Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Sunday, December 02, 2012

OTP December 2012 - Pushing G.O.P. to Negotiate, Obama Ends Giving In

Mr. Obama, scarred by failed negotiations in his first term and emboldened by a clear if close election to a second, has emerged as a different kind of negotiator in the past week or two, sticking to the liberal line and frustrating Republicans on the other side of the bargaining table.

Bitter Mouse Posted: December 02, 2012 at 11:15 PM | 6172 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: politics

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 39 of 62 pages ‹ First  < 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 >  Last ›
   3801. Forsch 10 From Navarone (Dayn) Posted: December 19, 2012 at 04:42 AM (#4328307)
Not public, but it was also a "gun-free" zone, as the shooter's fellow military members were unarmed in the area in which the shootings occurred.

The "public" part is hardly relevant, but if the second part is true, then fair enough. Although I'd be curious to know in what proximity armed personnel were stationed. The point is that I can't imagine that universal open-/concealed-carry would lead to an environment better equipped to abate a spree shooting than what was in place at Ft. Hood.

(Re-posted in the service of flipping.)
   3802. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: December 19, 2012 at 04:55 AM (#4328310)
I am going to say that was never true. Kids have been moved along in schools since they were invented.

Yeah, you can only really hold a kid back one, maybe two years. You can't just hold them back every year, until you get a 14 year old going through classes with a group of 8 year olds.
I believe this is not generally true. Kids who would end up three years back are typically channeled out of mainstream public schools. If a 14 year old can't handle school work that even not very bright 12 year olds can manage to squeak past, it's unusual for her school to dump a student that overmatched into the next grade.

Legislation needs two sides with mutual trust and neither Republicans nor Democrats as of now have given the opposing party any reason whatsoever to trust them at all.


Completely laughable. The GOP damaged the country's credit rating for political gain; it raised the filibuster to performance art levels; it has been singularly intransigent, and was specific, that wrecking Obama's presidency was more important than acting in the country's best interests. Nothing comparable has occurred on the Dem's side, and yet you'd have us believe that, really, both sides are equally at fault. What a joke.

In the pantheon of crazy, I like the magic platinum coin idea better.

Not that the whole reading for comprehension thing is necessarily easy, but that was a thought experiment, devised to imagine ways a GOP led impasse might be sidestepped. Must be tough, making sense of the world. After it was passed around a while it took on "you know, that might actually BE smarter than letting some teapers hold the entire country hostage". Which is a comment on the debt ceiling nonsense, and not on the thought experiment that laid the nonsense bare.

What the platinum-coin option really shows is how odd the debt ceiling is. It’s an artificial obstacle to the government paying for spending it has already approved and for making interest payments on debt it has already issued. The debt ceiling isn’t an economic limit on spending; it’s a legal one. And maybe that, not the trillion-dollar coin, is the real joke.

***

FTFA linked to upthread:

No, something stinks here. The lack of eye witnesses of the shooter confirming the single shooter account is BLARINGLY absent. The reports of a second shooter in the woods has suddenly disappeared. The reporters are not grilling the one and only witness we know of- this little boy....

Friends. I believe there is evidence of more than one shooter. I believe this was a PLANNED event- specifically to get the UN Small Arms Treaty signed. The father of the shooter is Peter Lanza, rumored to be scheduled to testify on the international LIBOR scandal....

I believe our GOVERNMENT shot those kids and teachers and used Adam Lanza and his family to pull it off.


I can't wait until we're treated to more radnom comments like, "how can you blame gun owners for being paranoid?" After all, our "GOVERNMENT" is willing to kill a bunch of children in order to get a U.N. Treaty passed... As for those reporter's contemptible unwillingness to grill a six year old, what can you expect from the lamestream media?
   3803. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: December 19, 2012 at 09:52 AM (#4328364)
The dolt who said that a person who was shot multiple times in the face was a victim "only in the most technical sense" and then disputed the idea that a person who killed kindergartners was "deranged" thinks someone else should "slither away in embarrassment." Good times.


You're still an ignorant buffoon. Being killed doesn't make you a victim and only a victim. What about people who are executed by the state? Are they victims and only victims? Is that how you would describe them.

She played a role -- likely a significant one -- in this atrocity. Cue the crocodile tears, and rips on the inner city and underclass and teacher's salaries.
   3804. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: December 19, 2012 at 09:53 AM (#4328366)
... and yes, your railing against teacher salaries in the face of the Newtown teachers' heroism and bravery was an abject, buffoonish embarrassment.
   3805. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: December 19, 2012 at 09:55 AM (#4328370)
It's *supposed* to be hard to dislodge rights.


Gun "rights" aren't "rights" in the modern sense, as are the right to free speech and freedom of religion. They're an unfortunate anachronism in our Constitution, intended for an entirely different time.
   3806. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: December 19, 2012 at 09:59 AM (#4328373)
There's simply no real-world scenario in which a U.S. citizen would have reason to "bear" poison gas or tactical nuclear weapons on U.S. soil, and the fact the NRA and SAF don't argue for such a ludicrous position isn't a "gotcha" in the least.

Of course there is -- self-defense and the right to resist "tyranny." Wouldn't it be easier to resist tyranny if the people had access to their own nuclear weapon?
   3807. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: December 19, 2012 at 10:00 AM (#4328374)
Not public, but it was also a "gun-free" zone,

Ft. Hood was a "gun-free" zone.

Good one, Joe.
   3808. Bitter Mouse Posted: December 19, 2012 at 10:43 AM (#4328404)
For the record I was thinking about commending the NRA for finally saying something but I read their release and it is content free. I am not criticizing, but I am not willing to withdraw my accusation of cowardice either - especially since their big announcement is scheduled for what might be one of the best days in the year to hide a press release.

Friday, when Christmas in the next Tuesday. Friday is the classic dump day, and Christmas on Tuesday means the newscycle is going to be full of Christmas stories "Crowds at the local Mall!", "Last minute gift ideas", and so on. Real news shows up again a few days after Christmas, by which point the NRA release will be nearly a week old. So far they are being savvy about it, but that is pretty much the best day possible to say something and have no one care.

---

And for the record it is pretty interesting that TGF and Ray keep very specifically talking about "school shootings" while the liberal brigade are mostly speaking to gun violence in general.

The reason is obvious if you slice up gun violence into small bits like "school shootings" then each section happens much less often and the solution sounds overreaching - 'banning X because of one such shooting a year in country of 300+ million?', while gun violence in total obviously kills many many more each year and brings the discussion to other nations that have successfully curbed gun violence (which they want to avoid at all costs).
---

Joe can you explain to me why Australia's experience is such a mismatch for the US. The nations are pretty good matches in many respects (much more so than most nation pairs). Western style democracies and (former) colonies of the GB with a strong historically based frontier mind set. There is even the aboriginal people genocide angle working, and many other similarities.

I am not clear specifically why Australia is not a large enough test case. The US is one of the most populous countries in the world, there are not many out there with 300+ million people - and a scale of 1/14 (Australia is roughly 1/14th the pop of the US) is much larger than most proof of concepts/trial runs.

Especially since you and others keep talking about how ban laws in Chicago or DC don't work and that is proof that such laws don't work (when they have fewer people than Australia and both are surrounded by places an easy car ride away where getting guns is easy, thus negating the impact of such laws - which would not be the case in nation wide laws).
   3809. hokieneer Posted: December 19, 2012 at 10:48 AM (#4328412)
Ft. Hood was a "gun-free" zone.


I'm pretty sure all (most) army bases are "gun free" in the sense the average soldier is not walking around packing. I believe the MPs are armed to guard entries/exits, but the general population is not armed.

