« It's August 2019, do you know where your POTUS is? | Main | Names Once More »

August 03, 2019

Comments

The proper response to the Krugman style concern trolling is simply this:

"If my plan for Medicare for all is superior to your current plan in all respects, just what the fuck are you afraid of? If my plan raises your taxes but offsets that with a larger raise in real income, just what the fuck are you afraid of? If you enjoy having urgently needed coverage disputed by your carrier, or paying high deductibles and co-pays, raise your fucking hand. My plan eliminates those. My plan is better. The one you have sucks."

Russell— I have very mixed feelings about tge primaries and issues and which hills to die on, so will just argue with myself on that.

On the shootings—

National Review actually has some decent pieces up. Here is one.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/declare-war-on-white-nationalist-terrorism/

We are likely to have the usual arguments about gun control, but at least some on the right are scared of the white nationalist monster their side has stirred up.

My own feeling on gun control is that people don’t need semiautomatic rifles or pistols. Revolvers for home defense if you really think you need it and as I have seen various people say, if you need a semi automatic rifle to hunt then you shouldn’t have a hunting license. Shotguns— same thing. Hunters could have double barreled weapons if they need two shots.

Or that is what I would lean towards. I would be willing to compromise. Probably nothing will happen.

My only concern with taking all of the guns away is that then I will be forced to stab conservative Jim Hoft many times in the neck with a butter knife, a la Genghis Khan:

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/right-wing-conspiracy-site-gateway-pundit-mylife-el-paso-shooter

I'm not going into this bloody, savage Civil War empty-handed.

The many facets of Genghis Khan.

"Beyond his military accomplishments, Genghis Khan also advanced the Mongol Empire in other ways. He decreed the adoption of the Uyghur script as the Mongol Empire's writing system. He also practised meritocracy and encouraged religious tolerance in the Mongol Empire, and unified the nomadic tribes of Northeast Asia. Present-day Mongolians regard him as the founding father of Mongolia."

Aha, so that was the shiv. Sorry, I think it was my mistake to put the NYT piece in this thread, so I'm putting this apology here too. But personally, (in for a penny etc), I'm pretty keen on Warren, and hope she regains ground, if this was as detrimental as Donald (and some of the commenters on Krugman's twitter feed) seem to think.

Aha, so that was the shiv. Sorry, I think it was my mistake to put the NYT piece in this thread, so I'm putting this apology here too. But personally, (in for a penny etc), I'm pretty keen on Warren, and hope she regains ground, if this was as detrimental as Donald (and some of the commenters on Krugman's twitter feed) seem to think.

Aha, so that was the shiv. Sorry, I think it was my mistake to put the NYT piece in this thread, so I'm putting this apology here too. But personally, (in for a penny etc), I'm pretty keen on Warren, and hope she regains ground, if this was as detrimental as Donald (and some of the commenters on Krugman's twitter feed) seem to think.

Jesus, not so good it was worth saying twice, let alone thrice!

Being pro-gun is simply another form of anti-vaxxerism...an irrational assault on public health.

Except that the anti-vaxxers can at least say that the government has taken away their freedom to harm their children. Whereas the pro-gun folks merely claim that, contrary to all the evidence, the government is about to take away their freedom to kill their (and others') children. In short, paranoia on top of utterly irrational fantasy.

just what the fuck are you afraid of?

It's hard to get complicated things completely right the first time out of the gate. Plus, if an incremental approach gets it done, that's better than nothing getting done.

But, as I say, I have no issue with single payer in principle. If that's what folks will vote for, then let's have it. You'll get no complaint from me.

I have very mixed feelings about tge primaries and issues and which hills to die on

Yes, I do as well.

My overall position is that a ham sandwich with a (D) after its name will get my vote. Full stop.

The rest is commentary.

I will vote for the Democrat.

just what the fuck are you afraid of?

There are a lot of people who work for the health insurance industry (thought you were all about workers' rights, bobbyp?). Deleting their source of income all at once seems suboptimal. Many of the best healthcare systems in the world have some combination of public and private insurance (including Medicare). I'm not against migrating to single-payer, but I don't see that happening. And sure, I'm for anything that works, or will eventually work, including the ACA, which has already helped a lot of people, and had a lot of promise, and would eventually work if we could do what was originally envisioned. The problem will be and always has been Republicans.

All that said, I prefer Elizabeth Warren to the other candidates running, and will probably vote for her in the primary unless something happens to change my mind. I like a lot of the D's. As for having "any use" for Beto, I like him, although he should be running for Senate. What he said about the shootings, and his ability to be eloquent off-the-cuff, is very admirable.

Nous suggested that Biden is currently our most promising potential winner. I will vote for him if he wins the primary, but I won't vote for him in the primary. I think we can do better with at least five of the other candidates, but I too want D's to win. Biden is showing his age - it's unlikely that his image is going to improve over the next year and a half.

Nearly all of the proposals for addressing the fucking horror show of gun violence in the US are of the plan B type. The one exception is the on again / off again attempt to ban assault weapons. More on that in a minute.
What people who aren't fucking gun nuts are asking for are:
* universal background checks
* no exemption from universal background checks for private sales

I’m fine with this, but it’s worth pointing out that there isn’t a shooting that a background check would have prevented. Further, the feds do nothing about straw purchasers. If they did, there would be a disparate racial impact.

* limits on the number of bullets that can be loaded into a clip or magazine

As an aside, a clip is external and has to be inserted. A magazine is integral and is loaded manually. You can’t replace the magazine, you simply reload it. Think of a revolver—the cylinder is the magazine.

On the merits, regulating magazine/clip capacity will affect .0001 percent of gun injuries/deaths. It won’t prevent any shootings and it will convert millions of law-abiding citizens into criminals if they don’t turn in their formerly legal clips (there aren’t any guns with “high capacity” magazines that I know of, but there are probably a few out there somewhere).

* some ability for local law enforcement to take someone's guns away if they deem that person a threat to other's safety

On the officer’s say-so? No hearing, no probable cause, just the officer’s say-so? That’s a bit authoritarian. Actually, more than a bit. It eviscerates the presumption of innocence, and even if you could pass it, you wouldn’t like the impact at all since mostly young, minority males would be targeted.

They are fucking scary, which is why every T-shirt, bumper sticker, and whatever else folks cook up that has the freaking "Molon Labe" slogan on it, also has an AR-15 on it. It's why every knucklehead that wants to ram his or her "2nd Amendment rights" down everybody else's throat by open carrying a firearm to their local Burger King or grocery store, inevitably carries and AR-15.
It looks like a gun that is meant to kill people. Because that is what it is. Folks use it for other stuff, but that is what it was made for. You, gun advocates, know it, and that is why you shove it in all of our faces.

I agree, they look scary lethal. I own a Beretta over and under shotgun and a Ruger Model 77 carbine that fires a .270 Winchester cartridge. It has a scope and a sling and is built on the European style of stock where the wood extends to the end of the barrel. It’s an attractive piece of workmanship if your tastes run in that direction. It looks like a hunting rifle that someone who hunts 3-5 times a year might own. OTOH, the cosmetically frightening AR-15 fires a 5.56MM NATO that is known by the civilian name of a .223 Remington. A .270 has more than twice the weight and power of a .223. The military intent of the 5.56 is to wound or incapacitate when the shot isn’t fatal. An incapacitated enemy uses up a lot more enemy resources than a dead one. The result is a bullet design that “tumbles” internally, exacerbating physical damage. The .270 functions on hydro-static shock, which is intended to make a quick, painless kill. If you can hit what you are aiming at, it’s a quick end for whatever you are hunting. Even a shot to the arm or leg with a .270 would be crippling and possibly fatal due to the violence of the strike and the attendant hydro-static shock. The second advantage of the 5.56 is that the bullets are so light, a soldier can carry 2-3 times the amount of ammunition into battle.

