How sad - VT College loss of life

[Jack M]

Anyways, it sounded like from your post that that section of Bowling for Columbine was a "ha ha, serves you right, Michael Moore" moment for you, whereas for me that section was more like a "holy crap, maybe Moore isn't 100% jerk" moment.

Actually it was both. It served him right because he's so smug and so, well, Michael Moore. But it also impressed me that he would own up to being wrong.

[kjl]

Agreed you must have missed the part where I prefaced the post with the fact that it was an email forward going around. I didn't author it! I just threw it out for comment.

I know! That's why I gave you a winky wink smily instead of the burny burn smiley :D

The truth always lies in the middle somewhere and we only hear from the 10% on either extreme of a given subject.

Yeah, I really hate both sides of the extreme 10%. It makes it so easy for both sides to make really crappy straw man arguments and generally bring down the level of discourse to where everybody is just screaming at each other because they assume that the other side is wholly as freakin nutso loony as Moore/Coulter/whoever-your-most-hated-opponent-is.

[Neuffy]

Waitaminute!

You just put Moore on the same level as Coulter? That's just plain wrong. Moore might not get it right (all or some of the time), but at least he isn't xenophobic, racist, sexist, classist, bigoted and hateful. Coulter's opinions are. There's quite a difference between being on different ends of a political spectrum, and the hate emitted by some (on both ends, of course).

Other than that though, yeah. I usually end up being equally disgusted by both sides of political arguments. Both sides are crazy. Which is why I personally hate our current electoral system (FPTP) and want a more European-style proportional representation system. Then there would be a much better change of "middle-ground" groups having at least some vote, rather than the partisan polarization that we currently end up with. Which sucks. Oh, and electioneering budgets > $50k suck as well.

[Dr D]

Waitaminute!

You just put Moore on the same level as Coulter? That's just plain wrong. Moore might not get it right (all or some of the time), but at least he isn't xenophobic, racist, sexist, classist, bigoted and hateful. .

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

That's what LIBS call everyone who doesn't think the way they do.

Of course they are the same !!!! not only are they both on oppsite ends of the spectrum but they both make their living off of sensationalist media. These aren't political powerhouses we are talking about here just talking heads that have found a way to make millions getting a reaction out of the rest of us!

[BobD]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

That's what LIBS call everyone who doesn't think the way they do.

Of course they are the same !!!! not only are they both on oppsite ends of the spectrum but they both make their living off of sensationalist media. These aren't political powerhouses we are talking about here just talking heads that have found a way to make millions getting a reaction out of the rest of us!

They are not the same. Xenophobic, racist, sexist, classist, bigoted are not words easily used to describe any liberal, talking head or whoever. That can hardly be said of the other side.

BobD

BobD

[Neuffy]

Just to clarify, in case it wasn't clear:

I'm not saying that about any "side" of the political spectrum. I am objecting to Coulter specifically and personally. It wouldn't matter what side she was on. If she was a hard-core left-wing extremist, I would be equally amazed at the things she says.

This is NOT about politics. While some may view the dichotomy as an absolute, left-versus-right all-or-nothing setup, there are individuals on both sides that espouse opinions that, regardless of political orientation, are horrific. Moore is not one of them. Coulter is. That's all. It has nothing to do with disagreeing with how anybody thinks.

[Dan]

Just to clarify, in case it wasn't clear:

I'm not saying that about any "side" of the political spectrum. I am objecting to Coulter specifically and personally. It wouldn't matter what side she was on. If she was a hard-core left-wing extremist, I would be equally amazed at the things she says.

This is NOT about politics. While some may view the dichotomy as an absolute, left-versus-right all-or-nothing setup, there are individuals on both sides that espouse opinions that, regardless of political orientation, are horrific. Moore is not one of them. Coulter is. That's all. It has nothing to do with disagreeing with how anybody thinks.

Agree that Ann Coulter is reprehensible: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCeqZLrhkvQ

There's something decidedly prurient about the conservative obsession with who's sleeping with who.

[kjl]

Waitaminute!

You just put Moore on the same level as Coulter? That's just plain wrong.

I wasn't equating them - I was saying they both do their respective sides a disservice by being logically fallacious, and while being mildly energetic to some of those on their sides of the political spectrum, are in reality hurting the country as a whole by bringing the level of discourse down from logical reasoning to straight out hate or repetitive soundbites/talking-points that sound good but mean nothing.

