BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: OT-P: July: Obamacare Decision as Baseball: the Runner is Safe, so Now What?

Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, July 02, 2012

OT-P: July: Obamacare Decision as Baseball: the Runner is Safe, so Now What?

My favorite play in baseball is the second base steal. In the play, the base runner watches the pitch, and at just the right moment, he sprints toward second. The catcher snatches the pitch, springs up and rockets the ball to the second baseman who snags it and tries to tag the runner as he slides into the base. As the dust clears, all eyes are on the second base umpire who, in a split second, calls the runner safe or out. When the play is over, the players dust themselves off, and the game goes on.

Some on the field may disagree with the umpire’s call. However, the umpire’s decision is final, and arguing can get you ejected. To stay in the game, great teams simply adjust their strategy based on the umpire’s call.

Morty Causa Posted: July 02, 2012 at 02:26 PM | 4025 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
Tags: politics, special topics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 29 of 41 pages ‹ First < 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 > Last ›

2801. BurlyBuehrle Posted: July 20, 2012 at 03:26 PM (#4188232)

Abject hypocrisy indeed, that progressives are suddenly concerned about these things. If progressives truly cared about a, b, and c, we could slash tax revenue by 50% or more.

This implies that progressives don't care, but you do. Okay, so let's take that implication and assume it is true. You want to ensure that all tax-funded initiatives actually solve a real problem.

Based on that assumption, you must have evidence demonstrating that voter fraud (a) occurs at a level we ought to address; (b) will be substantially alleviated by Voter ID.

I'd love to be convinced.

2802. Rickey Fredonia Fudge Duckery Precious Twiddle Posted: July 20, 2012 at 03:29 PM (#4188237)

In other topics, here's an interesting bit on why Adam Smith would hate Mitt Romney.

Smith’s work comes in two volumes, his “Theory of Moral Sentiments” and his “Wealth of Nations.” In both, his primary concern is not to free mankind from the hold of government but to free the market from the undue influence of a handful of hereditary plutocrats (nothing personal, Mitt) who seek to escape the rules of the market, control their own costs, and set their own prices, contributing only as much to the public weal as they feel like. It’s a radical, not a conservative doctrine (which is why Dr. Johnson distrusted him so much). Smith was for a government that intervened regularly and actively on behalf of consumers and against the natural tendency of “producers”—i.e., very wealthy people, whether aristocratic landowners or manufacturers or, perhaps, financial-leverage experts—to band together for their own benefit.

Adam Smith, apparently a socialist who knew nothing of the free market.

2803. Steve Treder Posted: July 20, 2012 at 03:33 PM (#4188243)

Adam Smith, apparently a socialist who knew nothing of the free market.

As well as a secret Muslim who hates this country.

2804. Chip Posted: July 20, 2012 at 03:44 PM (#4188256)

Gopnik also quotes this famous Smith line:

"The rich should contribute to the public expense not only in proportion to their revenue,” Smith writes, “but something more than in that proportion.”

2805. Rickey Fredonia Fudge Duckery Precious Twiddle Posted: July 20, 2012 at 03:48 PM (#4188261)

"The rich should contribute to the public expense not only in proportion to their revenue,” Smith writes, “but something more than in that proportion.”

The original drafts of "Wealth of Nations" actually follows that line with "At gunpoint!"

2806. Lassus Posted: July 20, 2012 at 03:57 PM (#4188273)

I can grok a Ruben Bolling sighting.

2807. Srul Itza Posted: July 20, 2012 at 04:02 PM (#4188277)

No, Ray. Just, no.

Look, just give it up. Ray is being every bit as dishonest about this point as the Republicans who passed the law. The simple fact is that he, like they, are in favor of disenfranchising as many people who are likely to vote the opposite of the way he votes, and he relies on the assertion that since there may be fraud, this is acceptable. He then is simply dishonest by (a) asserting that there are no real barriers to obtaining IDs when the facts are otherwise and (b) asserting that the mere possibility of fraud is sufficient support for the law, since, as he has demonstrated by his brilliant logic, nobody will really be disenfranchised any way.

For a long time, Ray's obtuseness was written off as being some strange character flaw. It is, rather, a ploy in support of dishonest argument.

2808. Ray (RDP)

Posted: July 20, 2012 at 04:09 PM (#4188284)

Look, just give it up. Ray is being every bit as dishonest about this point as the Republicans who passed the law. The simple fact is that he, like they, are in favor of disenfranchising as many people who are likely to vote the opposite of the way he votes,

This makes no sense. I voted for Bob Barr in 2008. 99% of people (or whatever it was) voted "the opposite of the way I vote."

2809. Steve Treder Posted: July 20, 2012 at 04:17 PM (#4188289)

This makes no sense. I voted for Bob Barr in 2008. 99% of people (or whatever it was) voted "the opposite of the way I vote."

Oh, please, not this again.

Although he can be counted on 99% of the time to support whatever happens to be the GOP position on an issue, heaven forbid considering him a supporter of the GOP's interests. He's a rock-ribbed libertarian!

2810. Rickey Fredonia Fudge Duckery Precious Twiddle Posted: July 20, 2012 at 04:27 PM (#4188296)

Although he can be counted on 99% of the time to support whatever happens to be the GOP position on an issue, heaven forbid considering him a supporter of the GOP's interests. He's a rock-ribbed libertarian!

I don't doubt Ray's "rock-ribbed" Lib credentials. I do question how much of his positioning stems from where he lives. It's pretty easy to be a libertarian in New York. It's harder to vote for Bob Barr, given Ray's obvious alignment with most GOP talking points, in Ohio.

2811. Ray (RDP)

Posted: July 20, 2012 at 04:29 PM (#4188297)

2812. Ray (RDP)

Posted: July 20, 2012 at 04:32 PM (#4188300)

In other words, you're accusing me of scheming or having a vested interest in preventing people from voting when I've barely voted myself. The issue simply is not one of personal importance to me.