My cousin was stationed at ft. hood during the shooting, thankfully he was not on the base at the time, and I remember having this conversation with him years ago. I seem to remember him saying most of the firearms are in "the armory", with only a few MPs that open/conceal carry.


EDIT of course the rules differ from base to base, and are also applied differently depending on service firearm vs. personal firearm.
   3810. The Good Face Posted: December 19, 2012 at 10:54 AM (#4328421)
2) People treat mass shootings differently than lightening strikes because mass shootings aren't random acts of nature. Good lord. How obvious is that?


As Ray already pointed out, people killing other people is perfectly natural. Human violence is not an element of the spirit world, separate and distinct from nature.

Screw remaining calm about Newtown. I know the ones desiring calm have an agenda, but emotion is always the motive behind action. Reason and logic are only tools that get you where you want to go. They should be put to use, but only with your end goal in mind.


The emotional trauma caused by the atrocity is a proper factor in any bloodless, rational consideration of risk, right, and reward.


This is the site for "the thinking fan"? You should be very careful exalting passion over reason; the world is full of people with passionate and irrational beliefs. I think you'd find yourself very unhappy if they became further empowered.
   3811. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: December 19, 2012 at 10:57 AM (#4328425)
Unsurprisingly, Nate Silver shows the link between gun ownership and party identity, which has been escalating dramatically over the past 40 years:

Party Identity in a Gun Cabinet

An American child grows up in a married household in the suburbs. What are the chances that his family keeps a gun in their home?

The probability is considerably higher than residents of New York and other big cities might expect: about 40 percent of married households reported having a gun in their home, according to the exit poll conducted during the 2008 presidential election.

But the odds vary significantly based on the political identity of the child’s parents. If they identify as Democratic voters, the chances are only about one in four, or 25 percent, that they have a gun in their home. But the chances are more than twice that, almost 60 percent, if they are Republicans....

In 1973, about 55 percent of Republicans reported having a gun in their household against 45 percent of Democrats, according to the General Social Survey, a biennial poll of American adults.

Gun ownership has declined over the past 40 years — but almost all of the decrease has come from Democrats. By 2010, according to the General Social Survey, the gun ownership rate among adults that identified as Democrats had fallen to 22 percent. It remained at about 50 percent among Republican adults....

White voters were substantially more likely to own guns than Hispanics or blacks. But white Republicans were more likely to own guns than white Democrats.

And based on demographic inertia, the differences seem likely to grow over time.

About 35 percent of Democratic voters age 65 and older reported having a gun in their home, against about 25 percent of those ages 18 to 29. But gun ownership rates bore little relationship to age among Republican voters, and were constant at about 55 percent among all age groups. That might suggest that gun ownership will continue to decline among Democrats while holding steady among Republicans, further increasing the partisan gap....

In urban areas, 40 percent of Republican voters said they had a gun in their home, while 20 percent of Democrats did.

The differences are most apparent in suburban areas. There, 58 percent of Republican voters said there was a gun in their household, against just 27 percent of Democrats.

Having school-age children in the household did not significantly affect gun ownership rates, either positively or negatively. A majority of Republican-voting parents of minor children had a gun in their home, while only about one in four Democratic-voting parents did.

In other respects, the profile of gun owners defies some of the stereotypes that urban liberals might assign to them. For example, despite President Obama’s comments in 2008 about voters who “cling to guns and religion,” the two qualities are not strongly correlated. Slightly more than 40 percent of voters who said they attended church weekly or more often reported having a gun in their home, about the same percentage as among those who attend religious services just a few times a month or a few times a year. And gun ownership rates are highest among the middle class, rather than the poor. Households making $50,000 to $100,000 per year were slightly more likely to own guns than those that made a little bit less or a little more. (However, gun ownership rates are inversely correlated with educational attainment.)...

It might seem strange that ownership of a single household object is so strongly tied to voting behavior and broader political attitudes in America. But America is an outlier relative to other industrialized nations in its gun ownership rates. Whatever makes this country so different from the rest of the world must surely be reflected in the differences in how Democrats and Republicans see the nation.


The charts within the article break it down in many different ways, but the most persistent gap is between the two parties.
   3812. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: December 19, 2012 at 10:59 AM (#4328426)
You should be very careful exalting passion over reason;

I'm not. I'm merely saying the emotional trauma caused by an event is a factor in a rational consideration of how best to prevent such an event, and the steps to be taken to do so. It's entirely rational to conclude that the steps taken to prevent the murder of six-year-olds in school should be different than, say, preventing the murder of serial child molesters in prison. Why? Because the former is far more emotionally searing than the latter.

I assume you see the difference now, since it's quite obvious.
   3813. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: December 19, 2012 at 11:02 AM (#4328428)
Completely laughable. The GOP damaged the country's credit rating for political gain; it raised the filibuster to performance art levels; it has been singularly intransigent, and was specific, that wrecking Obama's presidency was more important than acting in the country's best interests. Nothing comparable has occurred on the Dem's side, and yet you'd have us believe that, really, both sides are equally at fault. What a joke.


That's a real great way to win an argument you've got there Jack, that is a small step below this - "YOUR SIDE IS EVIL, YOU ARE IN IT ONLY FOR YOUR OWN PERSONAL GAIN! MY SIDE IS RIGHT! GO CRAWL INTO A GUTTER AND DIE!"

   3814. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: December 19, 2012 at 11:19 AM (#4328450)
That's a real great way to win an argument you've got there


It's a hell of a lot better than your "argument," you don't really have a response to what he said, do you?
   3815. spike Posted: December 19, 2012 at 11:20 AM (#4328452)
truth hurts, apparently.
   3816. Bitter Mouse Posted: December 19, 2012 at 11:22 AM (#4328455)
That's a real great way to win an argument you've got there Jack, that is a small step below this - "YOUR SIDE IS EVIL, YOU ARE IN IT ONLY FOR YOUR OWN PERSONAL GAIN! MY SIDE IS RIGHT! GO CRAWL INTO A GUTTER AND DIE!"


So are Liberals allowed to speak about conservatives? Are both sides automatically equal no matter what they do? Is it never the case that one side is right and another wrong? Is the goal commity and bipartisanship, or is the goal governing?

Because what part of what he said was incorrect? Or is it the tone you are complaining about? Should these things only be discussed in quiet rooms?

EDIT: Cokes as needed.
   3817. The Good Face Posted: December 19, 2012 at 11:23 AM (#4328456)
It's entirely rational to conclude that the steps taken to prevent the murder of six-year-olds in school should be different than, say, preventing the murder of serial child molesters in prison. Why? Because the former is far more emotionally searing than the latter.

I assume you see the difference now, since it's quite obvious.


It's not obvious at all since your chosen example makes no sense. The steps taken would be different because the situations differ, not because of the "emotional searing" factor. Six-year old children in schools face different threats than imprisoned child molesters. They have different capabilities, both intellectual and physical. Their import and value to society is different from that of imprisoned child molesters.

Would most people be more upset to learn that a random six-year old was murdered as opposed to a convicted child molester? Almost certainly. But there are rational reasons underpinning those emotions.
   3818. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: December 19, 2012 at 11:26 AM (#4328463)

Though a number of NRA-backed Democrats have said they’d be open to reviewing gun control laws, among House Republicans it’s a different story.

Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., was recently elected chair of the House Judiciary Committee for the next session of Congress, making him the highest ranked Republican with control over regulating firearms. Goodlatte said Tuesday that he doesn’t support implementing tougher gun laws.

“We’re going to take a look at what happened there and what can be done to help avoid it in the future, but gun control is not going to be something that I would support,” Goodlatte told Roll Call.

...