I would agree that Coulter is way worse than Moore, in terms of what level of Hell she'll end up in. Moore is manipulative and directs people to hate what he hates. Coulter is that and more. She is legitimately bigoted and hateful on a whole different level.

[Neuffy]

I say arm every sane, able bodied, patriotic, non-felon and then see what happens(my guess is that crime rates would drop since everybody would know that they run a risk of being shot)

Hm...let's see:

"sane" - how to determine this? Just the standard "has-not-been-committed" test? It'd be interesting if we defined, oh, I don't know, belief in things that we had no evidence of as insanity...or vice versa. But there we go with groups disqualifying other groups that they do not agree with.

"patriotic" - So...um...says that they are patriotic? Memorizes something or other? I dunno here...this seems like a method for disqualifying those who you don't agree with more than anything (not that I'm saying that you meant it this way, just that this is the only way I can see it being used).

Other than that, I'm pretty sure the end result would be the lowering of many types of crime, but with the side-effect of a hell of a lot more gun deaths due to accidents and spontaneous shootings (eg. when unarmed people get in a fight usually nobody dies, when armed...).

[Dr D]

I wasn't equating them - I was saying they both do their respective sides a disservice by being logically fallacious, and while being mildly energetic to some of those on their sides of the political spectrum, are in reality hurting the country as a whole by bringing the level of discourse down from logical reasoning to straight out hate or repetitive soundbites/talking-points that sound good but mean nothing.

I would agree that Coulter is way worse than Moore, in terms of what level of Hell she'll end up in. Moore is manipulative and directs people to hate what he hates. Coulter is that and more. She is legitimately bigoted and hateful on a whole different level.

yeah what he said!!!

who's worse depends on how close to one end or the other you happen to be. Obviously COulter has really pissed some people off lately with her Remarks referencing certain preferences however we are bending over backwards to appease muslims of late (ie taking pork out of school lunch programs???!!) because its offensive to their religion. whats the difference if Coulter is outspoken against what she finds religiously offensive? I am personally just sick of the double standard that's all. We have had jewish people in this country for years and we haven't removed the pork for them. They haven't been offended either I don't think? maybe! anyway this is a FREE country the reason you get to have the freedom to think the way you want stems from your basic rights. one person can love who they want and another can feel disgusted by it. ANd oh yeah they can both talk about their respective feelings without fear of government intervention. IF you can find a better place to hang your hat go for it. AS for me I will put up with the moore's and the coulter's and be thankful that somewhere there is a young man or woman willing to stand up and fight for my right to think and say whatever I please!

[Neuffy]

Wouldn't it be great if everybody had a gun?

...There'd be no crime, and nobody'd get shot?

[Derf]

You're sure it's legal to post links that funny? My tummy hurts because I laughed so hard. I'm gonna report you to them moderators...

:lol:

[Dr D]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Hilarious!!! although I doubt that we are laughing at the same things.

Talk about stereotyping.

[Dr D]

Hm...let's see:

).

Other than that, I'm pretty sure the end result would be the lowering of many types of crime, but with the side-effect of a hell of a lot more gun deaths due to accidents and spontaneous shootings (eg. when unarmed people get in a fight usually nobody dies, when armed...).

you should read John Lotts book that's what he thought to. It just isn't true! with all the new concealed carry laws in the states in the last ten years there is a goldmine of data coming in on the subject and it comes down to less crime across the board less violent crime by an even bigger margin and statistically zero increase in accidental deaths etc. safety isn't much of a problem among licensed law abiding citizens. There are several documented cases of concealed carry people never even revealing they were carrying during a "fight" or "problem situation" until the police arrived. prompting law enforcement to commend them for handling the situation in a clearheaded manner. There is a greater level of personal responsibility brought out in people when the tool in question can have such serious consequences. 200 million + legal gun owners in this country and everyone assumes we are hicks or gangbangers:smashfrea :smashfrea

[Jack M]

You're all barking up the wrong tree.

Deaths by motor vehicle accident in 2005 totaled 39,189. http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/

Do you care? If yes, then you will surely agree that clearly the government needs to step in here.

