What is wrong with the nanny state?

[Al_Masetti]

It depends on what you are talking about, and try not to always paint with a broad brush…one size fits all.

I think no one wants or looks forward to a nanny state, but there are times when there is a need for government oversight. Oversight not supreme command.

For instatance, wonder why when your at the airport the system is sooo deteriorated now, late flights, faulty equipment, your sleeping on the floor? Or how the Savings and Loan robbery in the 1980’s occurred and we the American people bailed them out (we paid through our taxes). or the recent mortgage theft (we’re bailing them out again)? Or remember Enron?? Everying above went south as soon as there was: DEREGULATION!

This is what happens when people feed into the fantasy of "We want government off of our backs, and then it goes too far.

Oh yea and after government is removed by the politicians taking money from people in that industry, it goes to you know where. Industry cannot regulate itself without government oversight. The government is not some evil empire, the government is you and me…the people.

Talk about target-rich environments!!! And I don’t mean the department store!!!

Where to start?!!!

Air Traffic Control … the design and construction/installation is controlled totally by … ta-da … the Federal Aviation Administration which [me talking] is 50 years behind the state of the art in ATC technology. Third-world and Fourth-world countries buy their ATC systems from catalogs and the internet. They get the latest and for very good, competitive prices. But not our gummint bureaucracy. No-un-huh. Nope. Our FAA bureaucracy writes incomprehensible specifications that one critic claimed actually violated the laws of physics. I don’t know about that. But pull-down menus on radar screens are definitely bad form.

[The bureaucracy was soooo messed up and soooo behind schedule that some years ago the FAA administrator just went out to … [horrors] IBM … and bought a bunch of off-the shelf computers. She asked IBM: “can your machines run our existing software”. He said, “Yes”. She said, “When can you deliver?”. He said, “Tomorrow”. And that’s how IBM bailed out the FAA. The old machines were so old and unreliable that they used TUBES (which is not an acronym) that could only be purchased from … ta da … The Soviet Union. *.

The S&L crisis …ah yes, they changed the FEDERAL FDIC guarantee … raised it from (if I recall correctly) $25K to $100K and all of a sudden there was a scandal. In the U.S. Senate. Gaol (pronounced “jail”). The Keating Five. But I can’t / daren’t name them.

The recent mortgage theft. Congress passed a bunch of laws that required banks to loan money to folks who couldn’t pay it back. That’s our gummint.

Enron … Lincoln Bedroom. Very expensive cups of coffee.

And without deregulation you would not be able to afford airline tickets. Check out Alfred Kahn.

I would write more, but I’m lightheaded from being typing so fast that I’m breathless.*

 

[LCMS_No_More]

They also know there are no true telepaths.

That was a joke…which went way over your head.

I’m sorry that I asked too much of your intelligence. I won’t make that make again.

 

[rtconstant]

Ah, yes – the old mind-reading act again.

Not mind reading its the implication your vehement opposition to even the most marginal precautions illustrates this. Heck, why have NRA gun camps or have the inlisted go through boot camp? we all instinctively know how to use a gun safely and apporpriately.

Which is relevant to this discussion, how?

Silly question, silly answer that’s all.

It’s the same stratosphere!

Different engineering.

What’s changed?

Well, previously a lot pilots came out of the wars and moved into private sector jobs. Today more civilians are getting those jobs.

Given all the blustering that precedes this line, I beg to differ. Some people demand “training” without knowing what training is.

Wasn’t bluster, I just don’t believe you didn’t understand what was being said. Also dispite all Hollywood-itis here a lot of people really honestly don’t know a thing about guns. I know it is your assetion that no knowledge of firearms is necessary or beneficial or even reasonable to request but a lot of people are uncomfortable with that. What I was suggesting isn’t unreasonable will not endanger anyone and wouldn’t even have to take that much time. Yet it could provide information that might prove beneficial. We’ll never have the bases covered but increasing thought, planning and safety will never negatively impact any scenario.

Despite all this, no one can tell me what problem the training is expected to solve, let alone document that problem.

Once more, this isn’t Hollywood shoot outs on planes are not very common there isn’t a “problem” to document. The idea is precautionary. It may have an impact it may not. I’m must admit to being baffled by the fact that you are so strongly against knowledge of weapons. Maybe we were raised in a different gun culture I was raised that a gun is weapon not a toy and should be respected.

