An autopsy was performed Friday on an 8-year-old girl who died from an accidental gunshot wound to the head, Oak Ridge Police Chief David H. Beams said in a statement.

(link...) A Clarksville high school basketball coach wanted in connection with the shooting death of his ex-wife was taken into custody Tuesday after a manhunt in rural Montgomery County.

(link...) Shot just after midnight in the city’s Scarboro community were Willie T. Booker, 56, wounded in the leg; Nicholas O. Mitchell, 24, who sustained a gunshot wound to a shoulder; Sherrod Scott, 22, shot in the right buttock; and Jermaine Mitchell, 25, who sustained graze wounds to the right leg and right buttock.

(link...) Police this morning were searching for a man armed with a shotgun wanted in connection with shooting another man in the leg in North Knoxville.

(link...) A trial date was set for Jason Eric McLean for January 21, 2008. He's facing second degree murder charges for the death of Sean Powell. Powell was found shot to death while he was sitting in his car in front of the McLean home.

(link...) Authorities believe Christian was strangled. Newsom was shot and his bound body set afire along railroad tracks near the Chipman Street house.

Gun activists say the answer is more guns on the street...

R. Neal's picture

Gun Deaths and Injury - The

Gun Deaths and Injury - The United States Leads the World in Firearm Violence (from the Brady Campaign):

• In 2004, 29,569 people in the United States died from firearm-related deaths – 11,624 (39%) of those were murdered; 16,750 (57%) were suicides; 649 (2.2%) were accidents; and in 235 (.8%) the intent was unknown. [5] In comparison, 33,651 Americans were killed in the Korean War and 58,193 Americans were killed in the Vietnam War.[6]

• In 2004, firearms were used to murder 56 people in Australia, 184 people in Canada, 73 people in England and Wales, 5 people in New Zealand, and 37 people in Sweden.[8] In comparison, firearms were used tomurder 11,344 people in the United States.[9]

• In 2005, there were only 143 justifiable homicides by private citizens using handguns in the United States.[10]

This is insane.

Joe328's picture

One incident is called a false premise

Your right, one incident is not enough. Tim Burchett apprehends a thief using a handgun, the owner of White Star market stops a thief (who has a long criminal history) by shooting his tires, an elderly man kills an armed thief (with a long criminal history) in his home on Valley View, and with a little research, more examples can be found.

All 37 states that legalized citizens the right to go armed has seen a drop in violent crimes. The cities in the United States with the highest violent crime rate, prohibits citizens from carrying weapons. This information is not from the NRA, my dreams, imagination, or assumptions, it's from the U.S. Dept. of Justice.

I have a gun permit, but only carried a weapon about three times in the last year. Since the criminal has no idea who is armed or not armed, I see no need to carry a gun all the time.

Since you don't have a problem with people who run red lights, and are strongly opposed to the Reflex cameras at dangerous intersection. I would like to know how many people in Knoxville are killed by red light runners compared to guns.

Carole Borges's picture

I said the cameras make me nervous...

and they do. I worried that they were making my driving less safe. I still worry about that, though maybe I'll be able to get over that feeling. Once we have cameras located in every room of my house, I suppose I'll forget they are there.

I am not for running red lights. I am not for drunk driving. I am also not for everyone packing a rod either.

The Justice Dept. is reporting all these local crimes? Please offer a link?

You sound at least logical about when you carry a weapon. So does the person posting here with kids. More so than some of the wing-nuts I've run into. Like the guy who felt he was a one-man possee watching all the kids in the neighborhood to make sure they weren't doing anything wrong. His only intention was to "wing them" of course. God forbid, he should make a mistake.

Who is to protect us though and our kids from the wing-nuts with guns? Just curious, but do you think everyone should have a gun?

Please read this report with an open mind and tell me if it doesn't sound exactly like the tobacco industry.

(link...)

The gun lobby and the tobacco lobby use exactly the same tactics.

Michael's picture

I worried that they were

I worried that they were making my driving less safe. I still worry about that, though maybe I'll be able to get over that feeling.I worry about people who worry about traffic signal cameras.
~m.

Michael's picture

I worried that they were

I worried that they were making my driving less safe. I still worry about that, though maybe I'll be able to get over that feeling.

I worry about people who worry about traffic signal cameras.
~m.

JaHu's picture

Speeking of Redflex! Does

Speeking of Redflex! Does the amount of tickets written affect their profit? Or are they paid a set fee for operating the cameras?

Adrift in the Sea of Humility

R. Neal's picture

They get a cut of every

They get a cut of every ticket. Like two-thirds.

JaHu's picture

"They get a cut of every

"They get a cut of every ticket. Like two-thirds."

So with this being a profit oriented company, wouldn't it be in their best interest to process as many tickets as possible?

If so, is it theoretically possible for Redflex to digitally alter the image or speeds recorded on the cameras so to increase their revenue. I'm not asking if they have, I'm asking if it is theoretically possible!

Further ranting:
I read this on the City's website:

Knoxville currently, by contracting with RedFlex, does not pay a single penny of taxpayer money to operate or manage the system.

"There is no cost to the taxpayers," said KPD Capt. Gordon Catlett, the program's manager. "The only people who pay for this program are the people who violate the law."

Is this really true? Previously didn't all the money that was collected from 'the people who violate the law' go to the city and not to a private company? Just because Redflex has generated more money it doesn't necessarily mean that it wasn't taken from the taxpayers!