We need to:

- Raise the minimum driving age to 21.

- Impose a maximum driving age of 75.

- Instate a federal seatbelt law, and allow police to pull you over just for not wearing a seatbelt.

- Issue automatic speeding tickets from data gathered by in-car GPS systems, automatic toll systems (EZPass, FastLane, etc), and traffic cameras.

- Govern all vehicles to a maximum speed of 75mph, and maximum horsepower of 100.

- Outlaw driver usage of cell phones, mp3s, blackberries, CDs, radio, paper maps.

- Enact a "zero tolerance policy" for drunk driving, and lower the BAC limit to .06.

- Outlaw motorcycles.

We have the technology and the ability. Nevermind the constitutional rights and civil liberties that will be trounced. If one life is saved it will be worth it... right?

[Dr D]

You're all barking up the wrong tree.

Deaths by motor vehicle accident in 2005 totaled 39,189. http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/

Do you care? If yes, then you will surely agree that clearly the government needs to step in here.

We need to:

- Raise the minimum driving age to 21.

- Impose a maximum driving age of 75.

- Instate a federal seatbelt law, and allow police to pull you over just for not wearing a seatbelt.

- Issue automatic speeding tickets from data gathered by in-car GPS systems, automatic toll systems (EZPass, FastLane, etc), and traffic cameras.

- Govern all vehicles to a maximum speed of 75mph, and maximum horsepower of 100.

- Outlaw driver usage of cell phones, mp3s, blackberries, CDs, radio, paper maps.

- Enact a "zero tolerance policy" for drunk driving, and lower the BAC limit to .06.

- Outlaw motorcycles.

We have the technology and the ability. Nevermind the constitutional rights and civil liberties that will be trounced. If one life is saved it will be worth it... right?

you see there that's why I love Jack he makes so damn much sense:lol: :lol:

I couldn't have said it better myself Jack;)

Unfortunately that doesn't mean anyone else out there GETS it:smashfrea

[roscoe]

when I got the email this morning and read what the post was, my first response was "WTF no way!," then I read that it was posted by Jack; that explained everything

[Dr D]

Jack is the Master:biggthump

[C5 Golfer]

You're all barking up the wrong tree.

Deaths by motor vehicle accident in 2005 totaled 39,189. http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/

Do you care? If yes, then you will surely agree that clearly the government needs to step in here.

We need to:

- Raise the minimum driving age to 21.

- Impose a maximum driving age of 75.

- Instate a federal seatbelt law, and allow police to pull you over just for not wearing a seatbelt.

- Issue automatic speeding tickets from data gathered by in-car GPS systems, automatic toll systems (EZPass, FastLane, etc), and traffic cameras.

- Govern all vehicles to a maximum speed of 75mph, and maximum horsepower of 100.

- Outlaw driver usage of cell phones, mp3s, blackberries, CDs, radio, paper maps.

- Enact a "zero tolerance policy" for drunk driving, and lower the BAC limit to .06.

- Outlaw motorcycles.

We have the technology and the ability. Nevermind the constitutional rights and civil liberties that will be trounced. If one life is saved it will be worth it... right?

Jack, shouldn't you add to your list "outlaw walking" - there was approx 5000 people killed while walking.

[Neuffy]

You're all barking up the wrong tree.

Deaths by motor vehicle accident in 2005 totaled 39,189. http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/

Do you care? If yes, then you will surely agree that clearly the government needs to step in here.

We need to:

- Raise the minimum driving age to 21.

- Impose a maximum driving age of 75.

- Instate a federal seatbelt law, and allow police to pull you over just for not wearing a seatbelt.

- Issue automatic speeding tickets from data gathered by in-car GPS systems, automatic toll systems (EZPass, FastLane, etc), and traffic cameras.

- Govern all vehicles to a maximum speed of 75mph, and maximum horsepower of 100.

- Outlaw driver usage of cell phones, mp3s, blackberries, CDs, radio, paper maps.

- Enact a "zero tolerance policy" for drunk driving, and lower the BAC limit to .06.

- Outlaw motorcycles.

We have the technology and the ability. Nevermind the constitutional rights and civil liberties that will be trounced. If one life is saved it will be worth it... right?