2813. Ray (RDP)

Posted: July 20, 2012 at 04:35 PM (#4188306)

I don't doubt Ray's "rock-ribbed" Lib credentials. I do question how much of his positioning stems from where he lives. It's pretty easy to be a libertarian in New York. It's harder to vote for Bob Barr, given Ray's obvious alignment with most GOP talking points, in Ohio.

And yet, in 2004, living in New York, when I wanted to vote for the Republican candidate, I did so.

2814. Steve Treder Posted: July 20, 2012 at 04:35 PM (#4188307)

If it helps you hens in figuring out for me what I truly think about things, despite being eligible to vote for 20 years I've voted in exactly two elections: 2004 (Bush) and 2008 (Barr). That is the sum total of my voting history.

Whatever. All I'm saying is that the great preponderance of the time, the position you advocate lines up with that which the GOP advocates. Just own it.

2815. Rickey Fredonia Fudge Duckery Precious Twiddle Posted: July 20, 2012 at 04:45 PM (#4188316)

And yet, in 2004, living in New York, when I wanted to vote for the Republican candidate, I did so.

This doesn't help your case for not being a Republican-In-All-But-Name, Ray. (RIABN should be as useful as RINO.)

2816. Ron J2 Posted: July 20, 2012 at 04:47 PM (#4188317)

#2814 It's more than that. He reliably hits the Republican talking points too.

2817. Shredder Posted: July 20, 2012 at 04:50 PM (#4188319)

He's a rock-ribbed libertarian!

I don't doubt that he is, considering a libertarian is essentially a republican who is too embarrassed to admit that he/she is a republican.

2818. Steve Treder Posted: July 20, 2012 at 04:51 PM (#4188320)

It's more than that. He reliably hits the Republican talking points too.

Such as this time, with the BS about voter fraud.

2819. The Id of SugarBear Blanks

Posted: July 20, 2012 at 04:54 PM (#4188321)

Bob Barr's career ACU rating was 98%. The guy isn't a libertarian.

2820. Ray (RDP)

Posted: July 20, 2012 at 05:01 PM (#4188325)

#2814 It's more than that. He reliably hits the Republican talking points too.

I literally do not read any right wing blogs/publications - or any blogs/publications, actually - nor do I listen to any talk shows (other than Francesa's sports show) nor do I watch any of this on tv.

For years, other than Yahoo News headlines, BBTF and the odd column linked to here has been the sum total of the political thought or commentary I get from the outside world. There's one exception, which is that I tend to read/watch a lot of coverage in the couple of weeks before and after election day.

I used to watch O'Reilly's show, and Hannity & Colmes (but not Hannity solo), and Hardball with Chris Matthews, but I haven't watched these shows in years.

I never listened to right wing talk radio at all.

So whatever my thoughts on issues such as voter fraud, they do not come from Republican talking points.

I doubt this will change anyone's mind, or will even be believed, but whatever.

EDIT: I did watch the panel segment at the end of Special Report with Brit Hume for a year or two, but that hasn't happened in years. I've read the occasional Krugman or Rich Lowry column, but I can't remember the last time I read one. I've basically gone dry as far as reading or discussing politics, actually, in years -- outside of this site, ironically.

2821. Steve Treder Posted: July 20, 2012 at 05:05 PM (#4188326)

Then, Ray, it's just the uncanniest coincidence ever, isn't it. Don't you think so? Can you acknowledge that it sure is a curious phenomenon?

2822. Johnny Chimpo Posted: July 20, 2012 at 05:08 PM (#4188328)

Yahoo News headlines, BBTF and the odd column linked to here has been the sum total of the political thought or commentary I get from the outside world.

This... may explain a lot.

2823. Rickey Fredonia Fudge Duckery Precious Twiddle Posted: July 20, 2012 at 05:11 PM (#4188331)

So whatever my thoughts on issues such as voter fraud, they do not come from Republican talking points.

For what it's worth, I find the people questioning Ray's intellectual honesty here to be as unhelpful as Ray's cartoonish summations of "liberal" thinking in other sub-threads or discussions.

I also strongly believe, Ray, that you live in a very specific world and that you often use the crutch of "first principles" to avoid asking questions of yourself that might cause cognitive dissonance. This recent example illustrates it well. When asked how you, as a first-principle libertarian, would defend the creation of unnecessary laws which pretty much everyone recognizes to be politically motivated (Voter ID laws that prevent "fraud" that every investigation has found not to exist) you refuse to think through your position and fall back on creating a faux-liberal position (which exists mostly in your own mind) so you can call out the "hypocrisy" of liberals asking you to justify undue regulation. That's the sort of behavior that leads to folks piling up on the "Ray's a troll" bandwagon.

I posit the following:

The libertarian position should be that undue regulation is universally to be avoided.

The libertarian position should be that facts are determined by reasonable inquiry, and thus "voter fraud" is not a serious problem in the world.

The libertarian position should therefore be that voter ID laws are undue regulation of a basic right.

The libertarian position should be, unquestionably I think, that voter ID laws should be opposed barring some new, overwhelming evidence that "voter fraud" exists where it previously did not.

The question for you, my friend, is why do you choose a position counter to basic libertarian principles on this issue?

2824. Rickey Fredonia Fudge Duckery Precious Twiddle Posted: July 20, 2012 at 05:13 PM (#4188332)

I've basically gone dry as far as reading or discussing politics, actually, in years -- outside of this site, ironically.

Another way of thinking about this, perhaps, is that you've been locked into the same political mindset for years, and from what you're saying here, that mindset was pretty well framed by Fox News talking heads.

2825. Ray (RDP)

Posted: July 20, 2012 at 05:17 PM (#4188336)

Another way of thinking about this, perhaps, is that you've been locked into the same political mindset for years, and from what you're saying here, that mindset was pretty well framed by Fox News talking heads.

Such as Matthews, Krugman, and Colmes? Why are you only focused on the right wing personalities I noted.