The first mass shooter I can recall was Charles Whitman at the University of Texas. He used surplus military equipment, all pretty conventional stuff—bolt action rifles, pump shotguns.

The Second Amendment was written to preserve the institution of the militia. When the Constitution was being debated, people were wary of federal power, and did not want the federal government to be able to dominate local governments through military force.

Well, sort of. The 2nd Amendment gives states the right to raise a militia. For use against an over-reaching federal government, among other things. A state might decide to have a militia for a time, then not have a militia, then have one again. The underlying essential ingredient for a state to raise a militia is an armed citizenry that the state can call out or draft or what have you--it doesn't have to take any particular form. The intent was that the feds could not interfere with a citizen’s right to keep and bear arms which in turn provided the population from which a militia might be raised. “Well-regulate” back then, didn’t mean a whole either.

Step 2: pass the Fair Compensation for Gun Victims Act, making gun sellers liable for homicides committed using guns they've sold.

Of all of the ideas proposed this is the worst. First, no other service or product supplier is strictly liable for the use to which their service or product might be put. This would be an attempt to ban the sale of guns indirectly because it can’t be done directly. Further, it would be palpable and enormous hypocrisy. Alcohol kills more people annually than do firearms—88,000 for alcohol, 33,000 and change for firearms including suicide and accidents. However, everyone loves to drink, so no one is willing to impose on this particularly brand of lethality, only the brand that they don’t indulge in. Lethality for me but not for thee. Like I said, hypocrisy.
Here are the links for the stats.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-consumption/alcohol-facts-and-statistics

Can we add a requirement that gun owners have to buy liability insurance, just like car owners?

Sure, if you could find an insurance company who would sell it. But, insurance doesn’t cover intentional acts. So, this wouldn’t do much for mass shootings or even the one-off’s. And, people who are prone to kill other people probably won’t worry a whole lot about whether their insuring requirements are current.

My own feeling on gun control is that people don’t need semiautomatic rifles or pistols. Revolvers for home defense if you really think you need it and as I have seen various people say, if you need a semi automatic rifle to hunt then you shouldn’t have a hunting license. Shotguns— same thing. Hunters could have double barreled weapons if they need two shots.

If you are an elderly man or a woman of any age, I'm pretty sure you don't want your self-defense options limited this severely. If someone comes inside my house intending harm or signaling an intent to harm, I want to lay down as much buckshot as I can as quickly as I can. For this, I would use a pump or semi automatic shotgun. There are very few semi-automatic, traditional hunting weapons. I've seen the AR-15 used to hunt deer (and hunt them effectively), but your point is correct, you don't need to lay down a spray of bullets to bring home some venison. As for shotguns, even though I have an over/under, I rarely shoot it. It is quite uncomfortable after firing 25 or so rounds (one round of skeet is 25 shotgun shells) because double barreled shotguns deliver all of the recoil directly into the shoulder. Back when I hunted in Argentina, I used a gas-operated 20 gauge which had virtually no recoil. I could and did fire over 1000 shells in a day for three or four days in a row (yes, we ate or gave away what we killed).

i like Harris. i like Pete. i like Warren.

i don't care at all about the specifics of any particular plan they might have, simply because Presidents don't enact big policy on their own. i do care about them having their head on straight, a good command of facts, basic decency, and a general lefty bent. put a decent person in the WH and after that, it's up to Congress.

Ham sandwiches are relieved to be endorsed for the Presidency.

It's the one legal shelter from Judge Wachtler's dictum that grand juries could indict a ham sandwich if they want to.

the cosmetically frightening

feh.

"assault rifles" are guns that are designed to be used in combat, to assault other people. the "cosmetics" are there for ruggedness, ease of transport in difficult situations, and to facilitate rapid firing against humans who would otherwise try to run or fight back if you had to spend time feeding cartridges into your weapon. it's not the paint job.

Limiting box fed magazine capacity is perfectly feasible. We do it in CA and it really doesn't affect much except necessitating that the ammo profligate spend more time loading magazines and less time practicing their anti-personnel fantasy marksmanship.

And it certainly doesn't affect any of the old-school hunters that the NRA loves to pretend it represents (even while the threepers and preppers call them all Fudds in private). Ruger was correct when it said (much to the Patriotically Correct crowds eternal enmity) that "no honest man needs more than 10 rounds in any gun" for any hunting application. I know McKinney will likely come back with javelina as an exception, but we all got along fine back in the days before the gun buying public began buying their box magazines the same way that they buy their condoms and anything other than XL became a badge of shame at the local range.

Box magazine limit of 10 rounds. Anything larger needs to be turned in.

If you want exceptions to that, then follow the rules for Sweden or Canada (both of which still have plenty of hunters and plenty of guns). License yourself as a competitive shooter. Store your magazines only at a range, use them only at a range. Law enforcement has permission to inspect storage at any time. Take them off premises, you lose your license and your mags.

As to whether or not this makes criminals out of people who have previously owned such things legally - don't care. If you find one, surrender it for destruction and get some nominal reimbursement. We don't need 100% compliance so long as anyone who shows up anywhere in public with one gets slapped with a fine and a misdemeanor and has it confiscated.

Mostly what cleek said at 6:03.
Except I'm not really enthused about a "general lefty bent" -- just so it's not a generally reactionary bent. And all of those are in the GOP these days.

Also, add to my 6:32 that we should outlaw any semi-auto centerfire rifle with a non-fixed magazine and limit the capacity of fixed magazines to 10 rounds maximum. End of discussion.

Don't care if this prevents attacks, so long as it makes things damned inconvenient from a logistical standpoint.

Plate carrier backpacks for kids are damned inconvenient, too.

McKinney,

Would you rather drink yourself to death, or get shot by a "responsible gun owner"?

Do you imagine booze is less regulated than firearms are?

If some Northeast commie pinko gets elected President and Texas calls out its militia to resist the intolerable repression such an assault on Liberty would represent, what combat role do you think you'd be called on to fill?

Guns I can stand. It's the endless excuses for social irresponsibility "responsiveness gun owners" come up with that I look down my nose at.

--TP

That plate carrier backpacks for kids is even a thing I need to internalize is nauseating.

I’ll bet drag queens presenting to kids in public libraries don’t suggest that quintessential American perversion.

there isn’t a shooting that a background check would have prevented.

On the officer’s say-so? No hearing, no probable cause, just the officer’s say-so?

The dude in Dayton was known to local police as the guy who wrote up a list of people he wanted to kill and rape. They took him seriously enough to look into it and contact the people on the list to give them a heads up.

I say that's a sufficient basis for saying no guns for you, sonnie boy.

In most places the local cops don't have the authority to do that. In MA they do. Applications for a firearms permit go through local police, and they can deny the permit based on their knowledge of the applicant's personal history. Including things that might not show up on a background check, including for instance somebody's habit of threatening other people.

It's not authoritarian, it's freaking sensible. There is no "presumption of innocence" involved, nobody is being accused of a crime. People can be denied a permit to own a firearm if their local police think they present a risk, based on their knowledge of that person.