Funny,....this was meant to be a joke, and I agree with a couple of the things:

Driving ages: BS. Driving tests - hell yes. Every five years _everybody_ should have to re-take their driver's exam. It's sick how many people would fail (eg. should not be driving) and it would take care of those growing too old to drive without discriminating based upon age (only discriminates based upon knowledge and skill).

Seatbelt laws - They've worked here. Ten years ago, half of people+ did not wear seatbelts. Now, due to the awareness raised by having a seatbelt law, virtually all people wear them not out of fear of a fine, but as a matter of habit and safety. But then, we can justify this more than Americans can, thanks to socialized health care (you causing yourself to become injured for no good reason (seatbelt's dead easy to put on, virtually no inconvenience unlike, not partaking in high-risk sports which would be a huge inconvenience - this is my justification) costs everyone else money. Ugh...just did taxes.

75 MPH? Isn't that...around 120 km/h? I don't really have a comment here, other than that variable speed limits based upon road conditions (digital) would be awesome. Dry and perfect visibility on a straight, flat road? 180 km/h speed limits here I come.

Cell phones while driving? Oh hell no. That's quite simply negligent, and really should not be legal. If you look at just how much accident rates go up while using a cellphone (particularly a non-handsfree phone), it's ludicrous. Quite simply, it's excessively distracting, taking the focus of the user off of driving. MP3s (headphones) at a loud enough volume to prevent you from hearing other cars/horns? Eh, too hard to enforce, so no point in bothering. I guess you can get these people by having a cop try to pull them over, and then fining them for not pulling over when they don't notice the siren/police car...

Drunk Driving? I think we're too lenient. I find the .08 BAC limit here to be fine (what's the point in lowering it? To get more false-positives?), but really think that those who blow .16+ (and then have it backed up with blood tests of course) should have an automatic license suspension of three years, not three months. Realistically, I feel that anybody who has more than a single drink and then drives lacks the responsibility and judgment to safely drive to begin with, regardless of alcohol involvement (although the number of fatal accidents involving alcohol - 30-50% here - is sick).

Motorcycles are generally fine because they usually only kill the user (barring pedestrian collisions). You want that risk, fine. Now, pointless, giant trucks and SUVs...

The thing is, we're not talking about one life. A 10% reduction, by your numbers, is 3919 lives. I believe many of this things can be integrated into current systems and result in improvement without violating civil rights or causing much inconvenience at all - unless you're doing something reprehensible currently. Some people want the convenience of going to the bar and then driving home. Too bad.

Of course, this is not to say that MADD and other groups have gone off their rockers...some people just is crazy. .05, the hell? Most people in accidents that actually resulted from alcohol are .15+. (eg. the six fatal accidents involving people I knew from school. No driver below .16.)

[D-Sub]

the drunk driving thing is way too minority report. bust people when they do something wrong, not because they might.

[Neuffy]

You mean, free-for-all with BACs while driving until you have an accident?

[Dr D]

PINK PISTOLS: Gays, gun rights movement merge

BY LAURA POTTS

FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER August 25, 2003

<!-- AG_BEGIN --><TABLE cellSpacing=5 cellPadding=5 align=right><TBODY><TR><TD width=250>

J. KYLE KEENER/DFP

Albert Lowe, 47, of Leslie is a member of the Pink Pistols, a national gay gun-rights group. He is working to found a Michigan chapter. "There are a lot of people in the lifestyle who are interested in firearms," Lowe said. His goal has gotten some support -- and some criticism.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!-- AG_END --><TABLE width="65%" align=center><TBODY><TR><TD>It made one state senator laugh. It made one of the leaders of Michigan's gay community cringe.

But the juxtaposition of gays and guns made perfect sense to Albert Lowe, who is starting a Michigan chapter of the Pink Pistols, a gay gun-rights group with 37 chapters in the United States and at least 5,000 members.

"I'm politically incorrect, totally," Lowe of Leslie said, chuckling.

If the group takes hold in Michigan like it has in places such as California and Tennessee, the state could have a new set of hobby target shooters and a broader, stronger gun-rights lobby.

That's the aim of Lowe, who is in the early stages of building membership, and of some traditional gun-rights groups, which are anxious to gain support.

"The more the merrier, in that battle," said Chuck Perricone, executive director of the Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners. "As long as they're supportive of the underlying issue, which is self-defense, we welcome their support."

