Having a Bad Day?: Get 'yer Hugs here!!

[Kaymyth]

Just now, Delightful said:

Does criminal record include parking tickets?

but that's the only qualification? 

Hunting is legal? What do you do with the animal once it's dead? 

........I don't think I'm ever gonna understand America. 

Hunting is not only legal, but necessary to keeping certain animal populations healthy.  Our ancestors did a fantastic job of wiping out most of the natural predators, so we're sort of it.  And generally we pay a butcher to process the meat, and then we freeze and eat them.  There are specific hunting seasons and strict quotas on how many deer a hunter can take.  Around here, there is generally an early bow season (yes, people actually go out with a bow and arrows to hunt in this day and age) and a later firearm season.  After they are shot, deer are taken to check-in stations to be verified and tagged.  No butcher will take a deer that doesn't have its proper tag.  Conservationists are serious about keeping the population under control, but still large enough to be healthy.

See, there are two things you have to understand about white-tailed deer.

1.  They are delicious.

2.  They are stupid.

For every hunter that takes a deer, that is one less deer that is going to try and sacrifice itself onto the altar of a speeding car.  Some days, perhaps that car would be my car.  One time, it was my car (or rather, my mom's car).  I actually came to a dead stop, and the stupid thing ran into my hood.  They really are that menacingly dumb.  And they're everywhere.  I've seen them causally crossing city streets.

 

3 minutes ago, Chaos said:

Guns and America are a very strange thing. Some people very much romanticize owning a gun. The issue is also insanely politicized and even the most minor regulations on guns, the NRA says would be a slippery slope on the government taking away their guns, which no one ever suggested in the first place. Total paranoia. This happens on things like universal background checks to buy guns, which are not a thing in the US. It is actually easier to buy a gun than get a driver's license. 

I could go to Walmart and buy a gun probably same day. I am not sure but I don't think my struggles with suicide would appear on any checks to buy it. That's genuinely terrifying.

The NRA is pretty well-known at this point as being in the pocket of gun manufacturers.  Once upon a time, they ran gun safety programs and such, but nowadays they just pour money into Congress on behalf of sellers.

And no, they almost certainly wouldn't, which is tremendously disturbing.  Please don't do that.

[Delightful]

@Chaos that is terrifying. :l 

 

why do do a bunch of people making a lot of noise about their precious firearms overrule considerations of limiting gun sale for the safety of society? It's already limited by criminal record, why not throw in a few more limits like mental health and knowledge of firearm safety or whatever? 

[Kaymyth]

2 minutes ago, Delightful said:

@Chaos that is terrifying. :l 

 

why do do a bunch of people making a lot of noise about their precious firearms overrule considerations of limiting gun sale for the safety of society? It's already limited by criminal record, why not throw in a few more limits like mental health and knowledge of firearm safety or whatever? 

It's because of this little thing in the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights called the Second Amendment.  "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

There are a number of different interpretations of this, but right now the "popular" one is, "Nobody better take mah gunz!"  It's a huge deal over here right now, and the gun lobby (i.e. the NRA) pushes hard for this version because their preferred clients don't want their sales to drop.

I tend to think that given the ridiculous hugeness of our standing army, a well regulated militia is pretty obsolete and the Founders had no way of predicting that when they wrote the Amendment in.  But the current Supreme Court ruling ignores the "milita" part and just opens it up to All The Guns, and therein we have our problem.

[Chaos]

21 minutes ago, Delightful said:

@Chaos that is terrifying. :l 

 

why do do a bunch of people making a lot of noise about their precious firearms overrule considerations of limiting gun sale for the safety of society? It's already limited by criminal record, why not throw in a few more limits like mental health and knowledge of firearm safety or whatever? 

That would be entirely too rational to have sensible licensing for gun owners. Clearly that would be a conspiracy for Democrats and the government to talk all the guns. Because guns = freedom. (People actually think this.)

Personally I don't think it is any problem to have licensing procedures and mandatory classes on gun usage to buy a gun. Anyone who passes said classes and licensing can get their guns for whatever purpose they like, while also educating people to not be dumb with them. And in some stuff restricting people with mental illness from having guns--for their safety and people around them--and that sounds astonishingly legal with the Second Amendment while also being, you know, reasonable. Guns should be at least as tedious to get as a driver's license...

[Kaymyth]

And as bad as you can imagine the conspiracy theories - they're even worse than you think.  There are people out there who actually believe that mass school shootings like Sandy Hook were made up so that the government has an excuse to take their guns.  And these same people have actually spent years harassing the grieving parents of the victims of these shootings, telling them that their child never existed.

Yeah.

You read that right.

There are some truly horrible people on this planet.