(Also, for what it's worth, O'Reilly is simply not a deep thinker -- I watched his show for the interviews -- and Hannity is a simple-minded barking dog who knows nothing underneath the surface. I'm reminded of the time Christopher Hitchens effortlessly ripped his arguments to shreds.)

2826. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: July 20, 2012 at 05:22 PM (#4188339)

nor do I listen to any talk shows (other than Francesa's sports show)

there's your mistake, that will rot out your brain in no time.

I used to watch O'Reilly's show

ditto

Hannity & Colmes (but not Hannity solo)

ditto

Hardball with Chris Matthews

nope, never

I never listened to right wing talk radio at all.

I used to, not regularly, but in maybe 5-10 minute increments when driving- although a time or two I listened to Rush far longer*
basically I stopped, I would listen to talk radio for pretty much the same reason people feel the need to poke at a sore tooth... you know it's a bad idea, you know it's gonna hurt... poke.

*Twice on long drives I listened to Rush for upwards a 1/2+ hour, why? I was actually curious how long he was going to drag out his claim that he was going to "explain" something...

1: Rush declares ABC to be a fact
2: Rush says he's going to explain how he can establish ABC as a fact
3: Rush says he's going to explain how you can win an argument with a liberal by proving ABC
4: Rush says that liberal oppose/disagree with ABC because liberals are bad
5: Rush declares ABC to be a fact
6: Rush says he's going to explain how he can establish ABC as a fact
7: Call is taken, dittohead caller can't believe that those dastardly liberal would disagree with ABC
8: Rush thanks the caller, explains that liberals and the MSM disagree with ABC because they have an "agenda"
9: Rush says now that he's explained ABC, and how liberal retorts can be countered he's going to spend the next hour unmasking the "agenda"

2827. Gern Blanston Posted: July 20, 2012 at 05:49 PM (#4188349)

In other words, you're accusing me of scheming or having a vested interest in preventing people from voting when I've barely voted myself. The issue simply is not one of personal importance to me.

Well, I suppose this helps explain [if strangely] the fairly cavalier attitude about whether others get to vote or not.

2828. Gern Blanston Posted: July 20, 2012 at 05:51 PM (#4188351)

Also, I love when people trot out Colmes as if he's some sort of credible liberal voice. Guy's about as sharp as a bowling ball. There's a reason he was on FOX for as long as he was.

EDIT: I mean, he's certainly Hannity's intellectual equal, but that's not saying anything.

2829. BurlyBuehrle Posted: July 20, 2012 at 05:59 PM (#4188354)

(Also, for what it's worth, O'Reilly is simply not a deep thinker -- I watched his show for the interviews -- and Hannity is a simple-minded barking dog who knows nothing underneath the surface. I'm reminded of the time Christopher Hitchens effortlessly ripped his arguments to shreds.)

I do enjoy finding common ground. I absolutely agree. It also reminds me of the time O'Reilly "proved" the existence of god to Richard Dawkins by shouting "tide goes in, tide goes out!" That was the sum total of his argument. Whatever your thoughts are on the existence/non-existence of a personal deity, "tide goes in, tide goes out!" doesn't advance the ball very much in any direction.

But getting back to the actual topic, 2823 is a very succinct and clear expression of what I was trying to get at in 2800. Is there a cogent response?

What I was trying to get at, I think: It doesn't really matter whether you're a Republican, Libertarian, Democrat, Liberal or Pinko Commie -- those ideologies, at bottom, are arguing over (a) WHICH problems the government ought to be in the business of solving and (b) HOW MUCH government intervention is desireable/required to solve said problems. On a basic level, though, would any of them argue that government's function is to "solve" "problems" that no one can demonstrate exist?

So again, for the 100th time on this thread: where is the evidence that voter fraud is occurring at a level about which we should be concerned?

2830. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: July 20, 2012 at 06:11 PM (#4188357)

I'm reminded of the time Christopher Hitchens effortlessly ripped his arguments to shreds.

Hannity against Hitchens was a classic, Hannity simply had no coherent rejoinders, he had no idea where Hitchens was coming from as Hitchens simply did not exist on Hannity's simplistic 2 dimensional socio-politico spectrum, plus Hitch was more than willing to be tasteless and offensive.

2831. Rickey Fredonia Fudge Duckery Precious Twiddle Posted: July 20, 2012 at 06:15 PM (#4188361)

Such as Matthews, Krugman, and Colmes? Why are you only focused on the right wing personalities I noted.

If you spent a lot of your time arguing points very similar to those made by Matthews or Krugman I might see the point in asking you why you were so often so aligned.

2832. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: July 20, 2012 at 06:19 PM (#4188363)

EDIT: I mean, he's certainly Hannity's intellectual equal, but that's not saying anything.

I'd say he was bit above Hannity on the intellectual scale, but Hannity in his own funny way actually has a little passion, Colmes, not so much.

I do enjoy finding common ground. I absolutely agree. It also reminds me of the time O'Reilly "proved" the existence of god to Richard Dawkins by shouting "tide goes in, tide goes out!" That was the sum total of his argument.

well not the sum total, he also explained that "You can't explain that" no one knows why...

Jeebus, people noticed the connection the tides and the position of the moon before that apple fell on Newton's head for crissakes.

FWIW O'Reilly wasn't interviewing Dawkins, but some atheist society flack, I'm sure O'Reilly thought of it just before the show aired, thought it was clever and didn't pass it with his producers/writer beforehand. Some people should not stray from script.

2833. FancyPantsHandle glistening with foreign substance Posted: July 20, 2012 at 08:56 PM (#4188472)

No, Ray. Just, no. You're confusing "confirming that we should have a process by which we confirm the value of tax based projects" with "agreeing with Ray about what projects would be worthwhile."

Screw that! Free government funded hoverboards for everyone!

