|
Post by Russell Letson on Aug 5, 2019 12:56:06 GMT -5
John: Up to the last two sentences, it's hard to differ with the picture of the costs of our prosperity in that passage. And I would point out that, despite whatever Bond-villain scenarios are implied by the text, a severe reduction in population is one "solution"--though I suspect that it will not come about by the deliberate implementation of your nightmares but by visits by the familiar and dependable Four Horsement.
Peter: I don't know the people you know, nor do I need to in order to analyze the causes of misery visited on many that you don't. I don't want my house to burn down, nor my neighbors' (lest my own catch on fire), but that doesn't mean I don't give a shit about people across town, with whom I share an environment of hazards. And while I have equipped our house with smoke detectors, I do not hesitate to burden apartment-house owners with the expense of installing them in their properties. Their right to a fractional increase in ROI does not outweigh the right of their tenants to a (not absolutely but measurably) safer living space. "I'm all right, Jack, fuck you" is a pretty limited social ethic.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Aug 5, 2019 12:56:43 GMT -5
This does not echo Trump. This echoes the Democratic candidates. Progressives have been controlling the political narrative and process for so long they no longer recognize when they've wandered off the pier into the impossible. How else do you explain stuff like this and the Green New Deal? Drugs, Pete, hard drugs.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Aug 5, 2019 12:58:45 GMT -5
IMHO, the problem is that you have the world ass-backwards. Most of our news media assisted you in that. Believe it or not, racism existed before Trump. Trump actually palled around with black guys. Trump used to be a Democrat even. Trumps actions haven't been racist, they're anti-Democratic party policies mouthed by people who happen to be minority raced. He doesn't think much of Bernie or Biden either and they happen to be white. You are suffering from the TDS virus spread by media that has equated all things bad with Trump. Whatever happens bad, they find a way to tie it to Trump. In the El Paso case, the media tied it to Trump but the shooter never did. TDS virus allows you to overlook reason. You have my sympathies but not my support in your efforts to make Democratic Party policies sound good. They don't regardless of who talks about them or their race or ethnicity. We're working on a vaccine for TDS but most Democrats wouldn't take it if there was one. We hope to be able to release it by Nov. 2020. Please. From the original article: Slammed black suspect’s head into door frame
Frank Nucera, the police chief of New Jersey’s Bordentown township, was indicted on federal criminal charges in November 2017 for allegedly committing a hate crime after he slammed a handcuffed, African-American suspect’s head into a metal door frame.
After the assault, which occurred in September 2016, Nucera was recorded as saying that “Donald Trump is the last hope for white people.”
Nucera is reportedly fighting the charges to trial.
One of a couple of dozen criminals who sight Trump as their inspiration. These are facts. You can look them up. Trump racism inspires racist acts. It's not remotely complicated. The man foments hate. Find one violent criminal, anywhere, who has ever expressed their criminal inspiration as being, say, Barack Obama. Then get back to me about Trump Derangement Syndrome.
What part of that did Trump actually say? He wasn't even President yet. THat TDS is tough, I know and I hope you can get some help before your head explodes.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Aug 5, 2019 13:07:05 GMT -5
The answer to "OK, what are you going to do about guns?" is exactly what any private citizen can do: Talk about it, analyze it, demand that our representatives do the same--and refuse to give in to obfuscation and propagandizing from the likes of the NRA. As a private citizen, I can't control the behavior of the corporations whose business model depends on maintaining a market for their wares, nor does it make much sense to start buttonholing other private citizens about their chosen amusements (let alone their paranoid fantasies about facing down state tyranny). Even attempts at reasoned conversation with other citizens eventually face the brick wall of flat-out denial that there is a problem or that it can be at least ameliorated.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Aug 5, 2019 13:09:59 GMT -5
Peter: I don't know the people you know, nor do I need to in order to analyze the causes of misery visited on many that you don't. I don't want my house to burn down, nor my neighbors' (lest my own catch on fire), but that doesn't mean I don't give a shit about people across town, with whom I share an environment of hazards. And while I have equipped our house with smoke detectors, I do not hesitate to burden apartment-house owners with the expense of installing them in their properties. Their right to a fractional increase in ROI does not outweigh the right of their tenants to a (not absolutely but measurably) safer living space. "I'm all right, Jack, fuck you" is a pretty limited social ethic. Big deal, Russell. So what? I've got smoke detectors, too. You know why? Because I've seen houses burn down. And they cost $25 or so. Smoke detectors are a perfectly reasonable preventative measure. But again, not every risk can be or should be prevented. Risk will always be a part of living. So, do you have a good solution or not? Prove it.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Aug 5, 2019 13:18:10 GMT -5
Please. From the original article: Slammed black suspect’s head into door frame
Frank Nucera, the police chief of New Jersey’s Bordentown township, was indicted on federal criminal charges in November 2017 for allegedly committing a hate crime after he slammed a handcuffed, African-American suspect’s head into a metal door frame.
After the assault, which occurred in September 2016, Nucera was recorded as saying that “Donald Trump is the last hope for white people.”
Nucera is reportedly fighting the charges to trial.
One of a couple of dozen criminals who sight Trump as their inspiration. These are facts. You can look them up. Trump racism inspires racist acts. It's not remotely complicated. The man foments hate. Find one violent criminal, anywhere, who has ever expressed their criminal inspiration as being, say, Barack Obama. Then get back to me about Trump Derangement Syndrome.
What part of that did Trump actually say? He wasn't even President yet. THat TDS is tough, I know and I hope you can get some help before your head explodes. I am more concerned about a President who thinks it's in his best interest for the country to explode. (Liberals. What are ya gonna do, right?) Trump makes incendiary, racist assertions. Racist white people see him as their leader and use his incitement as as excuse to wreak havoc on people who are not white. This is not that hard to understand. Or, maybe it is. You might want to loosen the strap on your red hat.
|
|
|
Post by sidheguitarmichael on Aug 5, 2019 13:19:45 GMT -5
I’d be interested in discussing concrete, obtainable solutions that would be effective—and worth the price of admission, as well.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Aug 5, 2019 13:21:23 GMT -5
Peter, what you're engaging in is not argument but a species of derailment--"So what would you do, Mr. Smartypants?" I posted an answer to that challenge above your post, and that answer stands. And in earlier posts I have outlined the issues I think worth examining and analyzing and modeling--which you and others have rejected out of hand. I'm not a legislator or the President--my "power" is the ability to engage in reasoned argument and analysis and--every couple years--to vote for the least irrational or corrupt candidate. I'm not of an age to run for office myself (and as a public heathen, I'd never even get a look-in), but if I'm really worked up, I can get involved in party politics to minimize the possibility of running a Patty Wetterling against a Michele Bachmann.
So I see your challenge not as a good-faith question but as an attempt at derailing the discussion by insisting on an impossible "answer." (BTW, your point about the impossibility of preventing every risk is a straw-man argument. We mitigate risks all the time--by, for example, installing smoke detectors or wearing seatbelts or motorcycle helmets. Well, some of us, anyway.)
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Aug 5, 2019 13:21:25 GMT -5
I’d be interested in discussing concrete, obtainable solutions that would be effective—and worth the price of admission, as well. I'm trying buddy, but nobody seems to want to play.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Aug 5, 2019 13:23:38 GMT -5
(BTW, your point about the impossibility of preventing every risk is a straw-man argument. We mitigate risks all the time--by, for example, installing smoke detectors or wearing seatbelts or motorcycle helmets. Well, some of us, anyway.) And yet we all die. Now who's arguing a straw man?