[Sunbird]

1 hour ago, Delightful said:

One of my favourite language things is that to 'be a man' in English means to be tough, rough and unemotional. Ie "man up!"

Man in Yiddish is mensch. 

To be a mensch is to be polite, dignified, generous and kind. 

Ie "oh wow he's such a mensch I must marry him to my daughter" ()

 

(And I'll be super interested if people want to compare with other languages too). 

In German, a man (an adult male human) is Mann. When you're talking about a hypothetical generic person, you use "man," which sort of correlates to the English generic pronoun "one." (As in, "One does not simply walk into Mordor.") Then there's also the word "Mensch," which in German can be used to mean a human being of either gender even though the noun itself is grammatically masculine. Or, alternatively, you can use Mensch as an exclamation of dismay, like, "Oh man (Mensch), the weather is so hot today!"

[Delightful]

4 hours ago, Chaos said:

That would be entirely too rational to have sensible licensing for gun owners. Clearly that would be a conspiracy for Democrats and the government to talk all the guns. Because guns = freedom. (People actually think this.)

Personally I don't think it is any problem to have licensing procedures and mandatory classes on gun usage to buy a gun. Anyone who passes said classes and licensing can get their guns for whatever purpose they like, while also educating people to not be dumb with them. And in some stuff restricting people with mental illness from having guns--for their safety and people around them--and that sounds astonishingly legal with the Second Amendment while also being, you know, reasonable. Guns should be at least as tedious to get as a driver's license...

I've seen a suggestion going around of treating gun ownership like abortions, and make them nearly impossible to actually get hold of :/

3 hours ago, Sunbird said:

In German, a man (an adult male human) is Mann. When you're talking about a hypothetical generic person, you use "man," which sort of correlates to the English generic pronoun "one." (As in, "One does not simply walk into Mordor.") Then there's also the word "Mensch," which in German can be used to mean a human being of either gender even though the noun itself is grammatically masculine. Or, alternatively, you can use Mensch as an exclamation of dismay, like, "Oh man (Mensch), the weather is so hot today!"

For some reason I find that highly amusing. 

[Mestiv]

Below I give an update on the situation of my temporary home for cats. If you're not interested, scroll on.

Spoiler

This weekend has been rough. Before I write about Tobi's treatment I have to tell you about another sick cat under our care: Stella. She's a beautiful, pure white cat, currently around 11 months old. She came to us last year as a little kitten, small enough to stand comfortably on the palm of my hand. Recently she started to behave differently than usual. She became weak, she spends most of the day sleeping, while other cats her age would play and have fun. We took her to our vet, we did USG and other tests. The first diagnosis was: Lymphoma  That would be really bad, but cats can live with it for quite some time, enjoying their life if treated properly. Today morning we went to visit a vet oncologist, one of the best in the country. After reading all her results, he concluded that most likely it's not lymphoma, but FIP.

You probably don't remember, but some time ago I wrote about a cat under our care that got FIP. He's long gone now, but since he passed two other cats in our home got FIP and died  According to all the books and all the doctors we've talked to, FIP is not really contagious, because FIP is caused by a mutated variant of a virus that's present in around 60% of all the cats. This mutated form is not contagious, only the original coronavirus (which is harmless) is. So, in theory having a cat with FIP in our home shouldn't cause any risk for other cats. However, now, if Stella has FIP, that makes 4 cats with FIP in our home in just half a year. THAT is not in agreement with what all the books and doctors say... I'm afraid there might be a new mutation of the virus, that's worse than those from couple of years ago... Anyway, by the end of today we should have definitive results saying if Stella has FIP or not.

Now, back to Tobi, our poor fellow... The situation is just ugly. Because of the new diagnosis for Stella, we now suspect that, Tobi might have FIP instead of Panleukopenia. We will test him for FIP later today and have results tomorrow. Personally, I hope he has Panleukopenia, as there are slight chances of survival, while with FIP there are none. Currently, thanks to all the drugs he took, Tobi is feeling better. He's visibly more relaxed and although he doesn't have enough strength to play with other kittens, he purrs while we rub him etc.

Apart from the very bad state of those two cats, this situation has serious consequences. Not matter if Tobi has FIP or Panleukopenia, we'll have to shut down our temporary home for cats for couple of months  Too many cats have caught FIP after staying in our home. If would be unimaginably irresponsible to take in more animals and risk their lives. They'd probably have more chances out in the wild than here with us  The books and doctors say that there shouldn't be such situation, but it's happening and we have to stop it. We will have to use a lot of biocidal chemicals, get an UV lamp and clean up the best we can. After that time, when most of the viruses will be gone, we'll maybe resume our work.

We still have 4 healthy cats up for adoption and we hope they find new owners soon. The sooner they're away from what's plaguing our house the better.