The applicant can appeal if they don't like it, and may do. Sometimes they win, sometimes the cops do.

That all seems more than fine to me. If it doesn't suit you, don't move to MA.

And my finding it sensible has bugger-all to do with anybody's skin color.

The military intent of the 5.56 is to wound or incapacitate when the shot isn’t fatal. An incapacitated enemy uses up a lot more enemy resources than a dead one. The result is a bullet design that “tumbles” internally, exacerbating physical damage.

The military intent of the 5.56 is to penetrate a steel helmet at 500 yards and be light enough for a soldier to carry lots of them. It's a high-velocity round, which lets it accomplish the first goal while also meeting the second.

The tumbling thing apparently depends on whether it's FMJ or not.

But whatever, I'm not here to nerd out on ordinance. I already spent all the time I'm gonna spend reading about gaping wounds vs. pinholes and tumbling cavitation patterns in people's internal organs.

It ain't my thing, and I plan to keep it that way.

The first mass shooter I can recall was Charles Whitman at the University of Texas. He used surplus military equipment, all pretty conventional stuff—bolt action rifles, pump shotguns.

You can kill people with pretty much anything. I have a nice kindling axe, I could probably do somebody in with that if I was so inclined.

What you can't do with bolt action rifles and pump shotguns is kill 9 people and wound 26 in 30 seconds.

The intent was that the feds could not interfere with a citizen’s right to keep and bear arms which in turn provided the population from which a militia might be raised. “Well-regulate” back then, didn’t mean a whole either.

I don't believe this hangs together.

Militias weren't a hypothetical. There were existing militias. Not as something that governors could call out under hypothetical scenarios, but as actual, tangible, functioning bodies.

People got their asses out of bed and trained. In real life, with firearms, under the direction of real live officers. Under the control of state and local civil authorities.

What "well regulated" meant at the time is addressed by the Militia Acts of 1792. Every able-bodied white male between the ages of 18 and 45, excluding congressmen, ferryboatmen, and coach drivers. The Acts specify in some detail what arms and other gear every such man was required to outfit himself with in order to participate.

If you were white, male, and of the correct age, you were obliged by federal law to own a gun. Because you were by god in the militia.

We eventually got rid of the militia because it wasn't a particularly effective institution for fighting wars at any kind of scale.

I don't really give a crap if people own guns. Hunt, target shoot, self-defense, whatever. If you want a gun, get a gun and go with god. I don't care.

You should have to demonstrate a basic level of personal sanity and responsibility to own a gun, and you should have to demonstrate that you know how to use it safely. There are jurisdictions in the US where you can get a license to carry without demonstrating that you so much as know which end the bullets come out of.

And if you express a desire to kill, injure, or intimidate other people by force, that ought to be ample grounds for denying you the privilege of owning or carrying a firearm, and should be ample grounds for taking any guns you currently have away from you.

If that seems too much like "overreach", I really don't care. People are shooting themselves and other people in alarming numbers. If people jumped off of bridges, or threw other people off of bridges, in the numbers that they shoot themselves or others, I don't think we'd call it overreach if people in authority did something to address it.

Look, I'll save you the Google search. Something like 125 people a year kill themselves by jumping off a bridge in the US. Many bridges, and most or all bridges that are attractive suicide locations, have barriers and/or nets to prevent it. Some bridge authorities have maintained phones *on the damned bridge* that suicidal people can use to talk to someone who will try to talk them down.

For 125 people a year. I believe the number of suicides by firearm per year in the US is over 20,000.

But we mustn't take guns away from people who pose a risk to themselves or others.

People shoot themselves and each other in alarming numbers. You have to get into countries where there is basically no really functional government to get to the kinds of levels that we accept as normal.

It's messed up.

Guns are dangerous objects. They should be owned and used responsibly. If you demonstrate, by word or deed, that you are likely to present any danger to other people, no freaking gun for you.

The fact that that is at all, in any way, another other than blindingly obvious just makes me shake my head. But there it is.

The 2nd A argument is, to me, a pile of crap. Not the original intent, although the spurious commas are puzzling to the modern reader, but the claims that people make about it now. The 2nd was not about "allowing for" governors to maybe "call out" a militia if some hypothetical scenario emerged. It was preserve and protect a living, functional institution. It's an institution we no longer have, except perhaps in the form of the National or state-level guards.

If you want to join the Guard, I have no problem with you claiming a right to bear a firearm.

Absent that, it's a privilege. Don't abuse it, and nobody will bug you.

Insist that a flaming violent obvious asshole like Betts has to have the right to buy 100-round drums for his AR-15 - on the fucking internet, with local pickup - and you are going to lose everyone except the minority of knothead paranoid preppers and fascist vigilantes that are the *exact* people who should not own firearms.

So pick which crowd you want to hang with.

There are a lot of people who work for the health insurance industry (thought you were all about workers' rights, bobbyp?).

I am for workers rights, and for good snark. Why aren't you?

Deleting their source of income all at once seems suboptimal.

If all the overpaid healthcare executives found themselves standing in the unemployment line, the deadweight loss to the economy would be nill. It is amazing that most of what passes for the 'left' in the country stood by and said little or nothing as highly paid manufacturing jobs were sent overseas by the hundreds of thousands in a relatively brief period of time. This was due to public policy. There are policies that could be implemented to offset the spare time on the hands of underwriters, clerks, and salespeople. A jobs guarantee is one.

The problem will be and always has been Republicans.

On this fundamental point, we agree.

All that said, I prefer Elizabeth Warren to the other candidates running

Me, too.

That plate carrier backpacks for kids is even a thing I need to internalize is nauseating.

That kids have to be trained in how to respond to an active shooter, in their school, likewise.

I have friends that home school their kids just to avoid putting them through that. Other reasons too, in some cases, but that one is right at the top of the list.

At least when I was a kid it was the Russians. Now it's your scary neighbor who is gonna kill you.

I could and did fire over 1000 shells in a day for three or four days in a row (yes, we ate or gave away what we killed).

LOL. Must have been a lot of misses there, Tex.

In my brief hunting existence, I hunted chukars in the Snake River breaks and pheasant and Huns in the Palouse. I didn't have a dog, and my gun was a .410 single shot.

I never had a chance.

and what nous said.

the 2nd A is obviously meant to cover every advancement in firearm technology in the last 250 years. but it's obviously not meant to care about the role of militias.

it's just simple logic.

If you are an elderly man or a woman of any age, I'm pretty sure you don't want your self-defense options limited this severely.

Bull crap. Speak for yourself.

If all the overpaid healthcare executives found themselves standing in the unemployment line, the deadweight loss to the economy would be nill.

Do you really think that the 500,000 people who work for health insurance companies are all executives? I'm not against a migration to single-payer, but incremental change seems like the best way there. And, yeah, manufacturing jobs went away incrementally too. I am in favor of compensating people whose jobs have gone away because of public policies (or even because of more efficient technologies), so we are in agreement there.

We're actually in agreement about most of it. Having read about European health care systems that work well, there seems to be a private insurance component built in to most of the best ones (here's a Wikipedia explanation of what exists in France, which is considered the best). Incrementally working towards a system where complementary private insurance is a small part of care seems like a good way not to upend an entire industry all at once.

In the end, I find it hard to imagine that anything is going to be done about health care in the immediate future, so I don't really care that much about the issue.