2834. asdf1234 Posted: July 20, 2012 at 09:46 PM (#4188491)

I don't doubt that he is, considering a libertarian is essentially a republican who is too embarrassed to admit that he/she is a republican.

If you want to play that game, we could just say that leftists are national socialists who haven't peeked out of the closet yet.

Contending that Ron Paul--whose libertarian credentials are widely doubted among those who take the politics of power seriously--has virtually anything in common with the standard welfare/warfare/corporatist politician like W, McCain, or their brother-in-arms Obama is hi-lar-i-ous, even by the standards of this forum.

2835. Tripon Posted: July 20, 2012 at 09:48 PM (#4188493)

Ron Paul is in the Republican party.

2836. Steve Treder Posted: July 20, 2012 at 09:54 PM (#4188494)

Ron Paul is in the Republican party.

Significantly and importantly.

EDIT: So is his son.

2837. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: July 20, 2012 at 09:59 PM (#4188495)

You watch your ass, Michele Bachmann, NOBODY puts Louie Gohmert in the backseat of the Crazy Republican Clown Car:

WASHINGTON -- Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) said Friday that the shootings that took place in an Aurora, Colo. movie theater hours earlier were a result of "ongoing attacks on Judeo-Christian beliefs" and questioned why nobody else in the theater had a gun to take down the shooter.

During a radio interview on The Heritage Foundation's "Istook Live!" show, Gohmert was asked why he believes such senseless acts of violence take place. Gohmert responded by talking about the weakening of Christian values in the country.

"You know what really gets me, as a Christian, is to see the ongoing attacks on Judeo-Christian beliefs, and then some senseless crazy act of terror like this takes place," Gohmert said.

"Some of us happen to believe that when our founders talked about guarding our virtue and freedom, that that was important," he said. "Whether it's John Adams saying our Constitution was made only for moral and religious people ... Ben Franklin, only a virtuous people are capable of freedom, as nations become corrupt and vicious they have more need of masters ... We have been at war with the very pillars, the very foundation of this country."

Ernest Istook, the host of the show and a former Oklahoma congressman, jumped in to clarify that nobody knows the motivation of the alleged Aurora gunman. Gohmert said that may be true, but suggested the shootings were still "a terrorist act" that could have been avoided if the country placed a higher value on God.

"People say ... where was God in all of this?" Gohmert said. "We've threatened high school graduation participations, if they use God's name, they're going to be jailed ... I mean that kind of stuff. Where was God? What have we done with God? We don't want him around. I kind of like his protective hand being present."

Gohmert also said the tragedy could have been lessened if someone else in the movie theater had been carrying a gun and took down the lone shooter. Istook noted that Colorado laws allow people to carry concealed guns.

"It does make me wonder, with all those people in the theater, was there nobody that was carrying a gun that could have stopped this guy more quickly?" he asked.

2838. Rickey Fredonia Fudge Duckery Precious Twiddle Posted: July 20, 2012 at 10:05 PM (#4188499)

Gohmert is one of the four signatories of Bachmann's "Muslim infiltrators" letter.

2839. Rickey Fredonia Fudge Duckery Precious Twiddle Posted: July 20, 2012 at 10:05 PM (#4188500)

If you want to play that game, we could just say that leftists are national socialists who haven't peeked out of the closet yet.

If we were stupid, perhaps.

2840. FancyPantsHandle glistening with foreign substance Posted: July 20, 2012 at 10:13 PM (#4188507)

WASHINGTON -- Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) said Friday that the shootings that took place in an Aurora, Colo. movie theater hours earlier were a result of "ongoing attacks on Judeo-Christian beliefs" and questioned why nobody else in the theater had a gun to take down the shooter.

Cause nothing says Judeo-Christian faith like packing heat.

2841. Heinie Mantush (Krusty) Posted: July 20, 2012 at 10:20 PM (#4188511)

Matthews, Krugman, and Colmes?

Which of these is not like the other?

And yet, in 2004, living in New York, when I wanted to vote for the Republican candidate, I did so.

Honest to goodness, I have *NEVER* understood the rationale for voting for George W. Bush in 2004. I can squint and see McCain (particularly pre-Palin.) I can see Bush in 2000. I just cannot make sense of George W. Bush in '04. Granted, I was gritting my teeth the whole way through on Kerry (I was an avowed Deaniac.)

2842. booond Posted: July 20, 2012 at 10:32 PM (#4188514)

Honest to goodness, I have *NEVER* understood the rationale for voting for George W. Bush in 2004.

Kerry was a worthless piece of ####.

I still voted for him because W. is/was the worst president since Hoover but a dung beetle would walk past Kerry.

2843. Shredder Posted: July 20, 2012 at 10:40 PM (#4188519)

If we were stupid, perhaps.

Well, to be fair, jdbkaput is pretty stupid.

2844. OCF Posted: July 20, 2012 at 11:06 PM (#4188526)

... and questioned why nobody else in the theater had a gun to take down the shooter.

This is in the script, of course. You hear it from the NRA-perspective corner after every mass shooting. And it doesn't make sense. It never made any sense.

Let's examine it in this particular case. In the first place, how do you know that there wasn't someone there packing heat who choose not to pull his weapon because he knew it wouldn't work?

The shooter had complete tactical and strategic surprise. I can probably stop there - in some sense, that's all the explanation needed. But to elaborate on some points: it was dark. It was worse than dark, because the shooter also tossed some irritating gas or vapor into the room (and was wearing a gas mask himself). He was dressed in dark clothing. How are you going to see him well enough to target him? And he was actually wearing some sort of body armor. Suppose you had shot at the center of his profile (since you wouldn't have known about the armor) with a handgun. Would that have brought him down and stopped him? Maybe, maybe not. And that's assuming you could have shot that accurately under those conditions, which is very far from given. Now suppose some guy does return fire, and you're a third armed person in the room. There are two people firing. Who's shooting at whom? Are they in it together? Who's your target, if anyone?