But there is one thing that brightens my day. There are a lot of good people in this world. When we asked for help on our facebook page, a lot of our friends offered us advice, while others offered us a more material support. Our financial situation is still not really comfortable, but thanks to those who helped us, we no longer face starvation  There was even one person from the 17th Shard that helped  @Sunbird I don't have enough words to thank you for your kind heart  And I'm not the only one grateful:

Spoiler

 

 

[Claincy]

I hold the typical Australian view of America's gun laws. Very glad ours are different :/

---

On an entirely separate note: It's not ideal when someone has reason to ask you "When were you last well?" It doesn't improve things any when the answer is "I don't know."

Edited July 6, 2016 by Claincy
Made the separation more obvious.

[TwiLyghtSansSparkles]

My biggest reservation against implementing a gun ban similar to that in Australia is that America isn't sealocked. It borders Mexico, from which guns could (and would) easily be smuggled in. So I don't think a law banning guns would keep them out of the hands of anyone but people who would've followed gun laws anyway. 

This isn't to say I think more guns for law-abiding citizens is the answer. If all a person knows about guns is what they see in movies and on TV, then they're not going to handle it properly. I think education about guns and what they can and can't do will go a long way toward instilling a healthy respect for guns. Furthermore, if you buy a gun, gun safety training should be mandatory. If you own something that dangerous, you should know how to handle it, and in which situations use of it would be inappropriate. In other words, part of firearms training should be teaching people to defuse a situation, and that shooting an assailant should be a last resort. You can't take an accidental shooting back, and if you own a gun, you should be aware of this. 

Mandatory waiting periods are another thing that I believe some states have already implemented, and those should be necessary as well. Guns should not be an impulse buy, especially if the person buying them shows a likelihood of harming themselves or others. Psychological testing would be a good thing to implement as well. 

As for military grade assault weapons, I see no reason why a civilian would need one. Sure, Second Amendment and all that, but again, why would you need one? 

Basically, if I thought a gun ban similar to Australia's would work here, I'd be willing to consider it. But there are practical reasons why it couldn't be implemented, so I think America needs to look at different methods of keeping the public safe. Guns aren't going away, so Americans will need to find a way to coexist with them. 

[Delightful]

I don't know exactly how they work, but I know Israel has some pretty strict gun laws that still allow a lot of civilians to be armed if they want to. Then again, most people go through the army and have a healthy respect for/knowledge of guns, I believe even just from basic training if they had a desk job.....

and in Australia, well, I'm sure some criminals get their hands on guns somehow, but generally, the system works. Police have guns, some licensed security guards do and that's it. 

America is insane. (Is it still the 4th of July can I say that?)

Edited July 5, 2016 by Delightful

[Orlion Blight]

36 minutes ago, Delightful said:

I don't know exactly how they work, but I know Israel has some pretty strict gun laws that still allow a lot of civilians to be armed if they want to. Then again, most people go through the army and have a healthy respect for/knowledge of guns, I believe even just from basic training if they had a desk job.....

and in Australia, well, I'm sure some criminals get their hands on guns somehow, but generally, the system works. Police have guns, some licensed security guards do and that's it. 

America is insane. (Is it still the 4th of July can I say that?)

In the case of Israel, I think the training goes a long way. They have a better understanding and appreciation for guns while also dispelling the awe people unfamiliar with guns might have about them.

[Claincy]

Oh I know there are a number of factors in America that make gun control significantly harder and the system we have here wouldn't work as well there. There is definitely plenty that could be done though and imo the amount of shootings America has is ridiculous for a developed nation.

[TwiLyghtSansSparkles]

2 minutes ago, Orlion Determined said:

In the case of Israel, I think the training goes a long way. They have a better understanding and appreciation for guns while also dispelling the awe people unfamiliar with guns might have about them.

If Hollywood would portray guns accurately, that would help.

Just now, Claincy said:

Oh I know there are a number of factors in America that make gun control significantly harder and the system we have here wouldn't work as well there. There is definitely plenty that could be done though and imo the amount of shootings America has is ridiculous for a developed nation.

Kind of the point of my previous post. There are things America can do to coexist with guns; practical, common sense solutions. 

[Claincy]

15 minutes ago, TwiLyghtSansSparkles said:

Kind of the point of my previous post. There are things America can do to coexist with guns; practical, common sense solutions. 

Yeah. I was agreeing with you. I apologise if it didn't come off that way.

[Kaymyth]

Egads, yes, we need the mandatory training.  Too many people in this country are complete rusting morons when it comes to anything that uses gunpowder.

