rob

Contrary to popular stereotype, pawn shops don't typically deal in a lot of stolen goods because they usually have the contact info of the seller and unless the shop is unscrupulous, thieves tend to avoid them. At least, that's what my friend who works at a pawn shop has told me. It's been years, sounds like you're trying to be honest but if nothing obvious jumps out I don't think you are under any obligation to give it away to needy climbers. You sound like a good guy, though and I think it's cool you're jumping trough hoops. It makes me wish karma were a real thing and not superstitious mumbo jumbo

Mark Twat, because he says really, really dumb things which people share on FB and then I can tell which of my friends are retarded

ding ding ding! Amabilis is a good spot, it's basically a logging road to the top

Chris Christie is six times the man you'll ever be

voice of clarity = someone who agrees with FW. Must be lonely!

Not only does skiing make you a happier person, but skiing is better than snowboarding. Scientific Proof!!!!! http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131202094135.htm

Hey Ben, question for you. I understand your point about the simple possession of something not actually hurting anybody -- that it requires an action. I'm curious how you feel about speed laws -- after all, the action of simply driving fast in your car by itself doesn't hurt anyone...but it could. I understand the distinction you make that driving fast is, at least, actually doing something rather than the passive possession of an inanimate object -- but that seems like a bit of a stretch. After all, to possess is a verb and now we're just arguing symantics, which is basically bullshit, right? So I gave it some thought this weekend I and I do believe you have a valid point that, considering gun ownership rates in this country, the vast majority of owners do not commit homicide with their weapons. In fact, really I'm surprised it's not worse than it is, considering. I guess that's a positive reflection on the social instincts of humanity. However, I also think it's incontrovertible that when you compare gun homicide rates per capita, the situation in America is significantly worse than basically every one of our peers, and that's really the crux of the whole discussion. The difference is really significant, doesn't it seem likely we're doing something wrong? Sure, someone's got to be the worst (in terms of our peers) but come on, we're not retarded. We don't have to suck quite so bad at it. After all, It seems that if you could prevent potentiallly thousands and thousands of violent homicides by making all gun owners jump through some DMV-esque hoops, wouldn't most people agree that it's worth it? Other Western societies seems to have figured it out. I know their circumstances are not the same, but still -- we restrict lots of things because of their likelihood of causing damage to others. For example, yelling fire in a crowded theater. I know, I know that's an action and not possession -- semantics. Sometimes possession can have active results -- like when your unstable teen or a burglar uses the weapons you failed to responsibly secure to hurt somebody. I mean sure maybe he would have found one somewhere else but we can at least keep it from being easy. Lots of crazy people lack the follow through to succeed in some of their more impulsive (and horrific) psychotic plans hatched deep in the shadows of mental illness. I can understand a possible argument that the oft suggested methods of achieving this goal are, themselves, ineffective and therefore onerous -- but surely you would be open to at least the concept of some form of governmental (i.e. Legislative) regulation of firearms, assuming you could be convinced it was at least somewhat effective and not too burdensome (but maybe annoying?) I mean, if it could prevent so much tragedy isn't that was society does? It's possible that you don't believe speeding should really be illegal, I suppose. Or you fail to see the similarity with my driving analogy. I understand the difference that driving is not constitutionally protected (that's for you FW haha;), but the supreme court has already soundly supported the abstract concept of gun control and regulations regarding the purchase of and possession of weapons, but I suppose you could disagree with that opinion, too. Certainly many do. I guess it's possible that you and I disagree so fundamentally on the responsibility of society and the role of government, and yet I find it hard to imagine that this could really be the case because the logic seems so clear to me. And yet America continues to waste huge amounts of money and time (and lives) discussing the very merit of gun control itself as if that were the issue up for debate and I just really still can't believe it. It seems like such a waste of time and yet I don't really hear any other suggestions from the very vocal opposition and I may be an optimist but I have a hard time accepting that anybody really thinks we should just do nothing -- and yet that's exactly what we seem to end up doing.

Basically? Literally.

My mistake, I guess. I guess you agree with me re: gun control. Regarding denying one right but not others: you mean like, taking away a drunk driver's driver license but letting keep his right to vote? I guess you're right, it's not consistent. But why should it be? Why should you have to lose all of your rights all at once? Why not lose just some, depending on what your infraction is? I dunno, I guess I don't understand what you're asking. Not trying to dodge, I just don't get what you're asking. For the record, though, I typically don't like systems wherein somebody can't earn their rights back. I don't know if that's relevant but I'll throw it out there.

Yeah, I get what you're saying. It's an interesting perspective, I'll have to chew on it if that's OK. My first thought is that your numbers are probably too big -- after all, that assumes a 1:1 relationship (i.e. one gun only kills one person) but actually the percentage of guns that kill people is prbably even lower than you say, assuming your numbers of ownership are accurate (since one gun can kill multiple people). As I say, it's an interesting perspective and honestly an angle I haven't really looked at deeply so I'll give it some thought; that said, when I consider this argument, I tend to believe that firearm homicide by GDP is a much more useful number, and when compared to our peers our rate is astronomical. High enough to warrant something to be done, at least in my opinion. I'm not sure the percentage of firearms used in homicides as a function of total ownership is as interesting a metic as number of firearm-related homicides as a function of GDP -- in our case, nearly 4 per 100,000 which is FAR above our peers and warrants investigation and resolution, imo. Who cares what percentage of guns are doing the killing, if a lot of killing is being done. I'll give it some thought, but assuming you are not advocating "no solution is necessary," I'd like to know how you think we should address our embarrassing (to me, anyway) rate of firearm homicide (per GDP). I'm off to a holiday party. CHeers!