In the Senate, though some Republicans have said they’d at least be open to a conversation about gun laws, others have balked. Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., told the Kansas City Star that owning guns “is an important right, and it is in the Constitution. These laws are not going to change in the near future.”

And Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., said that he would not support an assault weapons ban, which Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has said she will introduce in the new session.

“That’s not going to answer the question. You’ve got to find out who has access to those guns, especially where people are irrational, deranged and so forth. How do you define assault weapon? It’s very difficult,” Shelby told Politico. “[An assault ban] won’t fix it. We’ve seen that movie before.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., also told Politico that a ban on assault weapons “doesn’t make sense to me.”

“The worst thing we can do is create false sense of security. Every bad event in the world can’t be fixed by government action,” he said. “The question for me is how to prevent mass murder?”
   3819. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: December 19, 2012 at 11:30 AM (#4328466)
But there are rational reasons underpinning those emotions.

Of course, and of course what you said is accurate.

Which leaves us in the position of wondering what it is you're beefing about. Whatever's going to happen isn't going to happen until the emotions of the atrocity have died down, but if there are rational reasons behind the emotions, what's the problem with making new gun policy tomorrow?
   3820. Bitter Mouse Posted: December 19, 2012 at 11:30 AM (#4328467)
The worst thing we can do is create false sense of security.


That is the quote I find most ... well I guess amusing is not the right word. Without trying I can think of dozens of things worse than creating a "false sense of security" it is just a ridiculous thing to say.
   3821. Bitter Mouse Posted: December 19, 2012 at 11:33 AM (#4328468)
Good policy usually requires rationality. Getting to good policy requires politics. Politics often requires/uses emotions and emotional events to pass policy (both good and bad).

Conflating policy with politics is a running theme on this thread, but they are different animals.
   3822. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: December 19, 2012 at 11:35 AM (#4328470)
An interesting overview of the 1927 Bath schoolhouse massacre


The recent shootings in Newtown, Conn., have led many people to characterize school violence as a modern affliction, a byproduct of our national obsession with guns and media violence. But the deadliest school-related massacre in American history happened in 1927, at an elementary school in Bath, Mich. A school board member named Andrew Kehoe, upset over a burdensome property tax, wired the building with dynamite and set it off in the morning of May 18. Kehoe’s actions killed 45 people, 38 of whom were children.

At the time, Bath was a small farm community with under 300 residents. The town had “an elevator, a little drugstore, and you knew everybody within 20 miles,” as one survivor of the attack recalled in 2009. Perhaps its most modern feature was the Bath Consolidated School, which opened its doors in 1922 and brought all the region’s students under one roof. In The Bath School Disaster, published in 1927 and available online here, Kehoe’s neighbor, Monty J. Ellsworth, noted that the consolidated school was markedly superior to the “common country school” that preceded it. It was also more expensive, and the township raised property taxes in order to repay the school’s bonds.

This upset Andrew Kehoe. A local farmer with training as an electrical engineer, he was a severe, stubborn man fond of drastic solutions to small problems; Ellsworth writes that Kehoe once shot a noisy dog and killed his own horse because it was lazy. In an article from May 20, 1927, the New York Times noted that Kehoe “was known through the countryside as a ‘dynamite farmer’. Neighbors detailed how he was continually setting off blasts on his farm, blowing up stumps and rocks.”

Kehoe really hated taxes, and joined the school board to argue against them. The Times reported that, as a board member, he “appeared to have a tax mania and fought the expenditure or money for the most necessary equipment.” In 1926, he ran for town clerk, but his obstructionist reputation preceded him, and he was defeated. His loss in that race, coupled with the news that his farm was facing foreclosure, appears to have triggered his plan.


Slate
   3823. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: December 19, 2012 at 11:37 AM (#4328471)
It's a hell of a lot better than your "argument," you don't really have a response to what he said, do you?


I think what Jack said will immediately shut down any productive discussions with the 'other' side. If democrats take no ownership in the ######## the country is in and blame it all on the GOP nothing will get better. Some of the conservative ideologies expressed by members of the GOP are ridiculous, racist, sexist, and just plain dumb. I am a staunch democrat because of social issues, but I don't think members of either side really give two shits about the direction of the entire country when it comes to the economy - both sides are simply out for themselves and how they can get reelected and make money for themselves. Cry cry cry about spending and then approve pork for their communities. Bash the other side for crazy fiscal policies and then refuse to reduce funding for their own state. Both sides do it, and if one side blames the other then nothing gets done and we end up in the laughable situation we are in. If we continue to listen to the batshit insane extremes of both parties we are ######. One of the first moves away from that is to acknowledge joint ownership of the mess and stop with the over the top finger pointing.

I said the exact same thing upthread about gun controls, if you bash the other side and claim abject moral superiority nothing happens. The other side simply digs in and refuses to communicate beyond reiterating your stance that the 'other' side sucks.


Because what part of what he said was incorrect?

I am not going to give a definite answer because I do not think there is one. Two people can look at the same thing and blame the other side, and they will both think they are right.

Or is it the tone you are complaining about?

Yes. 100% this.

Should these things only be discussed in quiet rooms?

No, but when was the last time you won an argument by telling the other person it's all their fault and that their beliefs are in fact so ridiculous as to be laughable?
   3824. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: December 19, 2012 at 11:39 AM (#4328473)
Good policy usually requires rationality. Getting to good policy requires politics. Politics often requires/uses emotions and emotional events to pass policy (both good and bad).

Conflating policy with politics is a running theme on this thread, but they are different animals.


I can't remember if TGF said it upthread or not, but it's fair (if not imperative) to conclude that our response to 9/11 was too emotional. I don't disagree with the essence of what he's saying, I just don't think it applies here, and the risk/reward/right calculus is significantly different here. I consider the murdered mother's actions to have been highly reckless, and beyond the scope of her consitutional rights under current law. I'd like to eliminate such reckless behavior.
   3825. Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama Posted: December 19, 2012 at 11:56 AM (#4328489)
An interesting overview of the 1927 Bath schoolhouse massacre

Mike Huckabee blames it on teaching evolution
   3826. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: December 19, 2012 at 12:00 PM (#4328494)
Mike Huckabee blames it on teaching evolution


And lettin' dames vote!
   3827. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 19, 2012 at 12:10 PM (#4328510)
... and yes, your railing against teacher salaries in the face of the Newtown teachers' heroism and bravery was an abject, buffoonish embarrassment.

Pointing out that Chicago teachers make almost $80,000 plus benefits, in a discussion that was only tangentially related to Newtown, now counts as "railing against teacher salaries"?

Ft. Hood was a "gun-free" zone.

Good one, Joe.

Yes, the area in which the Fort Hood shootings occurred was a "gun-free zone." Are you seriously claiming Hasan killed 13 people and wounded 29 more in a room full of armed military members?
   3828. spike Posted: December 19, 2012 at 12:12 PM (#4328511)
Newt say it's the anti religious secular bureaucracy and secular judiciary.

Newt. Words fail. "What a stupid person thinks a smart guy sounds like" is pretty close though.
   3829. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: December 19, 2012 at 12:12 PM (#4328512)
Yes, the area in which the Fort Hood shootings occurred was a "gun-free zone." Are you seriously claiming Hasan killed 13 people and wounded 29 more in a room full of armed military members?


There are MP's in the area with weapons, correct?
   3830. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 19, 2012 at 12:15 PM (#4328514)
There are MP's in the area with weapons, correct?

Apparently not many, or not nearby, given the 13 dead and 29 wounded.

Regardless, schools with armed police officers are still considered "gun-free zones."
   3831. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: December 19, 2012 at 12:17 PM (#4328515)
Yes, the area in which the Fort Hood shootings occurred was a "gun-free zone." Are you seriously claiming Hasan killed 13 people and wounded 29 more in a room full of armed military members?