Michael I'm not afraid of traffic cameras, what I am afraid of is the direction the country is heading and how these innocent cameras could be used for in the future. Paranoid? Maybe!

Randy, sorry for being off topic, this will be the last time I'll post about Redflex and the traffic cameras... If I can help it.

Adrift in the Sea of Humility

Joe328's picture

Carole, wing-nuts...Redflex

Carole, your right, the Dept of Justice (DOJ) does not have local data. The local information came from KNS, and Mountain Press. Sorry but I just don't know how to do a link. I did compare the data that R. Neal posted from the Brady Campaign, with the DOJ, and the stats he posted are correct, but missing the fact that some of the shootings were criminals shot by police. I usually check the NRA and Brady stats and have found the both pick through DOJ data to justify the cause. This is one reason I am a former NRA member.

Your right about the wing-nuts, thats why I don't like others assuming I came from the same mold as idiots like this. I also didn't make any remarks about Scott West being the same as all drug dealers, since all dealers are not alike. It does seem that most shootings in this country are from drug dealing, and I don't have any stats on this, just assuming on my part.

Yes, I know you don't run red light for the joy of it. I just put everyone in the same group, since all gun owners were being mixed in the same bowl with wing-nut.

Some recent data seems to indicate that distraction outside the vehicle are more cause more accidents than, cell phones, radios, and even .08 DUI. Once again I can't do a link, but the information came from AAA safety, University of North Carolina, and I think University of Utah. The billboard industry claims that 70% of drivers will glance at roadside advertisement and 60% will read the advertisement. Just who will admit to reading a sign, after running a red light, not me. If trends hold true, October 2008, with all the political signs posted, will be our highest accident month of the year. Better information and engineering can reduce accidents to a lower level than cameras and fines.

Sam's picture

Joe328

If you use foxfire and want to leave a link you just copy and paste your http from the browser into the message and it will show up as link in your message.

Carole Borges's picture

Yes, statistics can me jury-rigged to fit all situations...

I try very hard Joe not to lump people together either. That's why I'm not all anti-gun. I just think it shouldn't be an all or nothing proposition. The violence in this country really upsets me. I know it's not all due to the gun, but the person behind the gun. I wish there was a better way to seperate out the wing-nuts from responsible gunowners like you at the point-of-sale.

It took me awhile to figure out the link thing. I just go the site I want to link, then highlight the http: address in the top skinny box and right click on it. When the menu box drops down I select copy. Then I paste that into the reply box where I want it via the same menu drop down list. Not a very technical way of putting it, but that's how I do it.

Cell phones and driving can be a real problem. The high tech kids seem to be experts at multi-tasking, but I usually have to pull over to call anybody.

Speaking of being all wired up, I just saw a Japanese car yesterday that had sensors and cameras all over the inside. It warned you if it smelled alcohol on your breath (one beer would make it remind you not to drive while drinking)and it also had a way of checking your sweaty hand on the gearshift too for alcohol content. If the alcohol was above the legal limit the transmission locked up and you couldn;t move. The mirror had a camera that kept taking pictures of the iris' in your eyes. If they closed for more than the normal blink, the car told you to pull over to the side of the road and rest. They say in ten years there will be no more drunk drivers on the highway.

I suppose these devices and robots are here to stay, but they are very hard to get used to if you were born in an era where privacy from the government was considered important.

Having to do several things at once while your driving makes concentration on traffic harder. Riding with my youngest son in Utah last week, I couldn't believe the ease with which he could drive, listen to Onstar, mess with his GPS, and talk on the phone at the same time.

I agree about the darn signs.

moopie's picture

yes to 2nd ammend.

not only is it the right for Americans to carry guns, it the
the DUTY OF AMERICAN CITIZENS TO BEAR ARMS. It is your duty
to bear arms to ensure that a tyranical or unjust government
doesn't rule this country.

this government was formed with many checks in balances among the
branches of government. one of the people's checks on the government
is the right (and duty) to bear arms.

saying americans shouldn't bear arms is like saying the supreme court
shouldn't review laws passed by congressing to check if they are constitutional.

p.s. if you really have an itchy trigger finger then check out (link...) you can get paid to shoot stuff.

Carole Borges's picture

It is our duty to bear arms...

Yes, that's an idea supported by our founding fathers all right. I think it's time has passed, but there was an attempt a while back (I think it was in Vermont) to actually enforce this, to make every citizen in Vermont buy and keep a gun. I'm not sure what happened, but I think the idea failed. Actually, with the overwhelming force and hi-tech spying equipment our government now possesses, the idea we should bear arms to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government seems futile.

The armed militias in Iraq seem to have caused a whole lot of trouble, though I think many Iraqis might feel differently as they were protecting people from enemies percieved or real. Personally, I don't think guns serve any positive purpose other than hunting in our modern culture, but I'm very fond of the Constitution.

WhitesCreek's picture

I'm not sure about that

I do not believe citizens have an unmitigated duty to bear arms. A right is not a duty, and the status of conscientious objector is protected (although not very well)

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

TN Progressive

TN Politics

Knox TN Today

Local TV News

News Sentinel

State News

Local .GOV

Wire Reports

Lost Medicaid Funding

To date, the failure to expand Medicaid/TennCare has cost the State of Tennessee ? in lost federal funding. (Source)

Search and Archives