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Aug 5, 2019 13:30:18 GMT -5
I’d be interested in discussing concrete, obtainable solutions that would be effective—and worth the price of admission, as well. See the UK, Australia, Canada, etc. Or the Wikipedia "Overview of gun laws by nation" article. The range of possible responses to "how might one control access to firearms" is wide and varied. I suspect there are even solutions that can be adapted to our current situation--though there's little chance of seeing instant repair of a situation that has been allowed to ferment for decades. But the perfect is the enemy of the good.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Aug 5, 2019 13:42:00 GMT -5
What part of that did Trump actually say? He wasn't even President yet. THat TDS is tough, I know and I hope you can get some help before your head explodes. I am more concerned about a President who thinks it's in his best interest for the country to explode. (Liberals. What are ya gonna do, right?) Trump makes incendiary, racist assertions. Racist white people see him as their leader and use his incitement as as excuse to wreak havoc on people who are not white. This is not that hard to understand. Or, maybe it is. You might want to loosen the strap on your red hat. Oh, I understand. We've discussed this before, not you but on the forum. You're conflating the thoughts of "Racist white people" with your own thought that Trump is a racist, which is not actually in evidence. You're doing guilt by association without the actual association part. That's the same as the collusion charge. You believe in the collusion charge although no evidence of collusion has been found. Trump's guilty because your accepted sources say he is. I'm waiting for evidence either of actual racism or actual collusion. I do that because I'm rational and not a victim of TDS.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Aug 5, 2019 13:44:48 GMT -5
I’d be interested in discussing concrete, obtainable solutions that would be effective—and worth the price of admission, as well. I was on my tablet over the weekend and it's too cumbersome to post, but I thought the link you posted had some really interesting proposals. Among them the idea that you could have an anonymous registry. I'm not a gun guy, but I do believe that confiscation is the ultimate goal. Even if I -- and most gun owners -- are wrong, the belief in ultimate confiscation is going to make registry a non-starter.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Aug 5, 2019 13:47:43 GMT -5
John: Up to the last two sentences, it's hard to differ with the picture of the costs of our prosperity in that passage. And I would point out that, despite whatever Bond-villain scenarios are implied by the text, a severe reduction in population is one "solution"--though I suspect that it will not come about by the deliberate implementation of your nightmares but by visits by the familiar and dependable Four Horsement. A horsement is a coral on the lowest floor of the barn. I'm wondering how many people knew that the quote I pulled was in the manifesto? I'm wondering if anyone here realized that all the major news sources used the last sentence of it, but tied that to immigration and not to environmentalism? And I'm wondering if the fact that the major news sources did that matters to them?
|
|
|
Post by sidheguitarmichael on Aug 5, 2019 14:05:04 GMT -5
I’d be interested in discussing concrete, obtainable solutions that would be effective—and worth the price of admission, as well. See the UK, Australia, Canada, etc. Or the Wikipedia "Overview of gun laws by nation" article. The range of possible responses to "how might one control access to firearms" is wide and varied. I suspect there are even solutions that can be adapted to our current situation--though there's little chance of seeing instant repair of a situation that has been allowed to ferment for decades. But the perfect is the enemy of the good. I’ve seen all that stuff, as a student of firearms policy and UoF issues for decades. Implementing UK/Australia policies is probably impossible here, for reasons that I can primer on request. Directing me to a wiki article is not bringing an A game to the debate, and it’s a debate that probably demands A-game thinking to even begin to work with any productivity. I’ve posted an article, upthread, from respected sociology professor and author David Yamane’s current study blog "gun culture 2.0" that outlines some possible concrete steps, I’m open to others, with the caveat that I have the background to be critical of uninformed, under-detailed, or hastily conceived suggestions. Bottom line up front: I fully realize that there are very good human beings on both sides of this debate, essentially wanting the same thing; the greatest degree of success for the citizens of our country. But nobody ever solved a problem they didn’t understand, save by random, blind luck, and I’m not comfortable relying on luck for developing wider social policies. I see it as my duty/rent for living in the amazing country I do to push all sides to their highest quality of debate, and that often means bringing folks up to speed on inconvenient and unpleasant details. I ask the same in return, should someone find an idea that hasn’t been broached many times before. So, again, concrete and workable ideas that would make a difference? I’ve thrown some options out for mill grist, should folks (aside from John and Evan) be interested.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Aug 5, 2019 14:36:18 GMT -5