None of it works, logically. The only way I can see to have stopped him would have been for six guys to rush him together and tackle him to the floor - and two or three of them would have died trying. And that has anything to do with who was or wasn't packing.

Now let's expand the question. You're carrying a concealed handgun for protection. Explain a scenario in which it would, in fact, protect you. Explain every detail. Exactly what caused you to draw the weapon, and when? What was the other party doing? If someone is already pointing a weapon at you, it's already too late, right?And if you've been grabbed and physically overpowered, it's already too late. So you have to have acted first, in some sense.

I can, in fact, imagine such a scenario, but the parameters are awfully narrow.

2845. Gern Blanston Posted: July 20, 2012 at 11:07 PM (#4188527)

2846. DA Baracus is gritty and hits with RISP Posted: July 20, 2012 at 11:11 PM (#4188528)

Gohmert said that may be true, but suggested the shootings were still "a terrorist act" that could have been avoided if the country placed a higher value on God.

It's going to blow his mind when the shooter says God told him to do it.

2847. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: July 20, 2012 at 11:14 PM (#4188530)

Gohmert is one of the four signatories of Bachmann's "Muslim infiltrators" letter.

Ya got to be in it to win it ...

2848. FancyPantsHandle glistening with foreign substance Posted: July 20, 2012 at 11:14 PM (#4188531)

Now let's expand the question. You're carrying a concealed handgun for protection. Explain a scenario in which it would, in fact, protect you. Explain every detail.

Duh. When you are stalking a black teenager for wearing a hoodie in your neighborhood.

2849. DA Baracus is gritty and hits with RISP Posted: July 20, 2012 at 11:15 PM (#4188532)

Now let's expand the question. You're carrying a concealed handgun for protection. Explain a scenario in which it would, in fact, protect you. Explain every detail. Exactly what caused you to draw the weapon, and when? What was the other party doing? If someone is already pointing a weapon at you, it's already too late, right?And if you've been grabbed and physically overpowered, it's already too late. So you have to have acted first, in some sense.

I'm honestly not trying to throw gasoline into the fire when I say this... you very easily wind up with George Zimmerman.

EDIT: Late night Coke to FP. Do you want whiskey or bourbon in it?

2850. Lassus Posted: July 20, 2012 at 11:22 PM (#4188535)

I just got a text from my mom - she lives in Florida, but was doing her first-ever crazy cross-country road trip.

She was less than a mile from the Batman shooting when it went down.

Holy cow.

2851. Steve Treder Posted: July 20, 2012 at 11:25 PM (#4188537)

#2850 woah

2852. Rickey Fredonia Fudge Duckery Precious Twiddle Posted: July 20, 2012 at 11:26 PM (#4188539)

Let's not call it the "Batman shooting?"

2853. Dan The Mediocre Posted: July 20, 2012 at 11:31 PM (#4188542)

Let's not call it the "Batman shooting?"

"Dark Night Surprises"?

2854. Lassus Posted: July 20, 2012 at 11:36 PM (#4188544)

Steve: Yeah, that was crazy to read. I mean, I'm not freaked, but it's still crazy wacky, considering.

Sam: Honestly, that seems rather inoffensive and general to me, but I'll be convinced otherwise.

2855. FancyPantsHandle glistening with foreign substance Posted: July 20, 2012 at 11:36 PM (#4188545)

Late night Coke to FP. Do you want whiskey or bourbon in it?

If you mix coke in my whisky, you're going to burn in a very special level of hell. A level they reserve for child molesters and people who talk at the theater.

2856. Steve Treder Posted: July 20, 2012 at 11:37 PM (#4188546)

When you are stalking a black teenager for wearing a hoodie in your neighborhood.

Geraldo told me that it was stalking a black teenager only because he was wearing a hoodie. So that makes it OK.

2857. Rickey Fredonia Fudge Duckery Precious Twiddle Posted: July 20, 2012 at 11:40 PM (#4188547)

A level they reserve for child molesters and people who talk at the theater.

I know a guy in Colorado that hates that.

2858. DA Baracus is gritty and hits with RISP Posted: July 21, 2012 at 12:05 AM (#4188550)

If you mix coke in my whisky, you're going to burn in a very special level of hell. A level they reserve for child molesters and people who talk at the theater.

Noted. Also, excellent reference on the second line.

2859. formerly dp Posted: July 21, 2012 at 12:09 AM (#4188552)

I know a guy in Colorado that hates that.

Too soon, Rickey. Too soon.

Also: hitting a hanging slider. Two separate issues, really.

2860. Rickey Fredonia Fudge Duckery Precious Twiddle Posted: July 21, 2012 at 12:12 AM (#4188553)

Too soon, Rickey. Too soon.

The Aristocrats!

2861. Rickey Fredonia Fudge Duckery Precious Twiddle Posted: July 21, 2012 at 12:23 AM (#4188556)

Oh, and sneaking in at the buzzer and taking the prize for most asshat crazy ############ who really should be taken out back and shot for the good of humanity award is Alex Jones, who tonight suggested that the Aurora rampage killings were "staged terror" for...whatever the hell the Black Helicopter crowd is delusional about today.

And everyone's favorite "libertarian" Ron Paul is what, two degrees of separation from that guy?

2862. DA Baracus is gritty and hits with RISP Posted: July 21, 2012 at 12:30 AM (#4188558)

Alex Jones doesn't count. It's only noteworthy when he says something rational.

2863. Rickey Fredonia Fudge Duckery Precious Twiddle Posted: July 21, 2012 at 12:33 AM (#4188559)

Agreed, Jones sneaking in and taking the crazy prize is a lot like Al Pujols sneaking in and jacking a homer off of an A ball pitcher, but I figured it's worth noting that 1) he's crazy, 2) he's evil, and 3) he's one of Ron Paul's best friends when Ron Paul feels his political interests lie in cottoning to Jones' audience.

2864. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: July 21, 2012 at 01:01 AM (#4188561)

Alex Jones, who tonight suggested that the Aurora rampage killings were "staged terror" for...