If all that's necessary for a place to be a "gun free zone" is that no one within 12 feet (or in the same room) has a gun than 99.99999999% of the country is and will always be a gun-free zone. Even if every school has a teacher packing heat, the teacher will be far away from many potential spree killing sites. Unless every teacher in every classroom is packing heat, the school will be a gun free zone, and even then the bathrooms will be gun free zones if no one's packing heat in there.

It's an overbroad term if Ft. Hood is deemed "gun free."

More fundamentally, I also dissent from the idea that the relative level of return firepower is a factor considered by these spree killers, who usually wind up just killing themselves as intended, anyway. You've already insisted that the Newtown killer was "mentally deranged" -- so why would he worry about who in the school had guns?

   3832. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: December 19, 2012 at 12:19 PM (#4328516)
There are MP's in the area with weapons, correct?


It was not MP's who responded and subdued Hasan, it was the base's DACP: Department of the Army Civilian Police


At many installations, Department of Army Civilian Police officers augment military police personnel. Some smaller installations have only civilian police present. The officer can expect to perform a variety of security and law enforcement roles.

One major function of a Department of the Army Civilian Police officer is to conduct force protection duties. This often takes the form of ensuring that only authorized personnel access the installation by performing identification checks at fixed entry control points (gates). Department of Army Civilian Police officers may also stand fixed posts at higher security areas within the confines of the installation, such as buildings containing classified material or around parked aircraft. Officers at fixed posts ensure that all entry requirements have been met before allowing an individual to proceed.

Department of the Army Civilian Police officers also conduct security and law enforcement patrols within the installation. Officers patrol the installation and check that physical security measures such as fences and lighting are in good working order. An officer can conduct traffic stops for motor vehicle violations. Each base adopts the surrounding state's motor vehicle laws under the Assimilative Crimes Act (see Federal Jurisdiction). There are two types of citations that may be issued: the DD Form 1408 Armed Forces Traffic Ticket, and the DD Form 1805 Violation Notice. The type of citation(s) issued are authorized at the local command level. The DD Form 1408 does not have any monetary fines associated with it. The DD Form 1805 Violation Notice does however establish fines and a hearing system through the U.S. Magistrate. Department of the Army Civilian Police officers and military police personnel respond to all calls for law enforcement assistance that take place within the installation. If the crime is found to be a major felony, then the matter is generally referred to the special agents of the applicable military investigative agency (NCIS, CID, OSI, FBI, etc.).


It was a DACP Sergeant, Mark Todd, that shot and then handcuffed Hasan (another DACP officer also responded and was wounded in an exchange of gunfire with Hasan).
   3833. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 19, 2012 at 12:21 PM (#4328517)
If all that's necessary for a place to be a "gun free zone" is that no one within 12 feet (or in the same room) has a gun than 99.99999999% of the country is and will always be a gun-free zone.

Then why the urgent need for additional gun control?

More fundamentally, I also dissent from the idea that the relative level of return firepower is a factor considered by these spree killers, who usually wind up just killing themselves as intended, anyway. You've already insisted that the Newtown killer was "mentally deranged" -- so why would he worry about who in the school had guns?

I guess it's just a coincidence that all but one public mass killing since the 1970s occurred in a "gun-free zone."
   3834. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: December 19, 2012 at 12:26 PM (#4328522)
Then why the urgent need for additional gun control?

To prevent people from taking advantage of all the gun-free zones, as the Newtown killer did.


I guess it's just a coincidence that all but one public mass killing since the 1970s occurred in a "gun-free zone."


It's exactly what you'd expect statisticallly, given the fact that 99%+ of the country is and will always be a "gun-free zone." So, no, I wouldn't call it a coincidence.

   3835. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: December 19, 2012 at 12:27 PM (#4328523)

The rules for carrying weapons on an Army post are standard throughout all bases, service officials said. The only personnel allowed to openly display weapons on the base are military police, said Lt. Col. Nathan Banks, an Army spokesman.

Service weapons are checked daily and are usually only allowed to be removed from an arms room for training on a range or maintenance. Personal weapons must be kept locked and registered with the base provost marshal. The military police keep a record of all of the weapons on a base, Army officials said.

Link
   3836. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 19, 2012 at 12:27 PM (#4328524)
To prevent people from taking advantage of all the gun-free zones, as the Newport killer did.

LOL.

It's exactly what you'd expect statisticallly, given the fact that 99%+ of the country is and will always be a "gun-free zone." So, no, I wouldn't call it a coincidence.

I prefer to use the real-world definition of a "gun-free zone," not your trumped-up definition.
   3837. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: December 19, 2012 at 12:28 PM (#4328525)
I read a newish book a couple of years ago on the Bath massacre. If only God had been in the schools back in '27, it never would've happened.

Mike Huckabee's continued existence without (AFAIK) coming down with syphilis or leprosy or something comparable is one of the best arguments I know of for there being no supreme being.
   3838. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: December 19, 2012 at 12:29 PM (#4328528)
I prefer to use the real-world definition of a "gun-free zone," not your trumped-up definition.

I'm using your definition, which holds Fort Hood to have been a gun-free zone.
   3839. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 19, 2012 at 12:30 PM (#4328531)
I'm using your definition, which holds Fort Hood to have been a gun-free zone.

Fort Hood was a gun-free zone, while "99.99999999% of the country" (#3831) is not a gun-free zone.
   3840. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: December 19, 2012 at 12:33 PM (#4328534)
Fort Hood was a gun-free zone; "99.99999999%" of the country is not a gun-free zone.

How so? If what's required to not be a gun-free zone is immediate access to usable firearms -- as it must be for Ft. Hood to be "gun-free" -- then 99%+ of the country is gun free. The second story of a house with an arsenal in the basement is "gun free" when all the residents are upstairs, under your definition..

   3841. OCF Posted: December 19, 2012 at 12:38 PM (#4328536)
It's already true that the police in the U.S. shoot and kill a lot of people. Some of them - too many of them - are shot in error. Do we really want to convince all of the policemen that just about everyone is packing?
   3842. The Chronicles of Reddick Posted: December 19, 2012 at 12:39 PM (#4328537)
Barne & Noble convoluted defense

All I know is that I am going to be pretty upset if all the Barnes & Nobles go out of business and we are stuck with Wallmart and Target as our bricks and motar stores.
   3843. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 19, 2012 at 12:39 PM (#4328538)
How so? If what's required to not be a gun-free zone is immediate access to usable firearms -- as it must be for Ft. Hood to be "gun-free" -- then 99%+ of the country is gun free. The second story of a house with an arsenal in the basement is "gun free" when all the residents are upstairs, under your definition..

This is becoming idiotic. The military members at Fort Hood were expressly forbidden to possess firearms in the area of Fort Hood in which Hasan killed 13 and wounded 29. There is no such prohibition on the possession of firearms that covers "99.99999999% of the country."
   3844. Ron J2 Posted: December 19, 2012 at 12:41 PM (#4328542)
Mouse, I don't see the NRA's actions as cowardly. I think it's important that they understand precisely what they're going to be responding to.
   3845. Greg K Posted: December 19, 2012 at 12:41 PM (#4328544)

How so? If what's required to not be a gun-free zone is immediate access to usable firearms -- as it must be for Ft. Hood to be "gun-free" -- then 99%+ of the country is gun free. The second story of a house with an arsenal in the basement is "gun free" when all the residents are upstairs, under your definition..

I could be wrong, but I think Joe is using "gun-free" to mean places where people are not allowed to carry guns, rather than access to guns. Therefore my house isn't a "gun-free" zone even though I don't own a gun, because I could have a gun.