See the UK, Australia, Canada, etc. Or the Wikipedia "Overview of gun laws by nation" article. The range of possible responses to "how might one control access to firearms" is wide and varied. I suspect there are even solutions that can be adapted to our current situation--though there's little chance of seeing instant repair of a situation that has been allowed to ferment for decades. But the perfect is the enemy of the good. I’ve seen all that stuff, as a student of firearms policy and UoF issues for decades. Implementing UK/Australia policies is probably impossible here, for reasons that I can primer on request. Directing me to a wiki article is not bringing an A game to the debate, and it’s a debate that probably demands A-game thinking to even begin to work with any productivity. I’ve posted an article, upthread, from respected sociology professor and author David Yamane’s current study blog "gun culture 2.0" that outlines some possible concrete steps, I’m open to others, with the caveat that I have the background to be critical of uninformed, under-detailed, or hastily conceived suggestions. Bottom line up front: I fully realize that there are very good human beings on both sides of this debate, essentially wanting the same thing; the greatest degree of success for the citizens of our country. But nobody ever solved a problem they didn’t understand, save by random, blind luck, and I’m not comfortable relying on luck for developing wider social policies. I see it as my duty/rent for living in the amazing country I do to push all sides to their highest quality of debate, and that often means bringing folks up to speed on inconvenient and unpleasant details. I ask the same in return, should someone find an idea that hasn’t been broached many times before. So, again, concrete and workable ideas that would make a difference? I’ve thrown some options out for mill grist, should folks (aside from John and Evan) be interested. Finally had time to read it. Excellent. Got no problem with any of that. See? Make some damn sense and we can work it out.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Aug 5, 2019 15:26:23 GMT -5
Michael, if you want my A game, signal it by not framing the question in a mode that mimics, say, Peter's. I have the background and analytical practice to carry on a rational, informed, and non-condesceding discussion.
|
|
|
Post by sidheguitarmichael on Aug 5, 2019 15:44:58 GMT -5
By all means, go ahead and proceed.
I’ve already offered up some thoughts on one possible way forward that might offer some benefits.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Aug 5, 2019 15:56:48 GMT -5
I am more concerned about a President who thinks it's in his best interest for the country to explode. (Liberals. What are ya gonna do, right?) Trump makes incendiary, racist assertions. Racist white people see him as their leader and use his incitement as as excuse to wreak havoc on people who are not white. This is not that hard to understand. Or, maybe it is. You might want to loosen the strap on your red hat. Oh, I understand. We've discussed this before, not you but on the forum. You're conflating the thoughts of "Racist white people" with your own thought that Trump is a racist, which is not actually in evidence. You're doing guilt by association without the actual association part. That's the same as the collusion charge. You believe in the collusion charge although no evidence of collusion has been found. Trump's guilty because your accepted sources say he is. I'm waiting for evidence either of actual racism or actual collusion. I do that because I'm rational and not a victim of TDS. Racist white people have been inspired to violence by Trump. Time after time. But it's not his fault because, um, he's not really a racist? Geez, who knows why racists seem as attracted to Trump as moths are to a flame? Go figure, huh? I am reminded of the Onion headline, "Area man asks, 'Why do these homosexuals keep sucking my c**k?'" Poor, misunderstood Trump.
|
|
|
Post by dradtke on Aug 5, 2019 16:05:14 GMT -5
Just remember, the police are reactive. You'll be OK once they get there but others will die waiting for them to respond. I was surprised at the El Paso shooting because Texas is pretty much open carry but apparently the Walmart is a "Gun free zone", therefore a soft target. May your zone stay safe and if it isn't may you live long enough for the police to respond. Around here that would be at least 20 minutes. WalMart is not a "gun free zone." Open carry is legal in Texas, and WalMart does not post signs to keep guns out. It's internal WalMart policy that if someone does carry openly in the store, a manager may or may not ask to see their license - totally up to the individual manager. So much for that right wing bumper sticker. But don't worry, I'm sure you have plenty more.
|
|