For the global atheist, socialist, communist, Islamo-Fascist, Fascist, Humanist, Nazi, UN conspiracy to take all of our guns ... duh!!!

p.s. I think someone hates freedom ...

2865. Ray (RDP)

Posted: July 21, 2012 at 01:46 AM (#4188571)

Hannity against Hitchens was a classic, Hannity simply had no coherent rejoinders, he had no idea where Hitchens was coming from as Hitchens simply did not exist on Hannity's simplistic 2 dimensional socio-politico spectrum, plus Hitch was more than willing to be tasteless and offensive.

Man, I miss that ol' limey curmudgeon.

Seconded, retro. And I should have added - it slipped my mind - that I tried not to ever miss a Hitchens column in the past half decade or so of his life.

2866. Ray (RDP)

Posted: July 21, 2012 at 01:51 AM (#4188572)

The Batman shooting is not a gun issue. It's a some people are crazy/evil issue. It's hard to stop crazy sometimes.

By the way, if this is not offensive - or I guess even if it is - what is the shooting likely to do to the sales of the movie? Any educated opinions on this? Because it's got to be the worst commercial for a movie ever.

2867. FancyPantsHandle glistening with foreign substance Posted: July 21, 2012 at 07:59 AM (#4188601)

By the way, if this is not offensive - or I guess even if it is - what is the shooting likely to do to the sales of the movie? Any educated opinions on this? Because it's got to be the worst commercial for a movie ever.

There's no such thing as bad publicity...

Going tomorrow btw, SSS and all.

2868. Rickey Fredonia Fudge Duckery Precious Twiddle Posted: July 21, 2012 at 08:00 AM (#4188602)

It's hard to stop crazy sometimes.

It's easier to stop crazy when they're not loaded down with an arsenal.

what is the shooting likely to do to the sales of the movie?

It will undoubtedly suppress opening weekend, which in the industry is huge.

2869. Mayor Blomberg Posted: July 21, 2012 at 08:53 AM (#4188614)

Jesus, when your wingnuttery is called out by a former Oklahoma congressman, you're way over the cliff.

2870. BDC

Posted: July 21, 2012 at 09:08 AM (#4188617)

OCF's 2844 makes amazingly good points about the fantasy that citizen gunfighters are the answer to random gun violence. Along those lines, the best discussion I've ever read of why armed campuses are not the answer to campus shootings is an op-ed piece by Jesus Villahermosa. The version I've linked to there is recopied on some forum where some idiots are commenting on it (not BBTF, some other group of idiots). But the text is all there, and it asks great questions about just WTF are people thinking when they believe some concealed carrier would "take a shooter down."

2871. Lassus Posted: July 21, 2012 at 09:27 AM (#4188622)

I would like to hear Good Face's gun expert opinion on #2844.

That not baiting or trollery or anything, I really would like to hear his opinion.

2872. Rickey Fredonia Fudge Duckery Precious Twiddle Posted: July 21, 2012 at 09:34 AM (#4188625)

I've spoken to two marksman level Marines and both have said the same thing; dark theater, no warning, surprise attack (both having done tours in Af-Pak are keen on the tactical advantage of ambush attacks), and most importantly, tear gas in the air with no mask.

The idea of an armed response from a carry-conceal citizen indicates exactly how much the Representative's idea of combat is shaped by movies, rather than reality.

EDIT/ADDITION: From personal experience, I can tell you that tear gas on an open street, where the gas rises and disperses reasonably well is pretty brutal if you don't have a mask. I can't imagine how disorienting and painful it would have been in a poorly ventilated closed room such as a theater.

2873. booond Posted: July 21, 2012 at 11:01 AM (#4188653)

The Batman shooting is not a gun issue.

This is made up ########.

It's a some people are crazy/evil issue.

Crazy is spending time watching the Khardashians on TV. Shooting people in a theater is disturbed. Evil is starting a war for no reason other than it gives your administration cover and the people fighting it are expendable.

2874. booond Posted: July 21, 2012 at 11:03 AM (#4188654)

The idea of an armed response from a carry-conceal citizen indicates exactly how much the Representative's idea of combat is shaped by movies, rather than reality.

This is exactly correct. We see movies and believe that the good guys are expert marksmen and the bad guys will miss us even if we stand up in an open theater. We are dumb as ####, especially politicians.

2875. Heinie Mantush (Krusty) Posted: July 21, 2012 at 11:20 AM (#4188662)

Kerry was a worthless piece of ####.

I still voted for him because W. is/was the worst president since Hoover but a dung beetle would walk past Kerry.

Again, I do not get how a majority of Americans didn't come to the same conclusion. I'm not trolling, or anything of that sort. I just... do not understand.

2876. Steve Treder Posted: July 21, 2012 at 11:31 AM (#4188663)

WTF are people thinking when they believe some concealed carrier would "take a shooter down."

We see shootouts on an all-too-frequent basis in many cities all across the US. Here in the Bay Area, we see them way too much in Oakland. Lots of gunshot homicides and injuries. And a huge proportion of the casualties are bystanders, often completely out of sight of the shooters. Handguns in particular are wildly inaccurate, especially in a panic situation, not all comfortable and focused on a shooting range.

2877. Tripon Posted: July 21, 2012 at 11:34 AM (#4188665)

It was 2004, not 2006. In 2001, Bush did about as good as anyone could have done managing 9/11, and they were successfully fighting a war in Afganistan. Then in 2003, the U.S. launched a new offensive in Iraq and I don't think people would simply allow a new administration to take over at the start of a new war. By 2006, people were already sick of both wars, and were looking to change. Then the DCO's crash happened and just pushed everything over the edge.

2878. booond Posted: July 21, 2012 at 11:46 AM (#4188668)

In 2001, Bush did about as good as anyone could have done managing 9/11.

How do we know?

they were successfully fighting a war in Afganistan.

Why did they stop?