Sure, you just disagree with any effective means of enforcing limits on gun ownership for felons. Like universal background checks. I do not know how I feel about convicted felons and voting, I guess I don't know enough about it. I mean, I know the basics -- felons can't vote until their rights are restored? However, I am not aware of any law that prevents the mentally ill from voting. Is that common?

Good question. In Switzerland, as of 2008, individual sales require a gun ownership permit, but I'm not sure how that's verified. It's something that would be well discussed by our congress, but unfortunately there isn't any hope of meaningful discussion anywhere on the horizon. In my mind, I imagine the background check could be done by a gun shop, for a fee. I recently sold a firearm to a stranger and had a third-party gun shop perform the NICS check for me. It was pretty easy. In fact, some states require this for gun show sales.

Actually, I don't agree with outlawing guns. I believe in the individual right to own guns, and not just for hunting either but for self-defense. In fact, I am a gun owner. But I know you haven't been listening. Here is some more from the Heller decision, which I'm sure you've read but it doesn't support your position so I'm sure you'll ignore it or post a photo of Chinese communists hurting somebody Pretty "round about" isn't it?

I knew this was where we were leading, but just wanted to see it play out. It's the old, "actually gun violence isn't even really that big of a problem" argument. Meh

Sure, if that same law also controls the manufacture and distribution of them. You can't prevent all cases but that doesn't mean there isn't a benefit to making it difficult. Sure, *some* people might still have the means and money to obtain them, but even assuming they are cheap it would still be nice to keep the local schizophrenic from stumbling down to the local JihadMart and picking up a couple with no questions asked, no? How to do that? By keeping the black market small with effective regulation. Obviously nuclear weapons are a bit of an extreme case and extreme cases never engender good policy discussion, so we are digressing a bit there. But what is the value of outlawing murder? Criminals are going to do it, anyway. So why should society bother outlawing it all? That's a serious question, btw, not snarky. I'm curious why you think that's so much different. I'm with you on the drug war -- banning something outright tends to cause a massive black market. This is why I don't think guns should be outlawed -- just well-regulated. Hell, I'd probably be OK with allowing nuclear weapons too if there were a proper way to regulate them, but now we're obviously deeeeeep into hypotheticals. I have no problem with sane, responsible adults doing (almost) whatever the hell they like. As long as the person proves that he is a sane, responsible adult (for some things). Like driving. Or guns. I can fathom a world in which you disagree with me (as I said, I was raised libertarian so I get it) but I can't fathom a world in which you think anything I'm saying is extremely unreasonable or extreme and makes me a communist or that I hate the constitution or that I'm an authoritarian or that I'm a Bill Maher loving liberal.

No, I most definitely do not consider myself an authoritarian. I do not believe drugs of any kind should be illegal (or guns for that matter) but I believe a well-regulated market (and militia! ha!) which allows people to easily obtain regulated products within a navigable framework of rules effectively prevents a burgeoning black market while protecting consumers. For instance, there is not a very large black market for tobacco and alcohol because the vast majority of customers can get the product legally within the regulatory framework. If you were to raise the cost of cigarettes too much, however, then a black market might emerge. And yes, obviously, some things require more or less regulation than others. Some things require none. Did I answer your question? Am I totally incorrect in pegging you as a libertarian? I am certainly not a libertarian, although I was raised that way.

One of my standards for the validity of a law is how relevant it is. A lot of things are illegal because... well, just because! You're just dumb if you don't get it. These people tend to be fans of Bill Mahr. I see absolutely no need for a law that does not do anything. A law against owning nuclear weapons, being the ultimate example of this. Does the law prohibiting people from owning nuclear weapons keep anyone from owning them? Do you think a person who has the money, means, and will to own a nuclear weapon cares at all if they're illegal? I can guarantee you- I would put a month's salary down on it- that law has never once stopped anyone from obtaining a nuclear weapon who otherwise wanted one. You can carry the same logic on down the line of less destructive devices. If you can obtain one, you can whether it's illegal or not. If you can't, you can't whether it's legal or not. It sounds like you're saying nothing should be illegal but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and give you a chance to clarify. If you could pop down to the walmart and buy a thermonuclear device, all you need is the money. Are you seriously suggesting that the illegality and scarcity of nuclear weapons does nothing whatsoever to prevent ownership and furthermore, are willing to stake a months income on that? I must misunderstand. BTW, I met Bill Maher once, briefly. He seemed like a real dick

OK, so should individuals be able to own cruise missiles? Nuclear weapons? I'm assuming you are OK with some amount of gun control. I'd be interested to know what level of gun control you consider reasonable. I don't consider mandatory background checks, permits and registration to be unreasonable. Neither does Switzerland.

but the SCOTUS already ruled that controls on gun ownership is not unconstitutional. Another moment of cognitive dissonance? Just clench your teeth, it'll pass.

ding ding ding ding ding!

Excellent point. Car registrations and licenses are obviously useless, too

We should get rid of the 16-yo driving age and mandatory driver's ed. Criminal teenagers are just going to drive, anyway.

I mean, why even have speed limits? Criminals are just going to speed anyway! Right??? For that matter, why have any laws at all? Criminals jsut break them anyway! Brilliant!

My point is that it's REALLY easy for a felon to get a gun without a background check. And the seller isn't breaking the law. I am under no obligation (in washington state) to verify somebody's eligibility if I sell them the gun I keep under my bed. I'm not a dealer. If you dispute this then you're truly uneducated. I mean, sure -- a guy without a driver's license can probably buy a car on the black market and drive it anyway, but that doesn't mean we should abandon licenses and car registrations does it? Ugh, I just can't understand why this is so difficult for people to grasp.