Last night, I was at a 4th of July party in one of the small enclaves in the metro area where shooting off your own fireworks is legal.  They took it seriously; a large barrel for setting off things that shoot upwards (so that if something shoots sideways it's contained), flips over to a platform for fountains, all done on a large driveway that's nice and paved.  Any small bits that made it into the neighbor's yard were immediately retrieved.

Except there's always that one guy.

"Snappers" are what we call little tiny things that you throw at the ground, and the concussion makes them explode.  They're small and relatively innocuous, but they're still explosive.  That One Dude was a younger guy who had previously demonstrated his complete inability to toss flashbangs into the barrel.  His aim was, in a word, crap.  He started tossing snappers at a spot about 20 feet away from the year-old baby on someone's lap.

I beat the parents to it and invoked Teacher Voice:  "Don't throw snappers in the general direction of the baby."

Someone else, chuckling:  "Dude, she's serious."

Me:  *seerious bizness face*

Dude proceeded to slink off and stopped throwing snappers at all.  In fact, I don't think I saw him light another single firework that night.  Teacher Voice is a powerful tool.

[TwiLyghtSansSparkles]

I think people can sense when you want to step away from the desk to use the facilities....because that's when they rush it. 

"The printer isn't working!"

"Can I check out this book? And get a replacement card? And renew my card? And check out these books?"

"The printer still isn't working!"

"I need to make a copy!"

"How do you print?"

Best of all, there was another person at the desk, who had apparently activated his powers of invisibility, because no one else seemed to see him.

[Orlion Blight]

56 minutes ago, Kaymyth said:

Egads, yes, we need the mandatory training.  Too many people in this country are complete rusting morons when it comes to anything that uses gunpowder.

True as that is, we run into the following legal problem: what other Constitutional Right requires mandatory training for its exercise?

There are ways around this: training to get a conceal carry permit, for example. But a blanket requirement in order to own a gun would not survive litigation, I think.

49 minutes ago, TwiLyghtSansSparkles said:

Best of all, there was another person at the desk, who had apparently activated his powers of invisibility, because no one else seemed to see him.

Or his powers of clear, unmitigated incompetency!

[Chaos]

27 minutes ago, Orlion Determined said:

True as that is, we run into the following legal problem: what other Constitutional Right requires mandatory training for its exercise?

There are ways around this: training to get a conceal carry permit, for example. But a blanket requirement in order to own a gun would not survive litigation, I think.

Other constitutional rights don't literally kill people. I see your point for sure and that is surely a legal issue (but hey I'm not a lawyer) but there is a pretty big practical distinction. You can regulate it, but the devil is in the details.

[TwiLyghtSansSparkles]

3 minutes ago, Chaos said:

Other constitutional rights don't literally kill people. I see your point for sure and that is surely a legal issue (but hey I'm not a lawyer) but there is a pretty big practical distinction. You can regulate it, but the devil is in the details.

The right to keep and bear arms is constitutionally guaranteed; the right to buy ammunition for said arms is not. Heavily restricting ammo purchases until after successful completion of a firearms safety course could fall in a grey area, though it could also be a workable solution. 

[Oversleep]

8 minutes ago, Chaos said:

Other constitutional rights don't literally kill people

Wait, what does this constitution say? What is exactly the situation with guns? Non-American Sharders are not quite familiar with the American things.

[TwiLyghtSansSparkles]

Just now, Oversleep said:

Wait, what does this constitution say? What is exactly the situation with guns? Non-American Sharders are not quite familiar with the American things.

Essentially, that Americans have the right to "keep and bear arms" to form a "well-regulated militia." Naturally, the correct interpretation of this amendment has been the subject of much debate. 

[Orlion Blight]

53 minutes ago, Chaos said:

Other constitutional rights don't literally kill people. I see your point for sure and that is surely a legal issue (but hey I'm not a lawyer) but there is a pretty big practical distinction. You can regulate it, but the devil is in the details.

Oh, I completely agree. And if the comparison could be made to the restriction of other Constitutional Rights (You don't have a First Amendment right to yell, "Fire" in a crowded theater, for example) that would be the way to go...but that might require a wizard to make stick.

[Arrae]

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930315&slug=1690536

I find this to be a pretty convincing argument in favor of at least regulating guns, if not banning them.

[TwiLyghtSansSparkles]

5 minutes ago, Arraenae said:

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930315&slug=1690536

I find this to be a pretty convincing argument in favor of at least regulating guns, if not banning them.

Again, I take issue with the author's assumption that a nationwide gun ban would prevent guns from existing in the US, when it would be rather easy to smuggle them in through the Mexican border. "Ban the darn things, ban them all" isn't really a workable solution here. 

Not to mention that her arguments against guns themselves rely on insults against "fourteen year olds" and "wacky religious cults." That's not an argument. That's a logical fallacy.