And of course, no one can tell me what training is required in the normal task-condition-standard format.

What is required depends on the state we’ve only espoused certain things that might be beneficial in it.

So before you accuse me of “over-simplifying,” demonstrate that you are not over-simplifying by demanding training for training’s sake.

I didn’t demand. Most of the people I know who own guns never went through any sort of formal training. Some were raised in families and were taught by fathers, uncles and such, some just went out and got one and have maybe fired it once. What I’m saying is that requiring training is not unreasonable.

I realize that simply spinning something around is a standard knee jerk reaction. Yet what I’ve said is that people knowing how to operate, take care of, safely store and shown some pointers on risk assessment and understanding threat escalation can only be good things.

 

[mapleoak]

Remind me to tell you a story about handgrenades some day.

I’d like to hear the story about the hand grenades.

 

[mapleoak]

For instatance, wonder why when your at the airport the system is sooo deteriorated now, late flights, faulty equipment, your sleeping on the floor?
.
.
.
This is what happens when people feed into the fantasy of "We want government off of our backs, and then it goes too far.

Yes, I have wondered why the airport system is messed up the way it is. Guess whose responsible?

 

[vz71]

I want you to articulate the problem that your solution purports to address.

OK. The problem is that not everyone knows how to use firearms. The training I propose simply gives everyone that is to have a firearm a minimum level of expertise.

It is my position that “without any idea how to safely use them” is both a fallacy (implying that ex-military, or currently serving reservists don’t have firearms skills) and a misnomer – “any idea” is not measureable.

Not everyone is ex-military. And even if someone were, I still do not make the exception.
And you have still not answered the question.

 

[mapleoak]

OK. The problem is that not everyone knows how to use firearms. The training I propose simply gives everyone that is to have a firearm a minimum level of expertise.

And this minimum level of training will teach a criminal how not to shoot someone?

 

[vern_humphrey]

For instatance, wonder why when your at the airport the system is sooo deteriorated now, late flights, faulty equipment, your sleeping on the floor? Or how the Savings and Loan robbery in the 1980’s occurred and we the American people bailed them out (we paid through our taxes). or the recent mortgage theft (we’re bailing them out again)? Or remember Enron?? Everying above went south as soon as there was: DEREGULATION!
.

I’m glad you brought those points up:

1. The airports and equipment are not part of airline deregulation. In fact, the air control equipment is bought and paid for by the federal government, and the Air Traffic Controllers are federal employees.
2. The Savings and Loan debacle occurred because bank managers committed crimes – which are a step above mere regulations. They were able to commit these crimes because members of Congress put pressure on those who were supposed to investigate. This shows the great flaw of the nanny state – it makes government all-powerful, but government is controlled by a handfull of men and women, who tend to use that power for their benefit, not ours.

 

[Eric_Olsen]

Give a man a fish and he feeds himself for one day. Teach a man to fish and he feeds himself for a lifetime.

What is wrong with the welfare, nanny, managerial state? I thought those were examples of social justice because they adequately care for the vulnerable in society.

 

[Godi]

vern_humphrey:
There is a reason why dialing 911 is now commonly referred to as " Dial a Prayer ". Police are stretched thin, there are only so many resources. I have heard a figure that as many as 3 million crimes a year are deterred by would be victims with guns.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Not mind reading its the implication your vehement opposition to even the most marginal precautions illustrates this. Heck, why have NRA gun camps or have the inlisted go through boot camp? we all instinctively know how to use a gun safely and apporpriately.

Pilots are not “inlisted.” They are well-educated men and women, with a huge number of retired and reserve militaryh.

Nor is “boot camp” devoted exclusively to firearms training.

Different engineering.

Different, how? Tell us what is different about the stratosphere for military aircraft, versus civilian.

Well, previously a lot pilots came out of the wars and moved into private sector jobs. Today more civilians are getting those jobs.

Acutally, the military component is pretty constant.

Wasn’t bluster, I just don’t believe you didn’t understand what was being said.

It was bluster – to cover up lack of knowledge and detail

Also dispite all Hollywood-itis here a lot of people really honestly don’t know a thing about guns.

Present company included. Where did you get your in-depth knowledge of firearms?

And if you have in-depth knowledge of firearms, how are you qualified to say what training is needed?

I know it is your assetion that no knowledge of firearms is necessary or beneficial or even reasonable to request but a lot of people are uncomfortable with that.

1. I did not say “no knowledge of firearms is necessary.” I agree with Al Maserati that the training requirements are quite small – contrary to those here who see it as some big deal.
2. People “being uncomfortable” has nothing to do with reality.

What I was suggesting isn’t unreasonable will not endanger anyone and wouldn’t even have to take that much time. Yet it could provide information that might prove beneficial. We’ll never have the bases covered but increasing thought, planning and safety will never negatively impact any scenario.

So tell us what the training requirements are? What are the tasks, conditions and standards?

How many time do I have to ask?

Once more, this isn’t Hollywood shoot outs on planes are not very common there isn’t a “problem” to document. The idea is precautionary. It may have an impact it may not. I’m must admit to being baffled by the fact that you are so strongly against knowledge of weapons. Maybe we were raised in a different gun culture I was raised that a gun is weapon not a toy and should be respected.

If you read the thread, my point is:

1. The training requirment is minimal.
2. People who “feel uncomfortable” and who – knowing nothing about firearms – have erected such a thicket of impossible hurdles that six and a half years after 9/11 we have still failed to arm the majority of our pilots.

What is required depends on the state we’ve only espoused certain things that might be beneficial in it.

Such as?

Give us your tasks, conditions and standards.

I didn’t demand. Most of the people I know who own guns never went through any sort of formal training. Some were raised in families and were taught by fathers, uncles and such, some just went out and got one and have maybe fired it once. What I’m saying is that requiring training is not unreasonable.

Then list your tasks, conditions and standards.

I realize that simply spinning something around is a standard knee jerk reaction.

So hold on to your knee and give us your tasks, conditions and standards.

Yet what I’ve said is that people knowing how to operate, take care of, safely store and shown some pointers on risk assessment and understanding threat escalation can only be good things.

So give us your tasks, conditions and standards.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Give a man a fish and he feeds himself for one day. Teach a man to fish and he feeds himself for a lifetime.

Caption on a joke cartoon that came in yesterday:

One lawyer talking to another:

“Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to sue and he’ll eat for a lifetime.”

 

[vz71]

And this minimum level of training will teach a criminal how not to shoot someone?

I highly doubt a criminals want to go through the various examinations registering a gun would include.
And given that criminals usually use an illegal handgun, it would appear that that assertion works the majority of the time.

 

[vz71]

1. I did not say “no knowledge of firearms is necessary.” I agree with Al Maserati that the training requirements are quite small – contrary to those here who see it as some big deal.

Emphasis mine…
Please provide quotes from specific individuals to support this conjecture.

I have seen no one here that makes such a deal out of it.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Emphasis mine…
Please provide quotes from specific individuals to support this conjecture.

I have seen no one here that makes such a deal out of it.

How many posts have you made on this subject?

How many times have you been requested to state your proposed training requirements in the normal task-condition-standard format?

 

[vz71]

1. I did not say “no knowledge of firearms is necessary.” I agree with Al Maserati that the training requirements are quite small – contrary to those here who see it as some big deal.

Emphasis mine…
Please provide quotes from specific individuals to support this conjecture.

I have seen no one here that makes such a deal out of it.

How many posts have you made on this subject?

How many times have you been requested to state your proposed training requirements in the normal task-condition-standard format?

Does this mean you cannot provide quotes from specific individuals to support your conjecture?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Does this mean you cannot provide quotes from specific individuals to support your conjecture?

My “conjecture?” What’s that?

 

[vz71]

Thought so…it was just another straw man thrown out there to goad people into an argument.

Unless, of course, you can back yourself with the quotes.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Thought so…it was just another straw man thrown out there to goad people into an argument.

Unless, of course, you can back yourself with the quotes.

What straw man, and what is it you want quoted?

I have repeatedly tried to get you to tell us – in a meaningful way – what training you think is needed. You have consistently failed.

Are those the quotes you want?

 

[vz71]

what is it you want quoted?

Perhaps you should read post 436.