As to the connection with mass-shootings, I'm not sure if the killers choose them because they are gun-free so much as they choose them because they are places where a large group of people are assembled, and those quite often happen to be "gun-free" zones (probably because people think guns + large groups of people = potential for something bad).
   3846. Greg K Posted: December 19, 2012 at 12:47 PM (#4328549)
By the way, the only two political-posting friends I have on facebook are both pretty ardent conspiracy guys so the only updates I'm reading on my feed are LIBOR related.

I'm too lazy to look into it myself, but what's up with this "CBS reported a second shooter!" business? I'm assuming it's a product of the early minutes of the coverage when no one seemed to know what the hell was going on and reported all sorts of unsubstantiated things.
   3847. GregD Posted: December 19, 2012 at 12:50 PM (#4328553)
Hate to take this back to Congress, but it sounds like Boehner's clever if perhaps too-clever-by-half plan to have Republicans limit the tax increase to income over $1 million, and thereby try to break the Senate Democrats' solid front, collapsed in the face of backlash from his own party. Even if he agrees to a deal, how many people can he keep with him? I assume the combination of Speaker's election and the automatic tax raises in January will give him room to maneuver, but even then can he deliver a majority of his caucus? Can he survive a bill with backing from, say, 90 Republicans and the Democrats, and avoid getting ousted?
   3848. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: December 19, 2012 at 12:54 PM (#4328558)
I could be wrong, but I think Joe is using "gun-free" to mean places where people are not allowed to carry guns, rather than access to guns.

I know, and I'm saying it doesn't matter whether guns are "forbidden" or "not immediately available." Guns showed up at the Ft. Hood massacre site to counter the killer, anyway, so you have to warp the definitions of "area" and "zone" to make the dubious point. Guns certainly weren't "forbidden" at Ft. Hood.



   3849. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: December 19, 2012 at 12:55 PM (#4328559)
The NRA distributes the talking points; Kehoskie shows back up arguing the talking points to the letter. The man could be replaced with a simple bot.
   3850. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: December 19, 2012 at 12:56 PM (#4328560)
People who think the answer to gun violence is the threat of more gun violence are idiots.
   3851. zonk Posted: December 19, 2012 at 12:57 PM (#4328561)
Barne & Noble convoluted defense

All I know is that I am going to be pretty upset if all the Barnes & Nobles go out of business and we are stuck with Wallmart and Target as our bricks and motar stores.


Nothing against B&N, but I've pretty much ceased shopping there over the last year or so...

For one thing, I really have fallen in love with my kindle (and I've still got the old 1st gen that basically does nothing but let you read ebooks). If I just want to read something, it's incredibly convenient, incredibly handy to browse and shop, etc.

I have significantly increased my traffic to local/independent booksellers.... I don't think I've become a 'book snob' or the sort that wants a display book shelf, but I do have to admit that I've developed a real appreciation for finely bound or illustrated editions of titles I like. I just recently picked up a very nice two volume War & Peace set with absolutely beautiful drawings - and while I've got both an old dog-eared paperback and the ebook, it was/is kind of neat occasionally pulling it off the shelf and reading a few chapters... it just feels... I don't know, more "right".
   3852. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: December 19, 2012 at 12:59 PM (#4328562)
I could be wrong, but I think Joe is using "gun-free" to mean places where people are not allowed to carry guns, rather than access to guns.


Joe's an idiot. We all know that already. If an Army base is "gun-free" because the military requires non-combat situations to leave their weapons in an armory, the phrase "gun-free" makes no sense.

Joe is spinning the coalescing right wing response talking point that argues the only way to prevent gun violence is to turn the nation into a cartoon version of the shoot-em-up "wild west" that Joe thinks was real, because he saw it on TV as a kid.
   3853. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 19, 2012 at 12:59 PM (#4328563)
I know, and I'm saying it doesn't matter whether guns are "forbidden" or "not immediately available." Guns showed up at the Ft. Hood massacre site to counter the killer, anyway,

Yeah, after 13 people were dead and 29 were wounded.

so you have to warp the definitions of "area" and "zone" to make the dubious point. Guns certainly weren't "forbidden" at Ft. Hood.

Utterly idiotic. The people shot by Hasan were expressly forbidden to carry firearms where Hasan launched his attack.

***
The NRA distributes the talking points; Kehoskie shows back up arguing the talking points to the letter. The man could be replaced with a simple bot.

"Shows back up?" When was I gone?
   3854. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: December 19, 2012 at 01:02 PM (#4328570)
Yeah, after 13 people were dead and 29 were wounded.

Well, that's what happens when you permit assault weaponry -- the death tolls rise much higher before the counter-firepower arrives.

The people shot by Hasan were expressly forbidden to carry firearms where Hasan launched his attack.

And again, that's a stupid definition of the terms "zone" and "area." Under that definition, 99%+ of the country is and will always be "gun free."


   3855. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: December 19, 2012 at 01:05 PM (#4328575)
Barnes & Noble convoluted defense

All I know is that I am going to be pretty upset if all the Barnes & Nobles go out of business and we are stuck with Walmart and Target as our bricks and mortar stores.


Long before Amazon started driving B&M stores out of business, Barnes and Noble was driving out independents. This is one of those cases where you've got a serious case being presented by the worst possible advocate (Barnes & Noble), and where the worst theoretical case is being presented by the most consumer-friendly website in the world (Amazon).**

And people like me are a big part of the problem, since we contribute to the vicious circle. I buy books pretty much only online, not so much for the price (though that's a factor) but for the selection. I doubt if 20% of the last 100 books I've bought from Amazon would have been available at the local Barnes & Noble. And since the few remaining used book shops in DC are almost completely worthless, I also buy my used books almost exclusively from abebooks or Amazon.

The problem is, that with my buying habits, I'm hastening the demise of B&M shops, which in turn will eventually leave Amazon with the power to control the market and raise prices pretty much at whim, which to an extent they've already been doing. But it's damned if I do and damned if I don't, and though I still can't figure out which comes first, the chicken or the egg, it might help if the egg (Barnes & Noble's B&M stores) were offering a better product.


**(Next to mine, of course....)

   3856. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 19, 2012 at 01:06 PM (#4328577)
Well, that's what happens when you permit assault weaponry -- the death tolls rise much higher before the counter-firepower arrives.

Huh? No one "permitted" anything. A criminal violated gun regulations at Fort Hood, while 42 people who complied with said regulations were killed or wounded.

And again, that's a stupid definition of the terms "zone" and "area." Under that definition, 99%+ of the country is and will always be "gun free."

And again, you're delusional. Whatever meds you went off, you should get back on.
   3857. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: December 19, 2012 at 01:09 PM (#4328580)
No one "permitted" anything. A criminal violated gun regulations at Fort Hood, while 42 people who complied with said regulations were killed or wounded.

You think assault weapon possession should be permitted, right? Or are you walking that back?
   3858. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: December 19, 2012 at 01:19 PM (#4328590)
And again, you're delusional.

No, simply holding you accountable for your sophistic horseshit, e.g., Ft. Hood being a "gun free zone."
   3859. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: December 19, 2012 at 01:20 PM (#4328591)

   3860. Howie Menckel Posted: December 19, 2012 at 01:21 PM (#4328593)

from 3794:

"I spoke with [economist John] Lott after the Newtown shooting, and... he noted that the Aurora shooter, who killed twelve people earlier this year, had a choice of seven movie theaters that were showing the Batman movie he was obsessed with. All were within a 20-minute drive of his home. The Cinemark Theater the killer ultimately chose wasn’t the closest, but it was the only one that posted signs saying it banned concealed handguns carried by law-abiding individuals. All of the other theaters allowed the approximately 4 percent of Colorado adults who have a concealed-handgun permit to enter with their weapons."

admittedly just playing devil's advocate here, but it did give me a little pause.

   3861. GregD Posted: December 19, 2012 at 01:25 PM (#4328597)
I would be interested in seeing the verification of those details, that this was the closest cinema with that sign, that the cinemas without the sign were within his normal radius, that he had visited those cinemas in the relatively short time in which he lived in the area. It's not inconceivable that a shooter could take this into account, but I'm a little skeptical it can be isolated in this case. Could be wrong.

More to the point, though, if there had been 10 people with guns in that theater, does any one think it would have turned out better? Panicked people shooting in the dark?
   3862. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 19, 2012 at 01:28 PM (#4328599)
You think assault weapon possession should be permitted, right? Or are you walking that back?

How did we get on assault weapons?
   3863. Jay Z Posted: December 19, 2012 at 01:30 PM (#4328602)
I can't remember if TGF said it upthread or not, but it's fair (if not imperative) to conclude that our response to 9/11 was too emotional.


How?

The essential response to 9/11 was to invade... Iraq. Bin Laden was not in Iraq, it was never claimed he was in Iraq. We invaded Iraq for other reasons that turned out to be false.

I am sure there was more sentiment for the Iraq invasion, to "do something", because of 9/11. But Afghanistan was available as well. The Iraq invasion speaks to the powers that be having an agenda that 9/11 provided convenient cover for. The American people had no direct choice in the invasion of Iraq; that was an administration choice.
   3864. Fernigal McGunnigle has become a merry hat Posted: December 19, 2012 at 01:34 PM (#4328605)
I am sure there was more sentiment for the Iraq invasion, to "do something", because of 9/11. But Afghanistan was available as well. The Iraq invasion speaks to the powers that be having an agenda that 9/11 provided convenient cover for. The American people had no direct choice in the invasion of Iraq; that was an administration choice.


9/11 provided the "convenient cover" for Iraq because we as a nation reacted too emotionally to it. If people had had a less emotional reaction to the event then there wouldn't have been that cover and everyone would've seen the Iraq war as a war of choice. You'd think that in that scenario Bush at least would have lost in 2004.

EDIT: And we had already gone into Afghanistan. That should've covered the "do something" imperative.
   3865. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 19, 2012 at 01:36 PM (#4328607)
No, simply holding you accountable for your sophistic horseshit, e.g., Ft. Hood being a "gun free zone."

???

Are you still disputing that the military members at Fort Hood were prohibited from carrying firearms? Or are you claiming it wasn't truly a gun-free zone because someone could have run over to the armory and then unlocked and signed out a gun after Hasan started mowing people down?
   3866. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: December 19, 2012 at 01:40 PM (#4328609)
admittedly just playing devil's advocate here, but it did give me a little pause.


Well, he's still alive and kicking, assuming he ever talks maybe he'll say whether or not it was factor.

Also as 3861 asks we may want to have those details verified, they may not even be accurate-

but I'll note this- the Aurora killer unlike many of these spree killers seemed intent on getting out of this alive- possibly even escaping- so he very well may have sought out a "gun free," whereas a spree killer who doesn't intend to survive may simply be looking for an accessible gathering without regard to whether or not other armed individuals may be present
   3867. hokieneer Posted: December 19, 2012 at 01:42 PM (#4328611)
An interesting overview of the 1927 Bath schoolhouse massacre

Mike Huckabee blames it on teaching evolution


What was the culturally deplorable activity the youth participated in in '27? Don't forget to blame that.
   3868. zonk Posted: December 19, 2012 at 01:46 PM (#4328617)


What was the culturally deplorable activity the youth participated in in '27? Don't forget to blame that.


Rooting for the Yankees?
   3869. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 19, 2012 at 01:48 PM (#4328620)
whereas a spree killer who doesn't intend to survive may simply be looking for an accessible gathering without regard to whether or not other armed individuals may be present

I'd be very surprised if this is true. If these guys wanted to go out in a blaze of glory, at least some of them would attack police stations or military installations rather than schools and shopping malls and movie theaters. These guys know that killing one or two people won't get them on the national news, but killing 10 or 20 or 30 will make them infamous. It's not a coincidence that nearly 100 percent of public mass shootings have occurred in places where the victims would be disarmed if not defenseless.
   3870. Tripon Posted: December 19, 2012 at 01:48 PM (#4328621)

What was the culturally deplorable activity the youth participated in in '27? Don't forget to blame that.


Apprently having their school constructed by school bonds.

This #### never stopped.
   3871. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: December 19, 2012 at 01:50 PM (#4328622)
How did we get on assault weapons?

I thought it was what we were talking about. You're suggesting that the way to stop assault weapon deaths is to arm more people and reduce the number of "gun-free zones." I'm suggesting that it's to ban possession of assault weapons by civilians (and to buy back and/or confiscate the ones currently in civilian hands.)

Even if the Fort Hood area hadn't been "gun free," the guy still would have been able to kill some people before being subdued -- and that assumes he could have been successfully subdued. I want to stop those "pre-subdued" deaths, too.
   3872. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: December 19, 2012 at 01:56 PM (#4328628)
These guys know that killing one or two people won't get them on the national news, but killing 10 or 20 or 30 will make them infamous.

That's another reason to ban assault weapons -- some of these people might not even bother, if their death toll can only be 3 or 4 people.
   3873. The Good Face Posted: December 19, 2012 at 01:58 PM (#4328631)
Yeah, after 13 people were dead and 29 were wounded.

Well, that's what happens when you permit assault weaponry -- the death tolls rise much higher before the counter-firepower arrives.


As a factual matter, the Ft. Hood killings were done exclusively with a FN Five-seven pistol. It's commonly used as a service weapon by police or military, and is not an "assault weapon".
   3874. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 19, 2012 at 02:03 PM (#4328636)
I thought it was what we were talking about. You're suggesting that the way to stop assault weapon deaths is to arm more people and reduce the number of "gun-free zones." I'm suggesting that it's to ban possession of assault weapons by civilians (and to buy back and/or confiscate the ones currently in civilian hands.)

Which assault weapons were used in the Fort Hood shootings?

As for confiscation, if it's supposedly all but impossible to deport 12 million illegal immigrants who walk around in public, it would be many orders of magnitude more difficult to confiscate the ~45 million semiautomatic weapons in American homes.
   3875. The Chronicles of Reddick Posted: December 19, 2012 at 02:03 PM (#4328637)
Gun deaths to outstrip driving fatalities by 2015

This is a small blurb in Yahoo this morning. Looks like there are arguments for both sides in here.
   3876. Jim Wisinski Posted: December 19, 2012 at 02:05 PM (#4328639)
The problem is, that with my buying habits, I'm hastening the demise of B&M shops, which in turn will eventually leave Amazon with the power to control the market and raise prices pretty much at whim, which to an extent they've already been doing.


Which is going to lead to an increase in e-book piracy (it's already growing rapidly). It's getting to the point now where e-books are often more expensive than the paperback versions, I remember when it used to typically be $6-7 dollars for many e-books that were available in regular paperback and now I'm seeing the prices often at $9-11. It's the music and DVD industries all over again, when you charge $15-18 for music and movies (or $11 for a book format that used to be cheaper than mass market paperback) then even people that want to follow the law and support the content creators are going to get fed up and start pirating.
   3877. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: December 19, 2012 at 02:05 PM (#4328640)
it would be many orders of magnitude more difficult to confiscate the ~45 million semiautomatic weapons owned by Americans.

Why, if the owners are as "law abiding" as advertised? If a ban on the weapons they own is passed tomorrow, won't they just turn them in or sell them back and remain law-abiding?

Presumably the murdered mother would have turned hers in if they were banned, right? At which point, they wouldn't have been readily available to the killer -- and a schoolful of kids and teachers might still be alive.
   3878. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: December 19, 2012 at 02:09 PM (#4328647)
Tim Scott, off to a good start ... well, *a* start, certainly ...


(CNN) – Republican Rep. Tim Scott of South Carolina, the new appointee to replace Sen. Jim DeMint, indicated Wednesday he may oppose any gun control legislation in the Senate next Congress, saying instead the larger issue is one of "moral decay."

"I think the solutions are not necessarily in new legislation. Perhaps the solution starts with us examining the mental condition of the person and the persons in the past that have had the desire to create the atrocities we have seen recently," he said on CNN's "Starting Point with Soledad O'Brien."

He added that "mental illness should be a major part of the conversation."

...

In addition to addressing mental illness, the South Carolina congressman, who starts in the Senate on January 3 after DeMint officially resigns, said the recent crisis should prompt the country "to engage an entire culture of moral decay and of violence."
   3879. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 19, 2012 at 02:11 PM (#4328648)
Why, if the owners are as "law abiding" as advertised? If a ban on the weapons they own is passed tomorrow, won't they just turn them in or sell them back and remain law-abiding?

Wait, I thought you were concerned with criminals being able to "[take] advantage of all the gun-free zones, as the Newtown killer did" (#3834)? If the law-abiding people turn in their guns and the criminals retain theirs, how would that be progress vis-a-vis your previously stated goals/concerns?
   3880. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: December 19, 2012 at 02:14 PM (#4328653)
If the law-abiding people turn in their guns and the criminals retain theirs, how is that progress?

Far fewer guns in circulation to be misused, a la the guns in the Newtown atrocity.

Now, back to the original question -- why will the vast majority of assaultish weapons be difficult to confiscate, if they are owned by law-abiding citizens? Won't the owners simply comply with the law?
   3881. GregD Posted: December 19, 2012 at 02:16 PM (#4328659)
This, even more than most discussions in the thread, is totally talking past each other. The idea that we would be better protected against mass shootings if there were more guns may or may not be true, but in any event it has nothing to do with high-capacity magazines or the particular type of assault weapon that might be regulated. Even those who want more guns on site presumably are thinking of handguns (since no one, I think, pictures all of us walking our assault rifles into the movie theater.)

So the question of whether or not more guns would protect us is interesting but utterly irrelevant to the regulations that are on the table at this point. If a House of Congress proposed regulating handguns, that would obviously be a different story.

   3882. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 19, 2012 at 02:18 PM (#4328664)
Far fewer guns in circulation to be misused, a la the guns in the Newtown atrocity.

Incidents like the Newtown atrocity represent less than 1 percent of the gun deaths in America.

Now, back to the original question -- why will the vast majority of assaultish weapons be difficult to confiscate, if they are owned by law-abiding citizens? Won't they simply comply with the law?

Any semiautomatic weapon is now an "assaultish" weapon?

***
So the question of whether or not more guns would protect us is interesting but utterly irrelevant to the regulations that are on the table at this point. If a House of Congress proposed regulating handguns, that would obviously be a different story.

I agree, but SBB seems to consider any semiautomatic weapon to be an "assault weapon." (Either that, or he's mistaken on what was used at Fort Hood.)
   3883. Tripon Posted: December 19, 2012 at 02:19 PM (#4328666)
(CNN) – Republican Rep. Tim Scott of South Carolina, the new appointee to replace Sen. Jim DeMint, indicated Wednesday he may oppose any gun control legislation in the Senate next Congress, saying instead the larger issue is one of "moral decay."

"I think the solutions are not necessarily in new legislation. Perhaps the solution starts with us examining the mental condition of the person and the persons in the past that have had the desire to create the atrocities we have seen recently," he said on CNN's "Starting Point with Soledad O'Brien."

He added that "mental illness should be a major part of the conversation."

...

In addition to addressing mental illness, the South Carolina congressman, who starts in the Senate on January 3 after DeMint officially resigns, said the recent crisis should prompt the country "to engage an entire culture of moral decay and of violence."


Lets take Tim Scott at his word, and there really is an issue of 'violence' in society. Shouldn't he then spearhead the effort to remove guns since they're an efficent weapon to commit 'violence' and immoral behavior such as robberies, threats, and assults?
   3884. Swoboda is freedom Posted: December 19, 2012 at 02:21 PM (#4328667)
Are you still disputing that the military members at Fort Hood were prohibited from carrying firearms? Or are you claiming it wasn't truly a gun-free zone because someone could have run over to the armory and then unlocked and signed out a gun after Hasan started mowing people down?

So why aren't Fort Hood and other bases gun free (Actually more accurately ammunition free). The military keeps a real short leash on ammunition. The only time I ever saw live rounds was on the range (and of course, when we got to combat). Even when I was on guard duty, we did not have live rounds. You could have your weapon, but never ammunition. MPs are the main gates were armed, but that was it. Weapons had to be signed out from the armory, and returned. Individual bullets were counted and god forbid if you didn't bring back all your rounds.

I will answer the question. The reason that the bases restricted access is that they were afraid of accidental shootings, arguments gone wrong, and crazies. That is much more likely to occur than the Fort Hood shooter. Same as the the civilian world.
   3885. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: December 19, 2012 at 02:22 PM (#4328670)
Incidents like the Newtown atrocity represent less than 1 percent of the gun deaths in America.

That's because the denominator is way too high. Not sure of the point anyway.

Any semiautomatic weapon is now an "assaultish" weapon?

Nonresponsive. Are assault-type weapons and semiautomatic weapons currently in the hands of the "law abiding," or not? If they are, they'll be turned in if the law says so. If they aren't, then the NRA's wails about guns being taken away from "law abiding" citizens is a bunch of claptrap.

   3886. The Good Face Posted: December 19, 2012 at 02:25 PM (#4328676)
In addition to addressing mental illness, the South Carolina congressman, who starts in the Senate on January 3 after DeMint officially resigns, said the recent crisis should prompt the country "to engage an entire culture of moral decay and of violence."


I initially read that as "to engage IN an entire culture of moral decay and of violence." and thought, "This guy sounds like a lot of fun at parties". Now I'm just disappointed.
   3887. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: December 19, 2012 at 02:28 PM (#4328680)
The problem is, that with my buying habits, I'm hastening the demise of B&M shops, which in turn will eventually leave Amazon with the power to control the market and raise prices pretty much at whim, which to an extent they've already been doing.

Which is going to lead to an increase in e-book piracy (it's already growing rapidly). It's getting to the point now where e-books are often more expensive than the paperback versions, I remember when it used to typically be $6-7 dollars for many e-books that were available in regular paperback and now I'm seeing the prices often at $9-11. It's the music and DVD industries all over again, when you charge $15-18 for music and movies (or $11 for a book format that used to be cheaper than mass market paperback) then even people that want to follow the law and support the content creators are going to get fed up and start pirating.


That's a good and serious point, which I haven't given much thought to, for the simple reason that I buy almost nothing but hardback books (with dust jackets, yet), a tiny handful of paperbacks, and no e-books at all. So far the practical effect on my own book buying habits is that the ones I've bought have become progressively cheaper and easier to find with each successive year, but I don't have any illusions about the future (for new books, at least) once Amazon crushes its competition, since I have no illusions about Jeff Bezos' underlying concern for any part of the book business that he can't control.
   3888. Fernigal McGunnigle has become a merry hat Posted: December 19, 2012 at 02:29 PM (#4328681)
Which is going to lead to an increase in e-book piracy (it's already growing rapidly).


You'd think that eventually e-book piracy will be a massive problem. An epub file is likely to be 1 mb or smaller, so bandwidth concerns are trivial. And because most people don't buy a huge number of books a single lost sale is a much bigger deal in the book world. And unlike musicians, writers don't have alternate sources of income. A band can make up for lost sales revenue by treating pirated music as an advertisement for a live show. A writer can't do anything at all similar.
   3889. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: December 19, 2012 at 02:32 PM (#4328685)
Tim Scott thinks we need more Baby Jesus. It's good to know South Carolina is still South Carolina.
   3890. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: December 19, 2012 at 02:35 PM (#4328687)
Does buying second hand help the author at all?

If I buy from a used book seller on amazon cause the book is dirt cheap does the author get viewed as more desirable from a publisher viewpoint and therefor get a larger contract for the next book? Sometimes I do want to support an author, but it is really painful to pass up a used copy.
   3891. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 19, 2012 at 02:37 PM (#4328691)
That's because the denominator is way too high. Not sure of the point anyway.

The point is that it's absurd to craft policy based on something that represents less than 1 percent of a problem without acknowledging and then taking a hard look at the other 99-plus percent.

Nonresponsive. Are assault-type weapons and semiautomatic weapons currently in the hands of the "law abiding," or not? If they are, they'll be turned in if the law says so. If they aren't, then the NRA's wails about guns being taken away from "law abiding" citizens is a bunch of claptrap.

It was non-responsive to ask if you've redefined semiautomatic weapons as "assault weapons" (which, I note, you're still not answering)?

Regardless, why would you assume that disarming tens of millions of law-abiding people — while leaving a much higher proportion of guns in the hands of criminals — would result in fewer gun deaths? One would think the D.C. and Chicago gun bans would be instructive for gun-grabbers, but apparently one would be wrong.
   3892. GregD Posted: December 19, 2012 at 02:39 PM (#4328693)
Does buying second hand help the author at all?
Not at all. I don't think it's immoral or anything, but in terms of the author's self-interest, she is no better off if you buy it second hand or steal it.
   3893. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: December 19, 2012 at 02:39 PM (#4328695)
The point is that it's absurd to craft policy based on something that represents less than 1 percent of a problem without taking a hard look at the other 99-plus percent.

I did. Banning assault weapon possession would cut down all gun deaths.


Regardless, why would you assume that disarming tens of millions of law-abiding people — while leaving a much higher proportion of guns in the hands of criminals — would result in fewer gun deaths? The D.C. and Chicago gun bans should be instructive for gun-grabbers, but apparently they're not.

I wouldn't disarm them. They could still possess pistols for self-defense, and sporting hunting guns.
   3894. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 19, 2012 at 02:42 PM (#4328696)
I wouldn't disarm them. They could still possess pistols for self-defense, and sporting hunting guns.

... while criminals would retain a supply of semiautomatics for generations to come.
   3895. Famous Original Joe C Posted: December 19, 2012 at 02:46 PM (#4328701)
... while criminals would retain a supply of semiautomatics for generations to come.


What's your point? That I need a semi-automatic weapon to protect myself from the miniscule possibility I am ever confronted by someone with a semi-automatic weapon?
   3896. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 19, 2012 at 02:47 PM (#4328702)
What's your point? That I need a semi-automatic weapon to protect myself from the miniscule possibility I am ever confronted by someone with a semi-automatic weapon?

Yes.

(And the whole notion that a semiautomatic handgun falls into the category of "assault weapon" is ludicrous, and that's bearing in mind that the definition of "assault weapon" tends to be overly broad and arbitrary in the first place.)
   3897. zonk Posted: December 19, 2012 at 02:47 PM (#4328703)

That's a good and serious point, which I haven't given much thought to, for the simple reason that I buy almost nothing but hardback books (with dust jackets, yet), a tiny handful of paperbacks, and no e-books at all. So far the practical effect on my own book buying habits is that the ones I've bought have become progressively cheaper and easier to find with each successive year, but I don't have any illusions about the future (for new books, at least) once Amazon crushes its competition, since I have no illusions about Jeff Bezos' underlying concern for any part of the book business that he can't control.


I just yesterday signed up for Amazon Prime (technically as a trial for some free shipping, but even after a day -- I'm certain to move forward with the annual subscription) and while, yeah, economies of scale and all... $79 a year and I've got access to an absolutely enormous on demand library of movies/TV shows and an ebook lending library that's absolutely huge (no music... yet... but I'm betting that's coming).

It's awfully hard for me to see how such a model is going to be profitable for authors, to say nothing of movie/TV studios... While the free Prime movie/TV stuff is mostly syndicated/previous season and older movies -- the ebook lending library includes a ton of stuff currently on the best seller list, in addition to a lot of older stuff.
   3898. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: December 19, 2012 at 02:48 PM (#4328705)
Regardless, why would you assume that disarming tens of millions of law-abiding people — while leaving a much higher proportion of guns in the hands of criminals — would result in fewer gun deaths? One would think the D.C. and Chicago gun bans would be instructive for gun-grabbers, but apparently one would be wrong.

Local gun laws are only as good as the gun laws in surrounding jurisdictions. Only a strictly enforced national gun policy is likely to have any chance of succeeding.
   3899. Famous Original Joe C Posted: December 19, 2012 at 02:48 PM (#4328706)
What's your point? That I need a semi-automatic weapon to protect myself from the miniscule possibility I am ever confronted by someone with a semi-automatic weapon?

Yes.


That's *ridiculous*, IMO.
   3900. Tripon Posted: December 19, 2012 at 02:51 PM (#4328712)
Guys. If you're really are worried about gunfire. Buy some ####### body armor, not another gun.
Page 39 of 62 pages ‹ First  < 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Harveys Wallbangers
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogNewsweek: Can Baseball Get More Interesting to Watch With Big Data?
(16 - 3:18am, Sep 03)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogTrevor Hoffman's Hall of Fame induction seems inevitable
(95 - 2:56am, Sep 03)
Last: bobm

NewsblogGleeman: Twins ask fans which brand of luxury car they are
(21 - 2:32am, Sep 03)
Last: vortex of dissipation

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 9-2-2014
(82 - 2:22am, Sep 03)
Last: Spahn Insane

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - September 2014
(14 - 2:21am, Sep 03)
Last: robinred

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1957 Ballot
(12 - 2:16am, Sep 03)
Last: bjhanke

NewsblogAdam Jones says he was joking about 'airport' comment at social media event
(26 - 2:06am, Sep 03)
Last: Rafael Bellylard: Built like a Panda.

NewsblogThe indisputable selfishness of Derek Jeter
(40 - 2:05am, Sep 03)
Last: Mom makes botox doctors furious

NewsblogExpanded Rosters Exacerbate Baseball’s Biggest Issue
(34 - 1:13am, Sep 03)
Last: Bhaakon

NewsblogOT: Politics, September, 2014: ESPN honors Daily Worker sports editor Lester Rodney
(324 - 12:45am, Sep 03)
Last: greenback calls it soccer

NewsblogPassan: 10 Degrees: Cole Hamels' trade value might be Phillies' lone bright spot
(7 - 12:23am, Sep 03)
Last: Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play

NewsblogPhoto of the day: Bill Murray, indy league ticket-taker
(128 - 12:21am, Sep 03)
Last: The District Attorney

NewsblogRule change means more players to choose from for postseason roster
(15 - 11:10pm, Sep 02)
Last: Pirate Joe

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1958 Discussion
(2 - 11:00pm, Sep 02)
Last: DL from MN

NewsblogAstros Fire Bo Porter
(62 - 10:50pm, Sep 02)
Last: ReggieThomasLives

Page rendered in 1.3318 seconds
52 querie(s) executed