I'm more concerned with eliminating concentration camps, and ending the deliberate cruelty towards vulnerable families at the border. I'd like to see climate change addressed in some meaningful ways. And, for any of this to happen, we need to repair what Trump is doing to corrupt our institutions of government. Not sure what horrible things will transpire before we have enough power for even modest improvements to occur, especially with our judiciary packed with heinous Republican hacks. We've blown it, I think.

I’m at a conference with only my ipad, getting back on the 11th, but here are the names from Dayton

Megan K. Betts; Nicholas P. Cumer, 25; Thomas J. McNichols, 25; Lois L. Oglesby, 27; Logan M. Turner, 30; Beatrice N. Warren-Curtis, 36; Saeed Saleh, 38; Monica E. Brickhouse, 39; and Derrick R. Fudge, 57

Bull crap. Speak for yourself.

Seconded. No guns in my house. Never have been. Most likely never will be.

On the merits, regulating magazine/clip capacity will affect .0001 percent of gun injuries/deaths

The shooters at Sandy Hook, Aurora, and Tucson all were interrupted either by the need to insert a new clip, or deal with a jammed one.

In all three cases, there are people whose lives were saved. In Tucson, the pause created an opportunity for the shooter to be captured.

I'm guessing you are pulling the .0001 thing out of a hat. In any case, there is tangible value in an active shooter situation in making the bastard stop, even if just for a couple of seconds.

If people want to keep the monster clips they already have, whatever. If they want to turn them in, great, they get a cookie.

With, of course, an exception for the 100 round drum, ownership of which should entitle you to a visit from your local chief of police and a psychiatrist.

Just quit making more of the damned things.

This whole conversation is kind of obscene. I'm gonna go read something that won't give me nightmares.

Do you really think that the 500,000 people who work for health insurance companies are all executives?

Why, no. How many straw men have you burned up today?

Incremental change is certainly better than nothing. Continued Republican control of the Senate insures that is exactly what we will get.

You want to get folks off their ass and vote, right? Getting all into the weeds on just about any issue will not do it. Conservative appeals to 'personal liberty', 'freedom', and 'free markets' are not calls for incremental change.

They are, however, quite effective.

Why, no. How many straw men have you burned up today?

Just answering your question: "just what the fuck are you afraid of?" People are afraid of eliminating 500,000 jobs, and that implementation of a whole new and untested health care system will suck worse than what they have.

Sure, the Democrats' healthcare mantra should be: Universal Coverage. But Democrats are not Republicans - a lot of them like to see numbers adding up. Maybe the less said the better to stay out of the "weeds", but what is said needs to be truthful.

My impression is that health care systems with private insurance components regulate the living crap out of them, which seems about as likely to fly here as single payer. I also suspect ( it’s not just me) that plans with a public option are practically begging to fail. Yes, you have to change incrementally. Even the plans with single payer as the explicit goal do so. But you could do this in different ways. One would be lowering incrementally the age at which you become eligible for Medicare, and also by expanding Medicare’s benefits so that people would want to switch over to something they know works and which is even better so there would be less demand for Medicare Advantage plans.

Or you could just have a public option on the theory that people migrate to it , but if you don’t make it very attractive the private plans get the healthy folks, the public option gets the poor and sick, and you demonstrate that government plans don’t work. If you made it extremely attractive people would migrate in mass hordes and where is the incrementalism? I expect the less attractive form is the way it will go or that people will work very hard to make it go this way. I expect this road is attractive to donors to Democrats from the health care industry. It goes without saying that if a public option is forced on them, Republicans will also go this way.

Having said that, I want Warren or Sanders to win, but expect that Sanders has both a floor of dedicated supporters (and no, not composed chiefly of stereotypical Bernie bros) and a ceiling he won’t break through and if I am wrong and he won, all Republicans and big chunks of the Democrats would work against him. Warren would have more support from the educated upper middle class, but to the extent that she goes in the same general direction as Sanders, she also gets the shiv from the donor class and people who listen to them.

Basically, in the privacy of my own thoughts, I am a defeatist. Saying all this here is practically saying it in private.

Trump sucks and on this lowest common denominator a large number of people agree. Elections are generally not about good policy anyway. They are about who really sucks.

On guns—MkT, are there many actual examples of older people defending themselves with guns with high rates of fire where they actually used that capability? I don’t follow the issue closely,but this sounds more like TV show material. My guess is that usually in success stories of armed self defense the homeowner scares off the bad guy or maybe does shoot them, but not that there is a prolonged exchange where the homeowner goes wild with the shooting.

Anyway, it seems like at least semi automatic rifles could be eliminated.

First, no other service or product supplier is strictly liable for the use to which their service or product might be put.

No other product has the primary function of killing people.

This would be an attempt to ban the sale of guns indirectly because it can’t be done directly.

It would be an attempt to make gun prices reflect the actual cost, in dead people, of gun ownership.

One advantage is that instead trying to specify exactly what makes a rifle too lethal to be allowed, we let the price mechanism decide.

Alcohol kills more people annually than do firearms—88,000 for alcohol, 33,000 and change for firearms including suicide and accidents.

Certainly the position of alcohol is anomalous compared with other recreational drugs. I don't see why that means people have to get shot.

An interesting, and ultimately chilling, interview with a reformed white nationalist:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/08/conversation-christian-picciolini/595543/
...I just think it’s going to get worse before it gets better. They’re all trying to outdo each other, not just the last person, but Timothy McVeigh. Terrorists will always find another way to do it. I have to ask myself, Do we have white-nationalist airline pilots? There have to be. I knew people in powerful positions, in politics, in law enforcement, who were secretly white nationalists. I think we’d be stupid and selfish to think that we don’t have those in the truck-driving industry....

No other product has the primary function of killing people.

well, not just people: anything.

but, do guns even have a secondary purpose? 'target practice' is just working to get better at killing things - "practice" is right there in the name.

but anything else?

besides fetish objects, of course.

Well, alcohol is treated as a murder weapon in the context of some US (state) laws concerning pregnant women. Proposed and passed fetal personhood laws include testing of women reporting (or reported for) misacarriages for alcohol or drugs with the expressed intent to charge said women with homicide if found positive.
DUI is also illegal in most places and may aggravate charges in case of accidents.

The numbers DO add up.

My impression is that health care systems with private insurance components regulate the living crap out of them

Correct.

Folks should go look up the conditions for an efficient market. Then, come back here and explain how anything to do with health care other than maybe aspirin and band-aids meets those conditions.

And then maybe we can have an intelligent discussion from that point.

As far as old people defending themselves, I have a two-part strategy:

1. Don't own anything I'd kill anybody over
2. Run away

It's worked perfectly so far, I expect it will continue to.

"Saying all this here is practically saying it in private."

Donald's sentence should replace the armed kitty and its crack about the radio station at the top of OBWI.

I'd suggest the kitty holding the sniper weapon be replaced with a kitty holding an alcoholic beverage but that would be the height of hypocrisy.

The Dayton Ohio shooter shot down nine possibly inebriated human beings, including his sister, and injured 27 more.

If we run the grisly annual numbers (1.00 to 2.67 deaths) on the comparative mortality resulting from gunshots and consuming alcohol, we'll clearly see that while the gunman's toll was pretty bad, on that strip of drinking establishments alone 24 were killing themselves with alcohol, with help from their accomplices, bartenders, with another 72 doing enough damage to themselves to lead to eventual death anyway.