Lowe said his primary reason for starting a Michigan chapter was to provide a forum to "go out and have fun target shooting" in an atmosphere that's friendly to gays, lesbians and others who may not feel comfortable in traditional gun groups. But Lowe, who said he has a permit to carry concealed weapons, said he also supports loosening Michigan's gun laws.

"There are a lot of people in the lifestyle who are interested in firearms," Lowe, 47, said. "And there are some of the more conservative gun groups around who are not friendly toward the gay lifestyle. I've run across a few people who didn't like me because of my viewpoints and such."

A few years ago, while living in Chicago, Lowe met Doug Krick, who started the first Pink Pistols group in Boston, also with the social aspect of gun ownership in mind. Krick created a Web site to get the word out.

"The next thing I know, I'm having people calling me from across the country saying, 'I want to play. Can I set up a chapter?' It wasn't my intention. But I'm not complaining," said Krick, 32.

From there, the Pink Pistols morphed from just a collective of gun enthusiasts to a more proactive, political group that educates, lobbies and speaks out in the gay community in favor of gun rights.

The Pink Pistols' Web site, http://www.pinkpistols.org/, is peppered with adages boosting self-defense, such as "Armed gays don't get bashed" and "Pick on someone your own caliber."

Indeed, Krick said he believes that "when the queer community can defend themselves, they're no longer going to be perceived as an easy target."

But that's a dangerously misled assumption, said Jeffrey Montgomery. He is the executive director the Triangle Foundation, a Detroit-based civil-rights group for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered issues.

"Like many minority communities who are routinely targeted and highly at risk of being victims of violence, ours would be a community I would hope that would lead the discussion and debate in favor of gun control," Montgomery said. "I firmly believe the presence of guns in confrontations does not diffuse those in any way, and does not make anyone safer."

Krick said most resistance to the Pink Pistols has not come from gun groups, but rather from gay groups who view them as a political hot potato.

"People hear gays, guns and their brain breaks. These stereotypes they have in their heads aren't accurate," Krick said. "As a general rule, it's from the gun community that we've been welcomed with open arms. It's from the queer community that we get the interesting reactions. We've run across a lot of opposition."

Others in the gay community, however, see gun ownership more as an issue of personal choice, even if they don't choose to arm themselves.

As a Ferndale City councilman, Craig Covey helped pass an ordinance that would add municipal buildings, such as libraries, to the list of places where concealed weapons are banned.

Still, Covey said he takes "a middle-of-the-road approach that gun ownership is quite the American way, but there has to be regulation and safety and common sense applied.

"I don't see a problem at all with a gay gun ownership group," said Covey, who is the chief executive officer of the Midwest AIDS Prevention Project. "Though I suspect the vision of gay people with guns might strike fear into the likes of right-wing, antigay, evangelical organizations."

Or, in the case of state Sen. Alan Cropsey, R-DeWitt, disbelief.

"Are you serious?" he asked, when told about the gay gun-rights group.

Cropsey, who in 1996 received the National Rifle Association's Defender of Freedom Award, also has been outspoken on gay issues, including pushing for a constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union exclusively between a man and a woman.

Cropsey said he is surprised at the creation of the group and thinks it's a "publicity stunt."

"I suspect it would have very, very limited appeal," he said, adding, "Everybody has a right to keep or bear arms."

But he said "it strikes me as funny that" the Pink Pistols are "being taken seriously because it's just so unusual." But in the first few weeks of recruiting efforts that Lowe admits have not been aggressive, he said 10 people have joined the Michigan chapter. Lowe plans to step up his efforts to build membership by visiting gay-friendly events and businesses, and by using the Internet. "If I expose more people to the sport and they learn the kind of fun they can have with guns, using them responsibly, then maybe there won't be so many people dead set against them," he said.

SEE Even really left thinkers want the right to protect themselves:lol:

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[C5 Golfer]

the drunk driving thing is way too minority report. bust people when they do something wrong, not because they might.

Not sure you convince anyone who has been close to a drunk driving accident and lost a loved one and where the drunk driver survived.

[D-Sub]

yeah, I know. that absolutely sucks, and I know that DUI laws are an attempt at prevention. The punishment for someone simply caught driving "drunk" is way, way too harsh.