Then in 2003, the U.S. launched a new offensive in Iraq

Offensive is the key term.

2879. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 21, 2012 at 11:53 AM (#4188670)

You had to be pretty actively not paying attention in 2004 to think that Bush's foreign policy was anything other than an outright disaster, but most Americans pretty actively don't pay attention to foreign policy.

There was only a very small subset of folks arguing that unregulated high finance and the housing bubble were going to crash our economy, and only a subset of them guessed how big the problem was. I don't know if Kerry mentioned the finance sector during the election once. The degree to which Bush ruined the domestic economy is only clear in hindsight. (The fiscal mess that Bush created was clear, but fiscal messes are long-term problems that most Americans pretty actively don't pay attention to. The continuing housing bubble, the fiscal stimulus of the tax cuts and deficit spending, and an activist Fed kept the economy on a pretty normal growth track during 2003-2004.)

2880. Steve Treder Posted: July 21, 2012 at 12:01 PM (#4188671)

You had to be pretty actively not paying attention in 2004 to think that Bush's foreign policy was anything other than an outright disaster, but most Americans pretty actively don't pay attention to foreign policy.

And the Bush administration tactic of not allowing the media to photograph the steady load of coffins being shipped back from Iraq assisted in that regard. An ignorant public serves inept governments well.

2881. zenbitz Posted: July 21, 2012 at 12:03 PM (#4188673)

We need armed Theater Marshals! And lock up the projection room with bullet proof doors. And For Gods Sake, crash your hijacked theater into open country!

Seriously, maybe there is some weak argument that a single trained agent in the theater when the balloon goes up saves some lives. But that's not the argument. The argument was that IF A BUNCH OF PEOPLE in the theater were packing heat, this would have been stopped. Can you imagine the cluster frack that would be 6-7 shooters firing semi randomly in a croweded smoke filled theater. Probably have 80 deaths instead of 12.

The fact is, if some sick, determined, above average intelligent nutball wants to murder a dozen people, there is a whole lot anyone can do about it. Even total gun bans wouldn't stop someone from driving a car on crowded sidewalk. And an inspired person can make bombs and poisons out of household materials. Not to mention the old fashioned strangle 1 person every other month. If you focus on prostitutes and other undesirables, you might even keep it up for 6-7 years.

Barring a complete 21st century police surveillance state complete with mind control drugs.

2882. OCF Posted: July 21, 2012 at 12:32 PM (#4188679)

The fact is, if some sick, determined, above average intelligent nutball wants to murder a dozen people, there is a whole lot anyone can do about it.

It's true that you can kill more people with explosives than with firearms, and bombings have happened. But not every "above average intelligent nutball" is willing or able to be a bomber. And while lethal chemical warfare has happened (the Tokyo subway attack), it's pretty rare. (This guy did use non-lethal chemical warfare.) But it would have been a lot harder for this guy to cause as many casualties as he did if there weren't such things as 100-round magazines easily obtainable.

2883. booond Posted: July 21, 2012 at 12:38 PM (#4188681)

The fact is, if some sick, determined, above average intelligent nutball wants to murder a dozen people, there is a whole lot anyone can do about it. Even total gun bans wouldn't stop someone from driving a car on crowded sidewalk. And an inspired person can make bombs and poisons out of household materials.

Except, that they don't. They buy guns. They buy ammo. They shoot people. The last bombing that killed more than 10 people in this country was in the 1920s. We've had 5 shootings in the last 5 years which did the same.

2884. Swedish Chef Posted: July 21, 2012 at 12:42 PM (#4188683)

The last bombing that killed more than 10 people in this country was in the 1920s.

What about Oklahoma City?

2885. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 21, 2012 at 12:42 PM (#4188685)

OCF's 2844 makes amazingly good points about the fantasy that citizen gunfighters are the answer to random gun violence. ...

The only fantasy is that disarming everyone but criminals will somehow make all of us safer. OCF's #2844 might make good points about this particular incident, which apparently happened in near darkness and was aided by tear gas, but it doesn't speak to the wider issue of concealed carry at all.

The Virginia Tech shooter, for example, shot people one by one, killing 32 and wounding 17 others (per official report). It's utterly ludicrous to suggest that it was better for everyone to be disarmed and slaughtered than for several people to have been armed and at least attempted a response. It's not like the guy had a machine gun and shot 49 people in 10 seconds. Had any of the victims or bystanders been armed, there's an excellent chance the victim count would have been far less than 49. (Unlike the Aurora shootings, the Virginia Tech shootings happened in broad daylight.)

The fact is, if some sick, determined, above average intelligent nutball wants to murder a dozen people, there is[n't] a whole lot anyone can do about it.

I assume 'zenbitz' meant to say "isn't" in the quote above, which was an excellent point. Everyone always goes searching for answers or solutions when things like this occur, but other than living in a complete totalitarian state, the above quote is just the basic reality of living in a free, 21st-century society.

2886. booond Posted: July 21, 2012 at 12:45 PM (#4188686)

What about Oklahoma City?

Completely whiffed on that.

2887. Steve Treder Posted: July 21, 2012 at 12:45 PM (#4188687)

But it would have been a lot harder for this guy to cause as many casualties as he did if there weren't such things as 100-round magazines easily obtainable.

Yep. The "we can never completely stop gun murder, so therefore gun control will never work" argument is specious. There is something between all and nothing.

2888. DA Baracus is gritty and hits with RISP Posted: July 21, 2012 at 12:55 PM (#4188689)

We should all carry weapons like in the Wild West. There would be no crime!

2889. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 21, 2012 at 01:06 PM (#4188695)

"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." — Robert A. Heinlein

2890. Gern Blanston Posted: July 21, 2012 at 01:15 PM (#4188699)

By the way, if this is not offensive - or I guess even if it is - what is the shooting likely to do to the sales of the movie? Any educated opinions on this? Because it's got to be the worst commercial for a movie ever.

Not offensive in the least; my fiancee (who is the least offensive person in the history of the human race) raised the exact same question.

Answer? I can't imagine it'll help box office receipts, but it'll probably send DVD/downloads through the roof when they're released...

2891. BDC

Posted: July 21, 2012 at 01:16 PM (#4188700)

Joe, with respect, your scenario in #2885 is a movie scenario. It's like, "what if John McClane had been on campus that day?" But these events occur in a wider everyday context that you're not taking into account.

Armed citizens don't just materialize in a nicely-staged tactical relationship to a crazed shooter. They must carry weapons all the time (as the Villahermosa essay I linked to suggests); they must be continuously alert for the likelihood that someone will, in a fit of anger or a bit of calculated villainy, overpower them and take their gun. They must be in good mental health, stable, undistracted. They must take on the responsibility of being shot (by villain or by cops), deciding to kill, shooting the wrong person. They must train continually, and they must go out every day to work with the assumption that they will have to use their weapon – in other words, they must be para-cops, and a bunch of unofficial, unsupervised para-cops running around do not make life safer; they just increase the possibility for something going very wrong.

2892. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 21, 2012 at 01:19 PM (#4188704)

"I want to #### my daughter and I wrote several books about it." - Robert A. Heinlein

2893. Gern Blanston Posted: July 21, 2012 at 01:23 PM (#4188705)

And it may suppress movie attendance in general for a couple days, not that that'd be particularly rational.

2894. Gern Blanston Posted: July 21, 2012 at 01:36 PM (#4188708)

There's no such thing as bad publicity...

This would seem to test that premise.

2895. Monty Posted: July 21, 2012 at 01:45 PM (#4188709)

"I want to #### my daughter and I wrote several books about it." - Robert A. Heinlein

He didn't have a daughter. And at least one of those books (To Sail Beyond the Sunset) was about wanting to #### his mother.

Wait, that rousing defense didn't go the way I was planning.

2896. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 21, 2012 at 01:53 PM (#4188713)

Joe, with respect, your scenario in #2885 is a movie scenario. It's like, "what if John McClane had been on campus that day?" But these events occur in a wider everyday context that you're not taking into account.

My scenario has nothing to do with John McClane. Responsible gun owners intervene in criminal acts all the time. We don't hear about it, because "People Not Killed" or "Car Not Stolen" don't make for great front-page headlines.

2897. Greg (U)K Posted: July 21, 2012 at 01:55 PM (#4188714)

"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." — Robert A. Heinlein

Stuart Carroll has written a couple books on the interesting tension between polite manners and violence in early modern France. I suppose the "arms" are different, but a polite society isn't necessarily a safe one.

2898. DA Baracus is gritty and hits with RISP Posted: July 21, 2012 at 01:57 PM (#4188715)

We have a new leader in the clubhouse for craziest response. I would like to think this is trolling.

Colorado Batman shooting shows obvious signs of being staged

2899. CrosbyBird Posted: July 21, 2012 at 02:07 PM (#4188716)

Armed citizens don't just materialize in a nicely-staged tactical relationship to a crazed shooter. They must carry weapons all the time (as the Villahermosa essay I linked to suggests); they must be continuously alert for the likelihood that someone will, in a fit of anger or a bit of calculated villainy, overpower them and take their gun. They must be in good mental health, stable, undistracted. They must take on the responsibility of being shot (by villain or by cops), deciding to kill, shooting the wrong person. They must train continually, and they must go out every day to work with the assumption that they will have to use their weapon – in other words, they must be para-cops, and a bunch of unofficial, unsupervised para-cops running around do not make life safer; they just increase the possibility for something going very wrong.

The best argument in favor of concealed carry freedom is the preventative aspect, and I think the above (while quite reasonable) ignores that. When a criminal knows that any potential victim or bystander might be (or is) carrying a gun, it enters the risk-reward calculation of a potential violent act. There is some deterrence here (we see that people are less likely to mug a police officer than a civilian, for example). There is some negative correlation between gun-related crimes and concealed carry freedom as well. I'm not suggesting that this deterrence is enough, on its own, to decide the issue, but it should enter the discussion. By the time you get to "how would a gun help once the guy starts firing," you've already skipped right over that.

I have never fired a gun in my life, and since I live in Manhattan, it would be extraordinarily difficult for me to even get a regular carry permit, let alone a concealed carry permit. I think that I may eventually go to a firing range simply to get the experience of using a gun, but it has never been a priority for me so it hasn't happened yet. I feel the same way about driving a motorcycle: it's just something I'd like to know how to do even if I have little interest in actually owning one.

Still, I think that there is a Constitutional right to gun ownership, and I think that people should be able to own, maintain, and carry guns if they so choose. I have no problem with identification/registration laws, based on the lethality of guns (in many ways, I think guns should regulated in a manner similar to cars: prove competence in use, general understanding of the dangers, obtain a license that must be periodically renewed, and register your guns with a local agency).

I also think there is something to the idea of an armed populace being more capable of resisting a tyrannical government (not that ours is, but with enough people aligned in thought, it could be). A group of untrained civilians with handguns will obviously be outmatched by trained police and soldiers, but they are in a position to do enough damage to be a discouraging factor.

2900. DA Baracus is gritty and hits with RISP Posted: July 21, 2012 at 02:15 PM (#4188721)

The best argument in favor of concealed carry freedom is the preventative aspect, and I think the above (while quite reasonable) ignores that. When a criminal knows that any potential victim or bystander might be (or is) carrying a gun, it enters the risk-reward calculation of a potential violent act.

James Holmes decided it was worth the risk. He expected to be shot at. He was covered in bulletproof clothing. So clearly that wasn't going to deter him.

Page 29 of 41 pages ‹ First < 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 > Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Monday, July 02, 2012

OT-P: July: Obamacare Decision as Baseball: the Runner is Safe, so Now What?

Reader Comments and Retorts

BBTF Partner

Bookmarks

Hot Topics