Let's put the implications in high relief: You could say that gun violence in America is like the historical violence attributed to Christianity, which is bad enough, but it pales in comparison to the death toll compiled by alcohol consumption, the Genghis Khan of historical genocidal marauders.

There are two lessons here: 1) to protect against the sin of hypocrisy, which is worse than death in the course of human affairs, we must maintain the status quo in gun violence, else Saturday nights down at the old watering hole will be absolutely no fun as we forcibly contravene the movement of alcohol from cup to lip.

Lesson 2) These killings were directly caused by the universal healthcare and anti-gun rhetoric of Bernie Commie Sanders and Elizabeth Pocahontas Warren who, by implication, cast a prejudiced, hateful eye on the users of both guns and alcohol who make up most of the emergency room visits in this country, thus driving up costs for the rest of us. And Joe Biden, by God, not Joe Biden.

And people say p's hate directed at Hispanics has something equally to do with the El Paso killings. No, I'm here to tell you that a good number of the dead in El Paso were either alcoholics, moderate drinkers (which is just like being a moderate killer with a gun) or when the first gunshots rang out said to their female companions: "Betty, I'm going to need three drinks if we live through this!"

Think about it. THINK who the real haters are.

Say, I'm sitting in a bar with a drink in one hand for self-damage and a semi-automatic pistol in the other for self defense. Say a gunman firing a weapon with plenty of cool features and engineering touches that at a different, more peaceful moment I could admire for their design craftmanship, barges through the door.

What to do?

It would be a tough choice as I weigh my possible position on the hypocrisy scale. Should I shoot the bartender for the damage she is visiting upon my liver and in self defense throw my drink at the gunman, who, facts being what they are, does not really pose as big of a threat to me as the bartender and nature takes their converging courses ... or vice versa ... it's a tough decision in the heat of the moment, for an uncertain individual like myself who quakes at the fear of doing any goddamned thing at all for fear of accusations of being a hypocrite.

On this day in the parlous history of bullshit accumulation in America, I think the best course of action would be to down my drink in one gulp and shoot myself in the head and let the bartender and the gunman sort things out from there.

Perhaps my actions would confuse all of the parties for just long enough to give time for more folks to escape the gunman and live long enough to reconsider their alcohol consumption habits.

I did this in a hurry, so please be wary of typos.

Bull crap. Speak for yourself.
Seconded. No guns in my house. Never have been. Most likely never will be.

Fine, but you’re misreading what I wrote. Downthread, Donald understands perfectly. I’m arguing for choice, not requirement. Anyone can choose for whatever reason to own a firearm or not.

I'm guessing you are pulling the .0001 thing out of a hat. In any case, there is tangible value in an active shooter situation in making the bastard stop, even if just for a couple of seconds.

Kinda, sorta, yes. Depending on how the numbers are manipulated, it’s .001 or clip capacity is statistically significant. One of the advantages of engaging with lefties is that I’m obliged to think through my own positions. The relevant number isn’t “number of lives saved during reloading/jamming” divided by the total number of firearms fatalities nationally. Rather, it’s “number of lives saved during reloading/jamming” divided by the number killed or wounded at these planned, mass shootings. So, I think your point is well-taken and a good argument for either limiting clip size OR—as I’ve given this more thought—drawing a bright line between center fire, semi-automatic rifles that are clip-fed and those with integral magazines (as a practical matter, an integral magazine won’t hold more than 4-8 rounds and someone built one to hold 20, it would take forever to reload. For the former, i.e. the clip-fed, require licensing, a test and minimum storage standards with attendant regulations on the sale and transfer of weapons and clips.

It would be an attempt to make gun prices reflect the actual cost, in dead people, of gun ownership.

Then we should apply the same rule to automobiles, alcohol and who knows what else. If you have your stinger out for guns, there is no argument that doesn’t make sense. But, it’s not persuasive outside your bubble.

On guns—MkT, are there many actual examples of older people defending themselves with guns with high rates of fire where they actually used that capability? I don’t follow the issue closely,but this sounds more like TV show material. My guess is that usually in success stories of armed self defense the homeowner scares off the bad guy or maybe does shoot them, but not that there is a prolonged exchange where the homeowner goes wild with the shooting.
Who knows whose done what over the years? As a kid, I used a shotgun—not a .22—when someone tried to break into our house when our parents were out. Never had to fire it, but I had it. Revolvers are unwieldy and require a fair amount of planning and coordination to shoot accurately—at a time when the victim’s adrenaline is at max capacity. What the defender needs is to lay down as much lead as he/she can if it comes to that—which it does with some regularity. The people who don’t defend themselves are the ones who die or get raped or both. Hard fact, but a true one. I’d rather go down swinging.

well, not just people: anything.
but, do guns even have a secondary purpose? 'target practice' is just working to get better at killing things - "practice" is right there in the name.
but anything else?
besides fetish objects, of course.

This is just arrogant, dismissive horseshit. I hunt. I like venison. I like dove (wrapped in bacon with fresh onion and jalepeno and grilled with a martini). Target shooting, skeet shooting, is fun. It may not be your cup of tea, but you know what? You aren’t the grand high arbiter of what other people do for fun. You like to drink? So do I. Our fondness for alcohol hurts and kills more than guns by a substantial factor.

There are millions of gun owners in America. Very conservatively, there are 30,000,000 gun owners. Firearms deaths are 33,000/yr. That is .001. If you want to talk about fetishes, what about your fixation on guns to the exclusion of all else, your total unwillingness to even concede there is another side of the story.

As far as old people defending themselves, I have a two-part strategy:

1. Don't own anything I'd kill anybody over
2. #1 includes my life

I'm quite sure I dont need a gun, I'm not killing anyone. I might wish I had one if my kids were threatened.

Anyone can choose for whatever reason to own a firearm or not.

do i get to choose if they shoot me with it or not?

no?

sounds like a shitty deal to me.

Fine, but you’re misreading what I wrote.

Bull crap. Here is what you wrote:

If you are an elderly man or a woman of any age, I'm pretty sure you don't want your self-defense options limited this severely.

Again, speak for yourself. I don't have the slightest problem with having my self-defense options limited that severely.

If you can't write clearly, it's not my job to make up the deficiency. Bully for Donald that he's willing to take the trouble.

Rather, it’s “number of lives saved during reloading/jamming” divided by the number killed or wounded at these planned, mass shootings. So, I think your point is well-taken

Yes, that is what I was driving at. Thanks for your comment here.

I'm quite sure I dont need a gun, I'm not killing anyone.

Pretty much where I land.

I really don't make any judgement about people who are interested in guns, or feel they need a gun. Some of my best friends and family, etc...

I want it to be somewhere between hard and impossible for people who intend harm, whether through malice, maladjustment, or plain old insanity, to get a firearm.

I don't really care about the rest of it. If you like to hunt or shoot target, or feel like you need a firearm for personal or home defense, or just think that guns are interesting objects, have at it. Learn how to use it properly and safely and don't threaten people with it.

It's not a big ask.

What cleek said.

McKinney has come here yet again ("adieu" -- promises, promises) to tell us we're all blockheaded and closed-minded because we don't understand that we're the only country in the world where there's nothing that can or should be done about people getting slaughtered by the dozens at the fucking grocery store, and where kids have to have active shooter drills at school because school is another place where people can get slaughtered by the dozen.

We don't understand that there's "Another side to the story" -- well and truly, there's no other side to the story for the people who are dead.

I will get the names of the dead out of this thread as soon as I can.

I also suspect ( it’s not just me) that plans with a public option are practically begging to fail.

Can somebody help me out here? Why would a plan which included a public option be "begging to fail"? What would be the cause of its failure?

The closest thing to a reason I can come up with (and I don't buy it personally) is that essentially everybody would take the public option, so the rest of the plan wouldn't be viable. But somehow I'm pretty sure that wasn't what Donald meant. (By all means correct me if I'm wrong.)

My impression is that health care systems with private insurance components regulate the living crap out of them, which seems about as likely to fly here as single payer.

Is that what happens with Medicare Advantage plans today? Yet there are a bunch of them on offer....

"No other product has the primary function of killing people."

Ahh, c'mon, whaddaya talkin?

At a car show once, a winsome blonde draped over the hood of a new Caddy convertible noticed an expression of interest on my face and hopped down off the thing with surprising agility, considering the tight gown and heels she was wearing, and went into an extended pitch about the number of people the thing could take out in crowd conditions should I have a grievance I needed to settle with an infinite number of strangers.

No reloading, no clip replacement, just punch the accelerator and go, baby!

Plus, the weapon doubles as a getaway car. You don't have to shoot and then around the block and find you car, start it, and do a U-turn against traffic. Seamless action. It's all in the brochure.

Melon ballers. Have you read the small print? One word: Eyeballs. See what I'm saying?

I own two wood baseball bats and two metal softball bats. Mine aren't signed on the barrel with Al Kaline's or Ken Griffey Jrs' brand ... no ... mine were signed by Charles Manson, the Boston Strangler, and inevitably, Genghis Khan, who was a pretty good defensive third baseman in his day.

I have another bat signed by Juan Marichal, whose original bat was used primarily to stove in Johnny Roseboro's skull. I mean, other hitters would have used it for another function, but Marichal couldn't hit a major league pitch if his life depended on it, so he aimed for bigger targets.

I have a Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II single-seat, single-engine, all-weather, stealth, fifth-generation, multi-role combat aircraft, designed for ground-attack and air-superiority missions, sitting and moldering in my parking garage at the moment, but I haven't quite figured out what to do with it.

The brochure hints at its function somehow in making hollandaise sauce, but you have to level Holland first, so I'm hesitant.

Hungry, too.

About those modest legislative proposals from russell...

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/08/senate-republicans-gun-control-judges.html

This is just arrogant, dismissive horseshit.

we know. but subtitles should be rendered in different typography than body text.

I hunt.

i did. i don't now. so what?

I like venison.

so what?

i can buy venison at the store, and so can you.

Target shooting, skeet shooting, is fun.

so what?

If you want to talk about fetishes, what about your fixation on guns to the exclusion of all else, your total unwillingness to even concede there is another side of the story.

yes, i'm fixated. lol.

maybe you could read the title of this thread and see if you can puzzle out why we might be talking about guns here.


here's the only side to the story that matters anymore. gun owners have collectively failed to stop the slaughter of Americans. and things are going to change. and we don't give a rat's ass how much "fun" you're having.

If you like to hunt or shoot target, or feel like you need a firearm for personal or home defense, or just think that guns are interesting objects, have at it. Learn how to use it properly and safely and don't threaten people with it.

It's not a big ask. [emphasis added]

Except apparently it IS a big ask for some people. Otherwise they wouldn't so feverishly resist laws to require training and testing to get a firearms license.

I have to get re-tested regularly if I want to drive a car. And if I want to drive a bus or a bigrig, I need further training and testing to get a license. But to get a gun, any and every kind of gun? At most I need a background check.

"I hunt. I like venison. I like dove (wrapped in bacon with fresh onion and jalepeno and grilled with a martini). Target shooting, skeet shooting, is fun."

These activities can be maintained under much stricter gun and ammo controls.

As an aside, this thread is just like an after-funeral get-together wake. I arrive in mourning and outrage, but pretty soon I'm suffering from hunger pangs and wondering who brought the potato salad.

There's an improvised wet bar on the sideboard.

You could have gotten the dove drunk by sharing your martini with it and killed it that way instead of shooting it.

I'm offering alternatives.

A dove, the symbol of peace no less.

Still, bacon goes with anything.

Sorry, I engage in babbling inappropriate black satire to keep myself off the streets and wreaking vengeance.

The nice thing about satire is the victims live through it.

One thing in the plus column about hunting down your own food in America, you can avoid the risk of murderous, genocidal gunfire down at the Walmart grocery section.

The feature about the F-35 I really appreciate is that it won't start.

I paid extra for that.

There must be a reason OBWI has never, in my lengthy institutional memory, featured a front page post calling for government regulatory action to halt all hunting, trapping and skeet shooting in America, but I can't think what it is.

I don't recall ever reading a memorial screed here with the names and ages of the tens of thousands of deer taken out by gun and bow every Fall in America.

Just the same, if it was the deer shooting the humans instead in a mass murder situation out in the woods, we would host condemnations of that horror, with accompanying venison recipes of course.

It is surely not because lobbyists have paid all of us to lay off hunters.

We should change the name of Obsidian Wings to "Nobody Is Saying".

"Adieu" is an affectionate form of "Goodbye".

Just saying.

But in the context of the matter at hand, O can understand why some might think it sounds like "See ya later, suckers!".

"1. Don't own anything I'd kill anybody over
2. Run away"

Unarmed blacks have the first one down pretty well, but the second proviso only leads to bullet entry wounds in the back.

In my warped view of home self-protection by firearm when I enter codgerhood, I have a similar attitude to that subject as I do to the airline attendants' safety sentence starting with "In the unlikely event of a water landing ..."

I go back to reading my book.

The only thing an armed intruder is going to get out of me is a "Fuck you."

A quick googling comes up with numerous cases of animals shooting humans (including hunters shot by deer as far back as 1947).

The only proper home defense is claymore mines in every room and on all sides of the bed.
Given the nature of American homes one can restrict that to outside facing ones in the central room since they will blast all interior walls away (and the outer ones too with non-negligible probability). To be safe from the falling roof, you should switch to a stable fourposter in your bedroom though.

Why people bring up automobiles (requiring registration, licensing to operate, and, in many places, insurance) and alcohol (must be 21 to purchase, and it's illegal to do a number of things under the influence of it) when discussing tighter regulation of gun ownership, I have a hard time understanding. (What would be the analogous gun-control measure for public intoxication, I wonder?)

Well, at least if the person making the argument is arguing against tighter regulation, I have a hard time understanding it.

The only thing an armed intruder is going to get out of me is a "Fuck you."

Be careful, he may successfullY sue you for attempted sexual molestation.

What's the gun-control analog to this?

https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/auto-accident/dram-shop-laws.html

I offer these links, each with bleeding obvious reasons of my own, which shall go unremarked by moi:

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/buchanan/democrats-exploiting-massacres-for-political-gain/

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/trump-maga-khan-abyss/

Why people bring up automobiles [...] and alcohol...

Because the constitution does not guarantee the right to either, so they, unlike guns, may be regulated*.
At least that's what I have heard from gun regulation opponents ad nauseam.
Usually the same guys that also consider the US Air Force unconstitutional as a separate service since it's not authorized (unlike armed forces on land and sea) by the constitution.

*and prohibition of alcohol has been tried and it failed => ANY regulation of guns (even, if it was constitutional) can't work either.

You know who else likes hunting and target shooting? Swedes. And Canadians. And Finns. You know who else has responsible firearm use as cultural and familial traditions? Swedes. And Canadians. And Finns.

They like venison. They like moose. Pick up a cookbook from any of the three and you will find more recipes for game than in 90% of the cookbooks written in the United States.

But they regulate their firearms more rationally and more effectively, and they are not culturally awash in the bullshit myth of redemptive gun violence. Their hunters and shooters are, by and large, more practical and more responsible than are ours. They act like adults rather than riled up teenagers with all the foresight of a drunken rhino.

People all over the world own guns and hunt and shoot for fun. Regulation doesn't dampen that one bit. All it dampens is the ridiculous level of violence that American gun fetishists insist we must tolerate in order to keep firearm ownership as a right rather than as the privilege that these other people enjoy.

I'm not trying to speak for Finland, especially with Lurker lurking around here. But I'd trade our insanity for any one of these well regulated national licensing systems in a heartbeat. I'd register our firearms and go to the range to keep in good standing.

Because the constitution does not guarantee the right to either, so they, unlike guns, may be regulated*.

But the arguments they're making are not constitutional. They are in the form of "These things are dangerous, but we don't blame cars or alcohol." (Whatever "blaming cars" or "blaming alcohol" means.)

They aren't saying, "We regulate these things only because they aren't guaranteed by the constitution." They're saying we don't regulation them, therefore we shouldn't regulate guns.

I offer these links,

The American Conservative is an ass.

What Nous said.

yes, what Nous said.

But the arguments they're making are not constitutional.

they're flailing.

No mental illness or video games in Canada, Sweden, or Finland. Ever think of that, Nous?

the Onion got to run their classic headline again: ‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens

they said nothing about alcohol, though. so, massive hypocrisy.

The Future Gunned Down Republican Leaders of America:

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/59nmax/aoc-rips-mitch-mcconnell-for-photo-of-young-men-groping-and-choking-a-cutout-of-her

The six of them would make a quorum on the Supreme Court.

Not only what Nous said, but it bears repeating word for word:

"You know who else likes hunting and target shooting? Swedes. And Canadians. And Finns. You know who else has responsible firearm use as cultural and familial traditions? Swedes. And Canadians. And Finns.

They like venison. They like moose. Pick up a cookbook from any of the three and you will find more recipes for game than in 90% of the cookbooks written in the United States.

But they regulate their firearms more rationally and more effectively, and they are not culturally awash in the bullshit myth of redemptive gun violence. Their hunters and shooters are, by and large, more practical and more responsible than are ours. They act like adults rather than riled up teenagers with all the foresight of a drunken rhino.

People all over the world own guns and hunt and shoot for fun. Regulation doesn't dampen that one bit. All it dampens is the ridiculous level of violence that American gun fetishists insist we must tolerate in order to keep firearm ownership as a right rather than as the privilege that these other people enjoy.

I'm not trying to speak for Finland, especially with Lurker lurking around here. But I'd trade our insanity for any one of these well regulated national licensing systems in a heartbeat. I'd register our firearms and go to the range to keep in good standing."

what Nous said and JDT repeated.

Americans are violent. There are good things about us, too, but we are freaking violent.

The prohibition of hand grenades in the hands of the public has done nothing to prevent trout fishing in America.

Max Boot is starting to get woke...

These facts do not, however, compute with whites who are convinced that they’re the real victims. Notwithstanding his occasional, insincere denunciations of racism, President Archie Bunker is the channeler and champion of white grievances. In 1989, right after calling for the death penalty for the Central Park Five (five minority teenagers who were later exonerated of rape), Trump told an interviewer: “A well-educated black has a tremendous advantage over a well-educated white in terms of the job market. … If I were starting off today I would love to be a well-educated black because I really believe they do have an actual advantage today.” (Of course, if Trump were actually “a well-educated black” and became president, he’d have some poorly educated racist demanding to see his birth certificate.)

...

Like many of his followers, Trump must imagine that white supremacy is the natural order of things and that any attempt to deliver justice for minorities who have been discriminated against for centuries is an indicator of anti-white prejudice. The most extreme form of this outlook can be found among white supremacists such as the gunman who allegedly slaughtered 22 people in El Paso on Saturday. The suspect claimed to be acting in response “to the Hispanic invasion of Texas” — a state that was part of Mexico before being invaded by Anglos. Even many whites who aren’t driven to violence display a version of this victimhood mind-set. They view accusations of racism as a far bigger problem than racism itself, and blame “social justice warriors” rather than white racists for inflaming racial tensions.

White people can be pretty clueless. (I know, I’m one myself.) Get a grip, folks. We’re not the victims here. Thinking that we are is not just wrong. It’s dangerous. It’s a mind-set that can justify everything from a public temper tantrum to a shooting spree.

strange days have tracked us down

Americans are violent. There are good things about us, too, but we are freaking violent.

I'm not at all sure that Americans are exceptionally violent. What is exceptional with us is that we have been persuaded to enable, rather than constrain, our ability to act on our violent impulses.

Hartmut and Lurker can correct me if I'm wrong, but:

Americans as a whole may or may not be more violent than Germans or Finns, but they are statistically much more religious.

Some may say that, even if true, that has nothing to do with guns, violence, or gun violence in America. All I know is that I have heard at least one caller to WBUR's "On Point" claim that America suffers from too much gun violence because it's not religious enough. This being a (N)ice (P)olite (R)epublicans broadcast, the silly fool was not immediately told to get a clue by either the host or the guest.

Ignorance among The People and tolerance for it by The Media will kill us all yet.

--TP

Beyond Caviar:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/beyond-meat-insiders-made-much-more-than-the-company-in-stock-sales-2019-08-06?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts


It's funny, the whole post-IPO "pop." Financial publications make it sound like you're IPO was some kind of bust if there wasn't a big jump in share price afterwards. Meanwhile, all the "pop" means is that you didn't set your share price high enough during the IPO and your company raised less capital than it could have (assuming that raising capital for the company was the goal, of course).

YOUR (I hate that!)

their they're. its ok.

But seriously, Adam Silverman has it about right:

https://www.balloon-juice.com/2019/08/06/there-is-a-real-risk-to-criminalizing-domestic-terrorism/

The conservative movement turns everything around to the detriment of their enemies. These laws will be used to persecute and prosecute the Other in America, which means anyone who resists the conservative movement while talking funny and looking a bit dusky and olive-skinned.

I'm not at all sure that Americans are exceptionally violent. What is exceptional with us is that we have been persuaded to enable, rather than constrain, our ability to act on our violent impulses.

I guess I'm unclear on what the distinction is.

https://www.eschatonblog.com/2019/08/land-of-free.html

Here's what I'd like to see. Surround every FOX lair in this country with heavily armed gunman and gunwomen to monitor the racist, vermin hate speech from within those nests of foreign outside agitators.

If the subhuman contents of the building attempt to leave the premises, the gunmen and women should ply them with alcohol and force them back into the building and keep the drinks coming.

It's not as efficient and timely as shooting them point blank with firearms, but in the long term it's 2.666 times as deadly.

When Sean Hannity is an old man, shitting his diapers in the nursing home, I'm going to break in and introduce myself to him.

We'll see what the fascist c*nt has got besides mouth.

God Bless the people of Toledo, Ohio.

They are next.

The curiouser and curiouser case of the guns that did not shoot in Georgia in the night:

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a28626189/brian-kemp-georgia-voter-suppression-intimidation/

Vermin subhuman racist republican confederates steal the vote and prevent fair elections in the United States of America, and not one conservative gun is fired at the criminal perpetrators for this betrayal of our founding fathers vision of one white man, one vote.

Oh, wait, I see why not.

But still, if conservative weaponry is not used to halt this unAmerican behavior, what is the point of being armed in this country.

We slaughtered the Brits in 1776 for exactly these crimes. And the Russians in the movie "Red Dawn".

The Founders have plenty of commas at the ready to obfuscate your answers so we don't know whether we are coming or going.

Every bit of buckshot wasted on a dove is one less vote stealer brought to ultimate justice and terminated.

I understand Brian Kemp, if wrapped in bacon and grilled, makes for a tasty meal.

I guess I'm unclear on what the distinction is.

It's a matter being able to address the level of violence experienced by removing the tools used for violence. Without needing to try to change the psychology of a major portion of the population -- which, even if possible, would take far longer.

Not that cleaning up our infestation of weapons of war would be easy or quick. Just that it would be easier and quicker. And is clearly possible . . . however improbable it seems at the moment. In short, it's not hopeless.

Krugman was invoked earlier.

Here, he nails it:

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/8/6/1877096/-If-You-Only-Read-One-Thing-Today-Read-Paul-Krugman-Trump-Tax-Cuts-and-Terrorism?utm_campaign=trending

I hunt. I like venison. I like dove (wrapped in bacon with fresh onion and jalepeno and grilled with a martini). Target shooting, skeet shooting, is fun.

Amazingly, people here in the UK go hunting too. Deer stalking, as it is called, is big in Scotland, pheasant and grouse shoots are big business among the rich, and pigeon- and rabbit-shooting are not uncommon among country dwellers. Also amazingly, the guns they all use are only suitable for such pursuits, obtaining them and keeping them is strictly regulated, and deaths by gun are almost unknown here except for the very occasional criminal hit. We have murder by knife, of course, but it seems very hard to kill more than one person per incident that way. Comparing what we call "sporting" guns to the kinds of thing commonly owned and used in the US is completely absurd, and surely only done to confuse the true issue.

p.s. We call skeet shooting clay-pigeon shooting, and we have that too.

p.s. We call skeet shooting clay-pigeon shooting, and we have that too.

BUT ONE THING YOU DO NOT HAVE IS FREEDOM or MORALITY YOU CLOSE MINDED WHINY ANTI-CHRISTIAN, anti-AMERICAN, HYPOCRITICAL GENGHIS KHAN WORSHIPPING NANNY STATE LIBRUL*.

I trust you are overwhelmed by the force of my compelling logic, and I look forward to your abject surrender.

*you need to take up THE GOLF

Comparing what we call "sporting" guns to the kinds of thing commonly owned and used in the US is completely absurd, and surely only done to confuse the true issue.

Well, no -- not only to confuse. I think you have to give at least some "credit" to simple massive ignorance of the rest of the world. Although certainly some intent to confuse is involved on the part of those not too ignorant to know better.

I was at my wife's family reunion recently and two folks there told me all about armed robbers and how they had hidden guns (many deadly kinds with really deadly ammo) all through the house to protect themselves against "them".

Who is "them?", I asked.
"Armed robbers," they replied.
"It strikes me that being confronted by an armed intruder in your home is a rather uncommon occurrence," I stated.
"Oh, no." They replied, "It happens all the time," they asserted.

In actuality, the chances of that happening are remote (1 in 6,000 I read somewhere), and I would wager that pulling your piece out when somebody is standing there already pointing a gun at you is not likely (shitting pants syndrome), and would also likely result in serious bodily harm....and not to the intruder.

This does not stop them in their righteous belief, because deep in their hearts they absolutely know that, just like in the movies, they would "get the drop" on the arch-fiend and be the hero.

LUNACY!

Episcopalian lawyer and no-doubt-convivial-drinker McKinney Texas needs to answer the same questions as bobbyp's in-law relations should be asked:

Does your need to "defend" your home with guns have ANYTHING to do with the fact that the country is full of guns?

Does the country being full of guns have ANYTHING to do with your own opposition to gun control laws?

IT'S THE GUNS, STUPID. All other hypotheses about the uniquely American carnage problem are either sheer sophistry or willful ignorance.

--TP

Well, bobbyp, if those folks at the reunion were in more rural areas, they may in fact be seeing an increase in crime.

https://atlantablackstar.com/2018/07/16/rural-red-states-that-voted-for-trump-are-experiencing-a-surge-in-crime/

The same forces that have hollowed out the American city are now hollowing out the American countryside, and rural Americans are beginning to discover just how much better they are able to resist the symptoms of despair and desperation that their urban counterparts have had to deal with. It's hard to deal with opium addiction at the same time that you are coming down cold turkey off of moral luck and self-righteousness.

And those guns *are* being put to use. Just look at the rural suicide rates.

*you need to take up THE GOLF

yeah, yeah. and i'll bet you'll say you have that, too. Fake internets!

The same forces that have hollowed out the American city are now hollowing out the American countryside

I hear ya'. When greed and the free market sweep through the land leaving social atomization and destruction in its wake, this is what you get. They don't call capitalism revolutionary for no reason.

But that's just me.

You don't need a firearm . . . at least if you are attacking a child.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/08/06/man-assaulted-year-old-because-he-was-disrespecting-national-anthem-witness-says/

There's something to be said for the thesis that some individuals are just evil.

Does the country being full of guns have ANYTHING to do with your own opposition to gun control laws?

a cynic might think that their was some kind of ... profit motive at work here.

like, just hypothetically, a company that made guns could set up a system where one branch of their marketing team scares people about the vicious gangs of robber and rapists coming to get them. and then there's another branch to market guns to those scared people. and then those two could work together behind the scenes to make sure that the people the first group are scared of have easy access to guns, by making sure the legal obstacles they face are as few and as ineffectual as possible.

and then they could dress it all up with handwaving bullshit about freedom and patriotism.

of course that would require you to believe that a company that makes a product designed, intended and marketed as an efficient way to kill people would be unconcerned about human life.

My wife and I have a good friend, former runway model, who now lives in the Ardennes with her French farmer husband. They hunt a lot, most dramatically wild boar. She keeps getting in trouble for shooting the boar in violation of the rules, whatever they are. The French love wild boar, but they want to be fair to the crazy beasts.

When my wife and I were in Umbria, you could hear the hunters blasting away up the hill, night and day. Drove the inn-keeper's dog nuts.

A lot of people hunt. Not many people shoot themselves or each other at the frequency with which we do.

wj, I take your point, basically, but I think it's deeper than just the availability of firearms. Not that that isn't an enabling factor, but I think the cause and effect more or less go the other way around.

Lots of people get angry and resentful. Not many people resolve it by shooting up the neighbors at the frequency with which we do.

Our games are violent, our movies are violent, our freaking porn is violent. Or so I've heard. We are violent.

I think my dead horse has been beaten enough for this particular go-round.

I'm for the good city of El Paso taking the President of the United States into custody, jailing the fuck, and demanding payment for services rendered.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/trump-visit-el-paso-unpaid-debt-campaign-rally

Let's exercise vermin confederate states rights and local control over the conservative Federal hegemony.

Let El Paso be the Fort Sumter of Civil War II.

Settle this fucking hash now.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad