Page 67 of 228 FirstFirst ... 1757656667686977117167 ... LastLast
Results 661 to 670 of 2276

Thread: OT: Politics

  1. #661
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,084
    I'm not afraid of guns, I own two. And don't be a basic ass with all that "I don't understand the fear", people fear guns for the same reason you have a healthy respect for them. I hope.

    And for the record I don't actually think gun control short of a full ban will do anything, and that won't happen in my lifetime, so this entire exercise is one of Democrats burning political capital.

    The vast majority of gun violence is not school shootings. And the most effective way to address it is by improving the socio-economic conditions of those on the very bottom, people who have been completely disenfranchised from society.

    Republicans are most interested in exacerbating this by cutting social programs and maximizing imprisonment as the "law and order" party, particularly by playing off of white fear. Dems tend to be NIMBYs with their heads up their assess.

    That said I'm not really interested in this conversation, which is why I've been abstaining. But stop playing dumb.
    Ever so many citizens of this republic think they ought to believe that the Universe is a monarchy, and therefore they are always at odds with the republic. -Alan Watts

    I work for the company building the Paragon

  2. #662
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,084
    Actually Josh, maybe you could clear something up for me.

    You know how a big argument for guns is to protect against government tyranny? You know, like how all those gun owners stepped up and prevented public officials from rounding up american citizens of Japanese descent and sending them to Manzanar?

    Why is there such a strong overlap between that crowd and the blue lives matter crowd? I can't figure it out. What government officials do they think they'll be shooting?
    Ever so many citizens of this republic think they ought to believe that the Universe is a monarchy, and therefore they are always at odds with the republic. -Alan Watts

    I work for the company building the Paragon

  3. #663
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    I like how it is always the GOPs fault. Always. No exceptions. Your milk goes bad? GOPs fault.

    Never the individual, who is not an NRA member. Not the cops or FBI who historically did nothing. Like waiting outside for 4 minutes. Or the number of calls that went out to check on the kid for over 2 years. Or the fact that when seconds counted, the government failed to even enter the building, and it took a different police force to come to their aid. And your solution is to take protection away from the individual and make us rely on these do nothing screw ups in government?

    You know, it kinda deflates everything you say at any point after this, because you have one boogymen you blame for everything. That is not rational. It isn't anywhere close to right.

    I am sorry Gordon. Your are wrong, so totally wrong, and blaming the other guy is the wrong way to fix it, even if you were right. But you are not.
    this post does not contain a counterpoint of how the GOP is helping solve the situation.

    0/100

    it actually contains nothing new of any type, we already dealt with the fact that no amount of calls could have solved this problem and stopped this shooter, no amount of good guys with guns helped. this shooting is a poster child for literally every single NRA talking point be total bullshit. blaming the responsible party for there actions is a republican hallmark (or supposed to be).

    you tried to pin it on democrats already, i said get fucked, this is all on republicans. your post contains no counterpoint to that. lack of progress to making our society safer is 100% a republican problem. you'd think folks who so often try to trumpet taking responsibility would understand this.
    Last edited by cockerpunk; 03-05-2018 at 11:56 AM.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  4. #664
    Quote Originally Posted by PBSteve View Post
    Why is there such a strong overlap between that crowd and the blue lives matter crowd? I can't figure it out. What government officials do they think they'll be shooting?
    the ones forcing them to get gay married.

    duh
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  5. #665
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    And don't be a basic ass with all that "I don't understand the fear", people fear guns for the same reason you have a healthy respect for them. I hope.
    When I moved to WA, a lot of people I knew had an almost irrational fear of them. Wouldn't touch them or even look at them. Discussing firearms to them was about as pleasant as discussing the taste of dog. I am not being an ass in stating that, I really didn't understand it. I am not playing dumb. I was expecting, due to your positions, to being more on that side of the argument, which you are both refreshingly not, but also a tad disappointing.

    And the most effective way to address it is by improving the socio-economic conditions of those on the very bottom, people who have been completely disenfranchised from society.
    Now this is a good statement - and I feel there is a lot of truth in it. I think the GOP say this also, in fact, this gets into the current Jordon Peterson discussions and some of the positions they take. There is video commentary going around that shows that one common link with both gang participants and mass shootings individuals is the lack of a male figure in the home. Along with that is that, initially under Reagan, the way the US has treated Mental Health (both before and after Reagan, really) has been poor. Add to that a drug problem that has been treated in a way that alienates people vs the Portugal Model, and you bring about that problem.

    But I have to disagree on the solution. In the proposed solutions under the Blue Model, there is more money going into social programs. This has the effect of propping up the lower class. In that one area that is missed, and I would like to see reform on, is also a position the GOP takes - the welfare programs right now benefit single parents, but effectively penalize married or stable 2 parent relationships. By forcing more money into the system as is, there is a wedge forced between the parents, and the males in the family. Also there is a culture that arises that effectively lives off this break.

    Per the Brookings Institute, they found the largest 3 factors in succeeding were:
    Graduate from high school;
    Maintain a full-time job or have a partner who does; and
    Have children while married and after age 21, should they choose to become parents.
    The rate of people who remained in poverty who followed that was only 2%. When adjusted for race, some races to not exceed as far as whites, but do succeed in pulling significantly further out of poverty than those who do not, and at a consistent rate. There are many other factors, but the large majority of success comes from getting married, delaying childbirth, and keeping a full time job.

    When you are paying people more to not be married, and paying a culture to have kids at a young age, you will get more of it. Like Solar Power. You want more solar power? Have the government pay for a portion of it. See how well that has worked? Where as, if the government gave at least a neutral presence to male family member (or even a positive one) staying in the home, we most likely wouldn't have seen the divide in marriages as strongly as we did when welfare was enacted.

    I realize the counter argument would include some comments about making people stay in bad relationships to remain in welfare - and that may happen. But right now we do see the large amount of crime, gangs and mass shooting events driven by this same factor of a lack of a male figure in the household.

    And, a 'Vibrant Economy' is a great solution to that. Right now we are seeing record low unemployment. Pay is starting to rise, and many companies are expanding in the US, and hiring. The driver for that is low taxes. Two different solutions, but both trying to address the same problem. The Right sees the same problem as you do - they are not heartless beasts who don't care. They just have a different solution. Keynesian vs Austrian schools of thought. Their solution is to have a welfare system that is balanced instead of bloated and an economy that doesn't have to rely on welfare, to have as many people employed as possible. And more happy families. Hence, they 'rally round the family'. (Classic reference there.)

    Republicans are most interested in exacerbating this by cutting social programs and maximizing imprisonment as the "law and order" party, particularly by playing off of white fear. Dems tend to be NIMBYs with their heads up their assess.
    White fear? No. That is your 'Playing Dumb' statement. x2.

    As for a Law and Order party - I think that is pretty spot on, and while it has some benefits, the problem I feel is our entire imprisonment system needs a revamp. Instead of punishment as the punishment, since we are spending about as much as a high end college for each inmate just to produce in inculture that when released has fewer skills than when entered, has an incarcerated culture added to their person, and is shunned a felon instead of being praised for having done time and possibly improving themselves, and they have a reduced earning potential. I mean, just from a 'Tax Sheep' mindset, if we were smart we would train the piss out of them, have them come out as high end earners and produce more tax revenue so as to pay off the prison system, instead of coming out as low earner, with now more limited job opportunities, who most likely will return to crime instead of returning to being a productive member of society. It is stupid, and I agree, the GOP is being pretty dumb about that. The Right? The conservatives who voted them in are not too happy either. The GOP congress is a waste.

    The Dems might be NIMBY's, but they are at least a lot more effective. Across the board. You have some exceptions (Pelosi) but for the most part you get what you pay for. The GOP is not performing to the level the constituents wanted. If so, Jeb would have had a chance. Instead (here is the Want More Trump line) a portion of the reason the right side of the voters pool threw Trump up there is because the GOP Congress is a bunch of do-nothings.

    Thank you for the reply.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  6. #666
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    we already dealt with the fact that no amount of calls could have solved this problem and stopped this shooter, no amount of good guys with guns helped. this shooting is a poster child for literally every single NRA talking point be total bullshit. blaming the responsible party for there actions is a republican hallmark (or supposed to be).
    We? You dismissed it. You dismissing something doesn't make it so.

    It only should have taken one call. The 'Lack of action' was not on the NRA's part. It wasn't their job. The job, the people paid to do it, was the Sheriff's office, and the FBI.

    In fact, there was exactly one call that was taken that was totally specific, and the FBI dropped the ball. There were over 30 calls to the paid Sheriff's department, which resulted in them going to the property. And not doing their job.

    There is a history of the department not stopping crime in the area, even running a quota system that limited the amount of times they could arrest a HS student so they would get better rating for the area.

    The people paid by the taxpayer, (including you since the FBI was directly involved) had a job to be there.

    The 4 officers at the school were also paid to rush in and confront the shooter. That literally was their job. And a different police department showed up and then did their job.

    The good guys with guns are obviously NOT the Sheriff's department. It might have been one teacher allowed to conceal carry that could have stopped them. Right after this, when the local NRA trained gun safety trainers offered to train teachers for free? They were overwhelmed.

    Teachers want the ability to protect themselves.

    And the people the US government is paying to protect us?

    They are NOT doing their job.


    Yet you would say this is the NRA's fault. Still. Because they want to allow an individual the right to protect themselves, to train to use a firearm safely?

    No, you want talking points? The blame for the NRA is a false front. They are the blame shifting for a Sheriff WHO WAS PAID to protect those kids, and who didn't. Sheriff Israel is to blame for not stopping the kid 2 years ago, for not confronting him then, nor for sending his people in to stop this. This is his responsibility.

    You can not find a more responsible group than that local law enforcement in not stopping the kid to begin with, and from not stopping him when he got there.

    Last week an active shooter went to a school in Anchorage Alaska, close to where I grew up. The police stopped him at the door. Talked him down, and stopped him from entering. Not a single shot was fired. The police did their job. Well. That is what Sheriff Israel didn't do.

    Blaming the NRA, who's job is not to 'Serve and Protect', who is not paid by us to protect our community or our kids, and simply trains people in safe use of firearms, and also tries to protect our constitutional right, is blame shifting. It kool-aid drinking, gaslighting bullshit.

    Don't try to throw your empty cup at me and call that a win in this argument.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  7. #667
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    I am not, but it was just an attempt to be funny.

    That being said - can you describe why you feel those riders were totally unacceptable? I want to know your thoughts on it, in depth. Like I have mentioned before - I come from a Gun Culture that respects firearms and is comfortable with them. I do not understand the fear all that well.
    I'll give this a shot. I don't have a problem with gun culture, nor do I really care if people are allowed to own guns such as assault rifles. A vast majority of gun owners will not commit crimes and a fair amount of them are probably pretty responsible in owning and using guns. The goal of gun control/regulation, what ever you want to call it, is to ensure only those people have access to guns. I don't think gun bans are necessary to lower gun crime if you have regulations in place that effectively ensure the right people can obtain one. The reason the Cruz bill is a non-starter is because the point of that bill was to lower barriers/regulations to getting access to firearms. By allowing interstate sale of firearms you are effectively undermining blue state's gun regulations by allowing people to buy guns from state's with limited/no regulations. I think we can both agree this basically happens in principle now at the criminal level, but no Democratic senator is going to agree to a bill that eviscerates his or her state's regulations in exchange for regulations that are effectively weaker than what the state has in place now. That's why it is a poison-pill. As the republicans won't agree to more stringent requirements on purchases you essentially get grid-lock. If Republicans would agree to more comprehensive nationwide reforms that better ensure purchasers are going to be responsible/not dangerous, I doubt Democrats would resist interstate sales as strongly as they do now. Does that make sense?

    Imposing regulations that limit an individuals access to firearms and certain types of firearms is settled law. Though I am not a constitutional lawyer (I'm an energy lawyer), I feel pretty confident in saying this. There is a debate as to how far these regulations can go, but as of right now it's completely untested at the Supreme Court. For background, when the Supreme Court examines a right, it applies different standards for how it should analyze the government's reasoning for restricting that right (i.e. intermediate scrutiny - more likely to accept government reasoning vs. strict scrutiny - the government better have a very good reason). The Supreme Court has not announced a standard for analyzing gun regulations and the Appeals courts are split on what to standard to apply at this point. Thus, given Scalia's pronouncements in D.C. v. Heller that the government can restrict access to firearms and the types of firearms, we know some sort of regulations are constitutional, we just don't know the extent at this point. Could that all change in either direction? Of course, but that's the state of the law right now.

    You are right on reducing gang violence, economic poverty, etc. will be more effective reducing violence in general than banning guns. I don't think anyone would dispute that. I'd just prefer to not give them easier access to weapons that make it easier in the short-term to commit those crimes while we try as a nation to solve those economic problems.

    Also editing this to add this article by David French - https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/...consider-grvo/. I think this is a path we can take as a nation.
    Last edited by d0cwho; 03-05-2018 at 02:05 PM.

  8. #668
    Insider
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,182
    On welfare:

    I think it's fair to say that direct assistance welfare programs are relatively ineffective, though some baseline social safety net is a requirement to prevent "death in the streets". In fact, the research I'm aware of suggests that direct cash infusion is actually more dollar efficient than the total corpus of US social programs, though there's obviously a kind of moral teleology (fuck-you-got-mine-ism) that makes it unpalatable.

    Josh, I think one think that has to be said, is that when the issue of mass shootings is conflated with gang violence, it really smacks of racism. It is humorous to see the conclusion that "maintaining a full time job" is associated with success. Like, obviously. However, you're talking about a population that's overincarcerated and undereducated, which makes the prospects of gainful employment difficult to begin with. Additionally, there tends to be a parallel, highly lucrative and socially acceptable shadow economy running parallel to the system, where traits such as amenability to risk and previous incarceration are actually part of the curriculum vitae. Additionally, these areas tend to be food deserts and high in environmental pollutants.

    I don't think economically incentivizing marriage will do anything, except perhaps increase the number of fake marriages. I tend to favor the idea of planned parenthood in order to try and break some of the positive feedback mechanisms extant in the lower socioeconomic class. Ultimately the silver bullet is in education, specifically education of women. There is a terrible risk in doing too little and concluding nothing works - Gates Foundation research (or relatively unsuccessful programs like Head Start) shows that the investment in education needed to move the needle is very, very high - on the order of 15k/year/student. That it can be done is clear. Limited interventions such as a single year of pre-K, while a step in the right direction, wash out to insignificance over time.

    On Gun Violence:

    I think it's most correct to treat this as at least 3 separate issues:

    Terrorism (politically motivated),
    Gang Violence (economically motivated),
    Mass Shootings (psychologically, or perhaps nihilistically, motivated).

    I find an instructive thought experiment to be one posed to Steven Pinker by Tyler Cowen on the "Conversations with Tyler" podcast. (Pinker is a noted optimist on the reduction of violence over time in human history - see "Better Angels of our Nature".) The question is thus:

    "Given the reduction over time in cost of destructive potential, if the cost to level a major city center reached $10,000, how long would it take before this occurred?"

    Essentially, we're looking at the intersection of 2 sets: people with $10,000, and people who want to blow up a city center. Pinker's response was not particularly encouraging, but hinged on the idea that such a large scale attack is not even politically useful - in the same way that nuclear arms are so destructive that they've found limited use outside of their deterrent value. I think it's fair to say that destructive potential is so cheap that you're acting on the wrong part of the risk equation - Steve says as much when he says anything short of a full ban won't move the needle. I agree in full that the banning of AR-15s would be little more than symbolic, even if I take it as true that no civilian needs to own one.

    What's terrifying to me is that to a nihilistically deranged mind, there is no cap to the level of useful destruction. Perhaps you're familiar with Dan Brown's "Inferno", or Richard Preston's "The Demon in the Freezer". Both terrifying from the standpoint that very simple tools could be used to create a biological agent capable of the slaughter of millions of humans. It wouldn't be particularly expensive, or difficult, given current levels of technology.

    Overall, this suggests to me that identifying the dangerously mentally deranged, and treating them, is of utmost importance to our overall safety. Frankly, I'm willing to give up significant freedoms for security in this space.
    "So you've done this before?"
    "Oh, hell no. But I think it's gonna work."

  9. #669
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    We? You dismissed it. You dismissing something doesn't make it so.

    It only should have taken one call. The 'Lack of action' was not on the NRA's part. It wasn't their job. The job, the people paid to do it, was the Sheriff's office, and the FBI.

    In fact, there was exactly one call that was taken that was totally specific, and the FBI dropped the ball. There were over 30 calls to the paid Sheriff's department, which resulted in them going to the property. And not doing their job.

    There is a history of the department not stopping crime in the area, even running a quota system that limited the amount of times they could arrest a HS student so they would get better rating for the area.

    The people paid by the taxpayer, (including you since the FBI was directly involved) had a job to be there.

    The 4 officers at the school were also paid to rush in and confront the shooter. That literally was their job. And a different police department showed up and then did their job.

    The good guys with guns are obviously NOT the Sheriff's department. It might have been one teacher allowed to conceal carry that could have stopped them. Right after this, when the local NRA trained gun safety trainers offered to train teachers for free? They were overwhelmed.

    Teachers want the ability to protect themselves.

    And the people the US government is paying to protect us?

    They are NOT doing their job.


    Yet you would say this is the NRA's fault. Still. Because they want to allow an individual the right to protect themselves, to train to use a firearm safely?

    No, you want talking points? The blame for the NRA is a false front. They are the blame shifting for a Sheriff WHO WAS PAID to protect those kids, and who didn't. Sheriff Israel is to blame for not stopping the kid 2 years ago, for not confronting him then, nor for sending his people in to stop this. This is his responsibility.

    You can not find a more responsible group than that local law enforcement in not stopping the kid to begin with, and from not stopping him when he got there.

    Last week an active shooter went to a school in Anchorage Alaska, close to where I grew up. The police stopped him at the door. Talked him down, and stopped him from entering. Not a single shot was fired. The police did their job. Well. That is what Sheriff Israel didn't do.

    Blaming the NRA, who's job is not to 'Serve and Protect', who is not paid by us to protect our community or our kids, and simply trains people in safe use of firearms, and also tries to protect our constitutional right, is blame shifting. It kool-aid drinking, gaslighting bullshit.

    Don't try to throw your empty cup at me and call that a win in this argument.
    the FBI and local law enforcement have no method by which to stop him, or disarm him. there is no law that allows them to do this. "pre-crime" still just exists in science fiction.

    as already detailed, the shooting illustrates quite well that the good guy with a gun can't stop a shooting like this. they waited for less than 5 minutes to go in. in a world of high cap magazines, and semi-auto weapons, 4 minutes is plenty of time to kill dozens.

    so, sorry, you are wrong.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  10. #670
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    The FBI and Law enforcement have no method to stop him? You are wrong, and even they said it:

    On January 5, 2018, a person close to Nikolas Cruz contacted the FBI*s Public Access Line (PAL) tipline to report concerns about him. The caller provided information about Cruz*s gun ownership, desire to kill people, erratic behavior, and disturbing social media posts, as well as the potential of him conducting a school shooting.

    Under established protocols, the information provided by the caller should have been assessed as a potential threat to life. The information then should have been forwarded to the FBI Miami Field Office, where appropriate investigative steps would have been taken.

    We have determined that these protocols were not followed for the information received by the PAL on January 5. The information was not provided to the Miami Field Office, and no further investigation was conducted at that time.

    Read more: http://www.cbs46.com/story/37525018/...#ixzz58u1Ori00
    That means they had a method to stop him.

    as already detailed, the shooting illustrates quite well that the good guy with a gun can't stop a shooting like this.
    a 'Good guy with a gun' is not a friggin cop. That is a citizen with a gun. You keep mixing these up. Here are 12 examples: http://controversialtimes.com/issues...uys-with-guns/

    The other police department didn't wait. THEY WENT RIGHT IN. The Coral Springs police officers, when they arrived, found the 3 Broward County deputies, guns drawn, behind their cars.

    The other officers there, their job WAS to go right in. Those are not 'Good Guys'.

    Oh, and fail 4 in your commentary: the kid only had 10 round capacity clips, not high capacity.

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/...ity-magazines/

    You basically got nothing right.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •