Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 4:58:34 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2019 9:08:11 GMT -5
It seems to me the posters you're "pretty disgusted by" did exactly what you wanted them to: read the subtext of the OP (which I didn't even realize was a plug for gun control until reading this), threw it back in your face, and bootstrapped your gun control scrum. Poor Tenn and I are just babes in the woods. We thought you wanted to talk about PTSD or something. Good luck with "tragedies and gun control on YMAM" episode #573. I've seen this one 572 times before, so I'll make myself scarce.
I've been pretty jaded about gun control, as well, for the last few decades. The NRA seemed to have a stranglehold over nearly every politician, keeping even the thought of gun control elusive.
However, one of the CT politicians was on the news this Am. Apparently the parent of one of the children massacred in the school shooting there took his life this weekend. The irony is that he and his wife had spent their time post massacre establishing a fund to support research into how people can mentally get to the point where they take up guns and kill children - they wanted to try to help figure out how to take up weapons against others and (very ironically) harming themselves.
The politician noted that, a few years ago, the NRA seemed to have a big infusion of cash - which we now know might have partly come from Russian donations (that rabbit hole didn't get explored much, in the Mueller investigation). Since that news came out, though, the NRA is now out of money, and they haven't been able to rally their political pressure against anti-NRA politicians. At the same time, there has been a grass roots ground swell over the last few years from survivor groups of these massacres to push politicians to do some meaningful gun law reforms.
He pointed out that the NRA built itself up over about 30 years into a powerful lobbyist, but he thinks we're at a transition where the NRA is diminishing while those new organizations pushing for reform are gaining support. So maybe, 30 years from now, it will be the gun reform people who are pushing around the politicians, not the NRA.
Too soon to know. We'll see.
Really easy to check into, when comes to rabbit hole money and groundswell report. You just check into how many dues paying members there are in the NRA and all the state associations that are similar in function. And how much money they spend. Then compare the number of dues paying members that belong to the gun control groups. And how much money they spend. Not to soon to see what's going on right now. For now, the could be's, maybe's, and possibly's, are just wishful speculation.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 4:58:34 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2019 9:16:32 GMT -5
Maybe these things would turn out differently, if the concern was for helping the kids, and not using them for pawns in the gun control game, then ignoring them after the hype is over. So what is an effective post traumatic treatment for a high school student who sees her fellow students gunned down?
We probably need to launch some kind of national treatment network, provide lots of trained staff, get a whole pack of experts waiting near airports to deploy instantly when the next inevitable school shooting occurs.
Sure, it will cost a lot of money, and PTSD has proven to be very difficult to treat, but it's a small price to pay to live in a country that makes sure even all our whack jobs get to own the armory of their choice.
I would need to see a source for the law/regulation that makes sure whackjobs have an armory. Then we can talk about a treatment program for the problem.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 4:58:34 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2019 9:20:39 GMT -5
This thread is disgusting. That's why I don't start them.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 4:58:34 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2019 9:26:07 GMT -5
Maybe these things would turn out differently, if the concern was for helping the kids, and not using them for pawns in the gun control game, then ignoring them after the hype is over. So your solution to all this would be “let’s allow all numbnuts and unbalanced individuals purchase firearms legally and if one of them happens to shoot up a school, church or theatre and kill dozens of people will deal with the fallout by providing them psychological support in the aftermath” There are 29 or so veterans committing suicide across US every day and they have the full support of the mighty US Government. Why don’t we start there? Allow just normal, sane people access to weapons and maybe we don’t have to invest in extra psychological support for kids and parents! And yes, it is to some extent about gun control because it’s about whom we allow to have those weapons. That’s how you control guns! Through the people that have access to them. Nobody said it’s the guns fault! When the first sentence of a post presents with a directed premise, and follows with all the things it supposedly directs. I really laugh hard to myself and move on. Have a great day .
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Mar 26, 2019 10:48:04 GMT -5
their shiny toys. That is not true. Most of mine are camouflage. Trying to blame the entire community of gun owners over what a very few mental cases do with their guns, Most of which didn't legally acquire those guns.
But every person who crosses the border illegally or calls god Allah is a murderer... rich. You have no problem with the illegals killing police officers??
|
|
oped
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 20, 2018 20:49:12 GMT -5
Posts: 4,676
|
Post by oped on Mar 26, 2019 10:56:55 GMT -5
You have no problem with white males gunning down school children?
|
|
mroped
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 17, 2014 17:36:56 GMT -5
Posts: 3,453
|
Post by mroped on Mar 26, 2019 10:58:16 GMT -5
Doesn’t look like you moved on. Instead you just posted something that made no sense aside the fact that was absolutely senseless
|
|
oped
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 20, 2018 20:49:12 GMT -5
Posts: 4,676
|
Post by oped on Mar 26, 2019 11:00:04 GMT -5
Work slow?
|
|
mroped
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 17, 2014 17:36:56 GMT -5
Posts: 3,453
|
Post by mroped on Mar 26, 2019 11:01:53 GMT -5
But every person who crosses the border illegally or calls god Allah is a murderer... rich. You have no problem with the illegals killing police officers?? There is a problem with people killing people. That’s a known fact! It is brought up just in instances where it fits our narrative. Ie: I have a problem with law enforcement and government agencies killing illegals! And it’s not a singular case as in the case of a police officer murdered by an illegal.
|
|
mroped
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 17, 2014 17:36:56 GMT -5
Posts: 3,453
|
Post by mroped on Mar 26, 2019 11:02:33 GMT -5
Work slow? [img src="http://syonidv.hodginsmedia.com/vsmileys/wink.png" src="//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png" alt=" " class="smile"] Lunch and I’m cold!😂
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,882
|
Post by happyhoix on Mar 26, 2019 11:21:25 GMT -5
I've been pretty jaded about gun control, as well, for the last few decades. The NRA seemed to have a stranglehold over nearly every politician, keeping even the thought of gun control elusive.
However, one of the CT politicians was on the news this Am. Apparently the parent of one of the children massacred in the school shooting there took his life this weekend. The irony is that he and his wife had spent their time post massacre establishing a fund to support research into how people can mentally get to the point where they take up guns and kill children - they wanted to try to help figure out how to take up weapons against others and (very ironically) harming themselves.
The politician noted that, a few years ago, the NRA seemed to have a big infusion of cash - which we now know might have partly come from Russian donations (that rabbit hole didn't get explored much, in the Mueller investigation). Since that news came out, though, the NRA is now out of money, and they haven't been able to rally their political pressure against anti-NRA politicians. At the same time, there has been a grass roots ground swell over the last few years from survivor groups of these massacres to push politicians to do some meaningful gun law reforms.
He pointed out that the NRA built itself up over about 30 years into a powerful lobbyist, but he thinks we're at a transition where the NRA is diminishing while those new organizations pushing for reform are gaining support. So maybe, 30 years from now, it will be the gun reform people who are pushing around the politicians, not the NRA.
Too soon to know. We'll see.
Really easy to check into, when comes to rabbit hole money and groundswell report.You just check into how many dues paying members there are in the NRA and all the state associations that are similar in function. And how much money they spend. Then compare the number of dues paying members that belong to the gun control groups. And how much money they spend. Not to soon to see what's going on right now. For now, the could be's, maybe's, and possibly's, are just wishful speculation. Nope. The rabbit hole I'm referring to is the Russians funneling lots of cash to the NRA.
www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/01/nra-russia-investigations-gun-lobby
Questions about the NRA’s Moscow ties and the gun group’s role in the 2016 elections were also spurred when McClatchy reported last year that the FBI was looking into allegations that Torshin and other Russians may have improperly funneled Russian funds into NRA coffers as part of its record setting $30m in pro-Trump spending.
So how much Russian money got to Trump's campaign via the NRA? It's not easy to check into, as you imply - however, both the House and Senate are investigating it, so maybe one of the less corrupt GOPers might spill the beans.
As for your question about dues paying members and the NRA- they had 55 million less in contributions in 2017 compared to 2016. That included a 35 million downturn in dues collected, 'a sign that hints at dwindling support.'
fortune.com/2018/11/27/after-nra-reports-massive-drop-in-contributions-gun-stocks-take-a-hit/
Poor NRA. They should really be rooting for another black president, the last one really jumped gun sales and membership for them, didn't he? Trump's done the opposite.
|
|
ken a.k.a OMK
Senior Associate
They killed Kenny, the bastards.
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 14:39:20 GMT -5
Posts: 14,105
Location: Maryland
|
Post by ken a.k.a OMK on Mar 26, 2019 11:22:37 GMT -5
Work slow? [img src="http://syonidv.hodginsmedia.com/vsmileys/wink.png" src="//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png" alt=" " class="smile"] Glad my wife isn't on here. FB together is bad enough.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Mar 26, 2019 11:36:20 GMT -5
Really easy to check into, when comes to rabbit hole money and groundswell report.You just check into how many dues paying members there are in the NRA and all the state associations that are similar in function. And how much money they spend. Then compare the number of dues paying members that belong to the gun control groups. And how much money they spend. Not to soon to see what's going on right now. For now, the could be's, maybe's, and possibly's, are just wishful speculation. Nope. The rabbit hole I'm referring to is the Russians funneling lots of cash to the NRA.
www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/01/nra-russia-investigations-gun-lobby
Questions about the NRA’s Moscow ties and the gun group’s role in the 2016 elections were also spurred when McClatchy reported last year that the FBI was looking into allegations that Torshin and other Russians may have improperly funneled Russian funds into NRA coffers as part of its record setting $30m in pro-Trump spending.
So how much Russian money got to Trump's campaign via the NRA? It's not easy to check into, as you imply - however, both the House and Senate are investigating it, so maybe one of the less corrupt GOPers might spill the beans.
As for your question about dues paying members and the NRA- they had 55 million less in contributions in 2017 compared to 2016. That included a 35 million downturn in dues collected, 'a sign that hints at dwindling support.'
fortune.com/2018/11/27/after-nra-reports-massive-drop-in-contributions-gun-stocks-take-a-hit/
Poor NRA. They should really be rooting for another black president, the last one really jumped gun sales and membership for them, didn't he? Trump's done the opposite.
So, how much money did the Russians give to the NRA?
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Mar 26, 2019 11:38:32 GMT -5
Glad to see your post Happyhoix,, you reminded Me that I need to make another contribution.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 4:58:34 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2019 12:06:57 GMT -5
Really easy to check into, when comes to rabbit hole money and groundswell report.You just check into how many dues paying members there are in the NRA and all the state associations that are similar in function. And how much money they spend. Then compare the number of dues paying members that belong to the gun control groups. And how much money they spend. Not to soon to see what's going on right now. For now, the could be's, maybe's, and possibly's, are just wishful speculation. Nope. The rabbit hole I'm referring to is the Russians funneling lots of cash to the NRA.
www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/01/nra-russia-investigations-gun-lobby
Questions about the NRA’s Moscow ties and the gun group’s role in the 2016 elections were also spurred when McClatchy reported last year that the FBI was looking into allegations that Torshin and other Russians may have improperly funneled Russian funds into NRA coffers as part of its record setting $30m in pro-Trump spending.
So how much Russian money got to Trump's campaign via the NRA? It's not easy to check into, as you imply - however, both the House and Senate are investigating it, so maybe one of the less corrupt GOPers might spill the beans.
As for your question about dues paying members and the NRA- they had 55 million less in contributions in 2017 compared to 2016. That included a 35 million downturn in dues collected, 'a sign that hints at dwindling support.'
fortune.com/2018/11/27/after-nra-reports-massive-drop-in-contributions-gun-stocks-take-a-hit/
Poor NRA. They should really be rooting for another black president, the last one really jumped gun sales and membership for them, didn't he? Trump's done the opposite.
You are correct. Gun stocks and sales always drop when there is a pro gun administration. People feel no need to stock up on more guns and ammo. How many times have you heard that Obama was the best thing going for gun manufacturers. The rest of your post claiming "investigation" is just that. Trump will start an investigation into the reason for starting the Mueller probe. That doesn't indicate something wrong happened either. I'm tired of useless, politically motivated investigation. Target audiences all a flutter with 'oooh another investigation '. Some body did something wrong, they're doing investigating. The rabbit hole I was referring to, was that the biggest gun control group has about 10 actual members.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 4:58:34 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2019 12:12:33 GMT -5
Doesn’t look like you moved on. Instead you just posted something that made no sense aside the fact that was absolutely senseless Just trying to fit in, lol.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Mar 26, 2019 12:20:33 GMT -5
You know, the only reason for politics is to not actually fix the wrongs,, it's only purpose is to try to make the other side of the argument look as bad as possible,,
Many of our posters here would make great politicians,,,
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 26, 2019 12:45:47 GMT -5
He pointed out that the NRA built itself up over about 30 years into a powerful lobbyist, but he thinks we're at a transition where the NRA is diminishing while those new organizations pushing for reform are gaining support. So maybe, 30 years from now, it will be the gun reform people who are pushing around the politicians, not the NRA. What bothers me (and should bother gun control proponents ) is that the kinds of gun controls that would have the biggest impact--by factors of hundreds--have nothing to do with mass shootings. I can get behind wait periods (for suicides, impulse murders), temporary bans following domestic abuse convictions (again, to reduce fatalities from impulse murders), and closing background check loopholes at gun shows. What do these have to do with mass shootings? Nothing. Mass shootings are an anomaly. A hyperextraordinary, statistically insignificant event in Earth's yearly quota of violence. They're the equivalent of moose strikes in a roundtable discussion on how best to improve car safety. They may serve as formidable tools for emotional manipulation, but their exploitation breeds deep resentment and hostility, which has led to the indifference, the conspiracy theories, the hair-trigger sensitivity, the unconditional support for the NRA, and the intransigent attitudes--all of it. Mass shootings are not the platform on which to have a productive gun control debate, and they have nothing to do with the kinds of gun control that will save lives in America. Gun control is inexorably one of those issues where you have to avoid emotional contexts, target only the biggest problems with the least invasive controls, beat people to death with statistics (which you kinda sorta started to do in your previous post, which is why I 'liked' it), and let people's minds change over the span of a generation (as is presently occurring), with patience and longsuffering. You also have to be content with the inherent costs of the 2A. That is, even with all the peripheral gun controls in the world, there are always going to be a lot of gun-related deaths when people can freely own, carry, and employ handguns.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,436
|
Post by Tennesseer on Mar 26, 2019 12:51:45 GMT -5
He pointed out that the NRA built itself up over about 30 years into a powerful lobbyist, but he thinks we're at a transition where the NRA is diminishing while those new organizations pushing for reform are gaining support. So maybe, 30 years from now, it will be the gun reform people who are pushing around the politicians, not the NRA. What bothers me (and should bother gun control proponents ) is that the kinds of gun controls that would have the biggest impact--by factors of hundreds--have nothing to do with mass shootings. I can get behind wait periods (for suicides, impulse murders), temporary bans following domestic abuse convictions (again, to reduce fatalities from impulse murders), and closing background check loopholes at gun shows. What do these have to do with mass shootings? Nothing. Mass shootings are an anomaly. A hyperextraordinary, statistically insignificant event in Earth's yearly quota of violence. They're the equivalent of moose strikes in a roundtable discussion on how best to improve car safety. They may serve as formidable tools for emotional manipulation, but their exploitation breeds deep resentment and hostility, which has led to the indifference, the conspiracy theories, the hair-trigger sensitivity, the unconditional support for the NRA, and the intransigent attitudes--all of it. Mass shootings are not the platform on which to have a productive gun control debate, and they have nothing to do with the kinds of gun control that will save lives in America. Gun control is inexorably one of those issues where you have to avoid emotional contexts, target only the biggest problems with the least invasive controls, beat people to death with statistics (which you kinda sorta started to do in your previous post, which is why I 'liked' it), and let people's minds change over the span of a generation (as is presently occurring), with patience and longsuffering. You also have to be content with the inherent costs of the 2A. That is, even with all the peripheral gun controls in the world, there are always going to be a lot of gun-related deaths when people can freely own, carry, and employ handguns. So are plane crashes. But when one crashes, we investigate and fix the problem so it does not happen in the future.
|
|
oped
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 20, 2018 20:49:12 GMT -5
Posts: 4,676
|
Post by oped on Mar 26, 2019 12:56:10 GMT -5
Domestic violence is the mass shooting we never tally or talk about.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Mar 26, 2019 13:10:15 GMT -5
He pointed out that the NRA built itself up over about 30 years into a powerful lobbyist, but he thinks we're at a transition where the NRA is diminishing while those new organizations pushing for reform are gaining support. So maybe, 30 years from now, it will be the gun reform people who are pushing around the politicians, not the NRA. What bothers me (and should bother gun control proponents ) is that the kinds of gun controls that would have the biggest impact--by factors of hundreds--have nothing to do with mass shootings. I can get behind wait periods (for suicides, impulse murders), temporary bans following domestic abuse convictions (again, to reduce fatalities from impulse murders), and closing background check loopholes at gun shows. What do these have to do with mass shootings? Nothing. Mass shootings are an anomaly. A hyperextraordinary, statistically insignificant event in Earth's yearly quota of violence. They're the equivalent of moose strikes in a roundtable discussion on how best to improve car safety. They may serve as formidable tools for emotional manipulation, but their exploitation breeds deep resentment and hostility, which has led to the indifference, the conspiracy theories, the hair-trigger sensitivity, the unconditional support for the NRA, and the intransigent attitudes--all of it. Mass shootings are not the platform on which to have a productive gun control debate, and they have nothing to do with the kinds of gun control that will save lives in America. Gun control is inexorably one of those issues where you have to avoid emotional contexts, target only the biggest problems with the least invasive controls, beat people to death with statistics (which you kinda sorta started to do in your previous post, which is why I 'liked' it), and let people's minds change over the span of a generation (as is presently occurring), with patience and longsuffering. You also have to be content with the inherent costs of the 2A. That is, even with all the peripheral gun controls in the world, there are always going to be a lot of gun-related deaths when people can freely own, carry, and employ handguns. So, you'd be OK with something like a 2A in Canada? You'd like everyone to be armed to the teeth and to have more guns than people in the country? You'd like to go to the local corner store, place of worship, movie theatre, etc., and see people with guns strapped to their hips?
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,882
|
Post by happyhoix on Mar 26, 2019 15:03:02 GMT -5
He pointed out that the NRA built itself up over about 30 years into a powerful lobbyist, but he thinks we're at a transition where the NRA is diminishing while those new organizations pushing for reform are gaining support. So maybe, 30 years from now, it will be the gun reform people who are pushing around the politicians, not the NRA. What bothers me (and should bother gun control proponents ) is that the kinds of gun controls that would have the biggest impact--by factors of hundreds--have nothing to do with mass shootings. I can get behind wait periods (for suicides, impulse murders), temporary bans following domestic abuse convictions (again, to reduce fatalities from impulse murders), and closing background check loopholes at gun shows. What do these have to do with mass shootings? Nothing. Mass shootings are an anomaly. A hyperextraordinary, statistically insignificant event in Earth's yearly quota of violence. They're the equivalent of moose strikes in a roundtable discussion on how best to improve car safety. They may serve as formidable tools for emotional manipulation, but their exploitation breeds deep resentment and hostility, which has led to the indifference, the conspiracy theories, the hair-trigger sensitivity, the unconditional support for the NRA, and the intransigent attitudes--all of it. Mass shootings are not the platform on which to have a productive gun control debate, and they have nothing to do with the kinds of gun control that will save lives in America. Gun control is inexorably one of those issues where you have to avoid emotional contexts, target only the biggest problems with the least invasive controls, beat people to death with statistics (which you kinda sorta started to do in your previous post, which is why I 'liked' it), and let people's minds change over the span of a generation (as is presently occurring), with patience and longsuffering. You also have to be content with the inherent costs of the 2A. That is, even with all the peripheral gun controls in the world, there are always going to be a lot of gun-related deaths when people can freely own, carry, and employ handguns. The problem with trying to get any of the 'sensible' changes to the gun law completed is that the NRA has always been so aggressive in defeating even the smallest proposed changes, and they had the money and the political clout to frighten lawmakers away from them. The NRA even managed to convince lawmakers to not allow the CDC to research statistics about gun deaths.
If the NRA has become less popular, if the stink about the NRA accepting funds from Russia that it may have illegally funneled to Trump is damaging enough, and if the grass roots organizations promoting changes to the gun laws get more powerful, perhaps we can finally get some changes that most Americans would agree are sensible. Maybe we can even get a law passed that doctors and school teachers have a 'duty to report' if a patient/student threatens to bring a gun to work or school - the same kind of 'duty to report' that we use to report potential child abuse. That might actually help identify mass shooters before they act. We can hope.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,882
|
Post by happyhoix on Mar 26, 2019 15:04:17 GMT -5
Glad to see your post Happyhoix,, you reminded Me that I need to make another contribution. Can you spring for 36 million, to make up for their lost dues?
I'm sure they'd send you a nice coffee cup or baseball cap for it.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,882
|
Post by happyhoix on Mar 26, 2019 15:11:39 GMT -5
Nope. The rabbit hole I'm referring to is the Russians funneling lots of cash to the NRA.
www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/01/nra-russia-investigations-gun-lobby
Questions about the NRA’s Moscow ties and the gun group’s role in the 2016 elections were also spurred when McClatchy reported last year that the FBI was looking into allegations that Torshin and other Russians may have improperly funneled Russian funds into NRA coffers as part of its record setting $30m in pro-Trump spending.
So how much Russian money got to Trump's campaign via the NRA? It's not easy to check into, as you imply - however, both the House and Senate are investigating it, so maybe one of the less corrupt GOPers might spill the beans.
As for your question about dues paying members and the NRA- they had 55 million less in contributions in 2017 compared to 2016. That included a 35 million downturn in dues collected, 'a sign that hints at dwindling support.'
fortune.com/2018/11/27/after-nra-reports-massive-drop-in-contributions-gun-stocks-take-a-hit/
Poor NRA. They should really be rooting for another black president, the last one really jumped gun sales and membership for them, didn't he? Trump's done the opposite.
You are correct. Gun stocks and sales always drop when there is a pro gun administration. People feel no need to stock up on more guns and ammo. How many times have you heard that Obama was the best thing going for gun manufacturers. The rest of your post claiming "investigation" is just that. Trump will start an investigation into the reason for starting the Mueller probe. That doesn't indicate something wrong happened either. I'm tired of useless, politically motivated investigation. Target audiences all a flutter with 'oooh another investigation '. Some body did something wrong, they're doing investigating. The rabbit hole I was referring to, was that the biggest gun control group has about 10 actual members. This witch hunt actually already found a witch - Maria Butina, who was arrested and confessed to conspiring to act as a foreign agent - admitting she was part of a Russian backed effort to use the NRA to influence American politics.
www.nytimes.com/2019/01/28/us/nra-russia-maria-butina-investigations.html
I wouldn't call attempting to find out how, why and when the NRA was infiltrated by Russian agents as a "useless, politically motivated investigation' - especially since two Senate committees are busy investigating it. The Senate, last I looked, is controlled by the GOP.
Russia is one of our greatest enemies. Don't you think it's important for us to ferret out all the ways they're attempting to influence our politics?
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Mar 26, 2019 15:18:51 GMT -5
Russia is one of our greatest enemies. Don't you think it's important for us to ferret out all the ways they're attempting to influence our politics?
Enemies? But....but...Trump trusts Putin over his own American intelligence agencies. How can that be?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 26, 2019 18:52:31 GMT -5
So are plane crashes. But when one crashes, we investigate and fix the problem so it does not happen in the future. "Ban all planes" isn't customarily on the list of fixes. So, you'd be OK with something like a 2A in Canada? You'd like everyone to be armed to the teeth and to have more guns than people in the country? You'd like to go to the local corner store, place of worship, movie theatre, etc., and see people with guns strapped to their hips? Certainly not. We have no cultural obsession with guns, and I'd like to keep it that way. If I had my druthers, there'd be no gambling, pot, porn, drunkenness, or abortions anywhere in Canada either, but seeing as our culture is obsessed with these things, I'd be extremely careful as to how hard and how fast I pushed bans on them. The problem with trying to get any of the 'sensible' changes to the gun law completed is that the NRA has always been so aggressive in defeating even the smallest proposed changes, and they had the money and the political clout to frighten lawmakers away from them. The NRA even managed to convince lawmakers to not allow the CDC to research statistics about gun deaths. I've seen some reasonable proposals shot down, with the US media blaming the NRA. How much of the blame is deserved, I don't know. The issue with the NRA and the CDC goes back decades and is murkier than most people realize. At the outset, the NRA wanted to prevent a goal-seeking government monopsony in gun death research, not unlike the goal-seeking monopsony on AGW research that plagues us today. They believed (not unreasonably) that actors at the 1993 CDC weren't going to conduct objective or scientifically valid studies, and because they'd be funded by limitless taxpayer money, no force made up of private citizens/industries could possibly afford to debunk it or counter it. It's a "pick your poison" dilemma, and the right answer depends on how much faith you have in the objectivity of government-backed research. If I knew a priori that gun research would turn out the same way as AGW research, I'd side with the NRA. 'No research' is better than 'tainted research that nobody can afford to refute', and it saves taxpayer dollars to boot. But gun violence isn't the same vague netherworld as AGW haruspicy. It would be much harder to cover up consistently bad science, and I believe that having faith in our governments is a good thing generally. Hence I'm narrowly on your side here. Maybe we can even get a law passed that doctors and school teachers have a 'duty to report' if a patient/student threatens to bring a gun to work or school - the same kind of 'duty to report' that we use to report potential child abuse. That might actually help identify mass shooters before they act. We can hope. I can't say this is a bad idea, but worry it might lead to unintended consequences. For example: police departments beleaguered by false alarms, abuse by students wanting to make hay, reports triggering the attacks they're meant to prevent, or the threat of reports impeding professionals' ability to detect problems and deal with them in a less adversarial manner. Domestic violence is commonplace; mass shootings aren't. The type-I/type-II error calculus is very different. We don't know how many 'near-' mass-shooters there are for each soul who carries out the act. I'm referring to the people who, by the grace of God, hear a kind word, feel a pang of emotion, confess to a friend or parent, chicken out, lose heart, lose interest, exit a stressful situation, witness something beautiful, hear a sermon, get an unexpected visit, make a friend, or otherwise get inspired by any means not to act out their rage. It could be 1,000:1 for all we know. The worry, therefore, is that in our well-meaning attempts to hopefully intercept the 1, we don't inadvertently push any of the 1,000 out of the 'near-' column and onto the rolls of mass murderers.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,436
|
Post by Tennesseer on Mar 26, 2019 19:35:24 GMT -5
So are plane crashes. But when one crashes, we investigate and fix the problem so it does not happen in the future. "Ban all planes" isn't customarily on the list of fixes.So, you'd be OK with something like a 2A in Canada? You'd like everyone to be armed to the teeth and to have more guns than people in the country? You'd like to go to the local corner store, place of worship, movie theatre, etc., and see people with guns strapped to their hips? Certainly not. We have no cultural obsession with guns, and I'd like to keep it that way. If I had my druthers, there'd be no gambling, pot, porn, drunkenness, or abortions anywhere in Canada either, but seeing as our culture is obsessed with these things, I'd be extremely careful as to how hard and how fast I pushed bans on them. The problem with trying to get any of the 'sensible' changes to the gun law completed is that the NRA has always been so aggressive in defeating even the smallest proposed changes, and they had the money and the political clout to frighten lawmakers away from them. The NRA even managed to convince lawmakers to not allow the CDC to research statistics about gun deaths. I've seen some reasonable proposals shot down, with the US media blaming the NRA. How much of the blame is deserved, I don't know. The issue with the NRA and the CDC goes back decades and is murkier than most people realize. At the outset, the NRA wanted to prevent a goal-seeking government monopsony in gun death research, not unlike the goal-seeking monopsony on AGW research that plagues us today. They believed (not unreasonably) that actors at the 1993 CDC weren't going to conduct objective or scientifically valid studies, and because they'd be funded by limitless taxpayer money, no force made up of private citizens/industries could possibly afford to debunk it or counter it. It's a "pick your poison" dilemma, and the right answer depends on how much faith you have in the objectivity of government-backed research. If I knew a priori that gun research would turn out the same way as AGW research, I'd side with the NRA. 'No research' is better than 'tainted research that nobody can afford to refute', and it saves taxpayer dollars to boot. But gun violence isn't the same vague netherworld as AGW haruspicy. It would be much harder to cover up consistently bad science, and I believe that having faith in our governments is a good thing generally. Hence I'm narrowly on your side here. Maybe we can even get a law passed that doctors and school teachers have a 'duty to report' if a patient/student threatens to bring a gun to work or school - the same kind of 'duty to report' that we use to report potential child abuse. That might actually help identify mass shooters before they act. We can hope. I can't say this is a bad idea, but worry it might lead to unintended consequences. For example: police departments beleaguered by false alarms, abuse by students wanting to make hay, reports triggering the attacks they're meant to prevent, or the threat of reports impeding professionals' ability to detect problems and deal with them in a less adversarial manner. Domestic violence is commonplace; mass shootings aren't. The type-I/type-II error calculus is very different. We don't know how many 'near-' mass-shooters there are for each soul who carries out the act. I'm referring to the people who, by the grace of God, hear a kind word, feel a pang of emotion, confess to a friend or parent, chicken out, lose heart, lose interest, exit a stressful situation, witness something beautiful, hear a sermon, get an unexpected visit, make a friend, or otherwise get inspired by any means not to act out their rage. It could be 1,000:1 for all we know. The worry, therefore, is that in our well-meaning attempts to hopefully intercept the 1, we don't inadvertently push any of the 1,000 out of the 'near-' column and onto the rolls of mass murderers. Who said anything about banning airplanes. I said fix the problem which caused the plane to crash. And Canada, Europe and most of the world have banned the 737 Max from flying until whatever has caused two 737 Maxs to recently crash has been fixed. So yea, banning types of airplanes happens. So can firearm laws be tweaked to take out semi- assault weapons. No civilian needs a firearm which can shoot ten bullets in approximately ten seconds. Handguns, hunting rifles and the like can be left alone. I don't care one bit if my neighbor owns one. Just don't point it at me.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Mar 26, 2019 21:18:21 GMT -5
Glad to see your post Happyhoix,, you reminded Me that I need to make another contribution. Can you spring for 36 million, to make up for their lost dues?
I'm sure they'd send you a nice coffee cup or baseball cap for it.
or help keep My Second Amendment rights!
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 26, 2019 22:24:42 GMT -5
Who said anything about banning airplanes. I said fix the problem which caused the plane to crash. And Canada, Europe and most of the world have banned the 737 Max from flying until whatever has caused two 737 Maxs to recently crash has been fixed. So yea, banning types of airplanes happens. So can firearm laws be tweaked to take out semi- assault weapons. No civilian needs a firearm which can shoot ten bullets in approximately ten seconds. Handguns, hunting rifles and the like can be left alone. I don't care one bit if my neighbor owns one. Just don't point it at me. The closest plane analogy would be: "Despite our best efforts, we're having a jumbo jet successfully hijacked and crashed once every ~8 years (1 hijacking = 300 dead = approx. 8 average years worth of mass shootings involving assault weapons). We'll never be able to eliminate this risk as long as jumbo jets exist, hence it's best we ban jumbo jets. Small passenger jets are still OK." But this wouldn't be fair either, since jumbo jets admittedly have far greater utility than assault weapons. Comparing planes and guns just doesn't work as analogy. Too many dissimilarities. As for paragraph 3: every handgun going all the way back to 18th Century revolvers can shoot ten bullets in ten seconds, hence I'm not sure where you're going here. Did you mean ten bullets in one second?
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,436
|
Post by Tennesseer on Mar 26, 2019 23:27:26 GMT -5
Who said anything about banning airplanes. I said fix the problem which caused the plane to crash. And Canada, Europe and most of the world have banned the 737 Max from flying until whatever has caused two 737 Maxs to recently crash has been fixed. So yea, banning types of airplanes happens. So can firearm laws be tweaked to take out semi- assault weapons. No civilian needs a firearm which can shoot ten bullets in approximately ten seconds. Handguns, hunting rifles and the like can be left alone. I don't care one bit if my neighbor owns one. Just don't point it at me. The closest plane analogy would be: "Despite our best efforts, we're having a jumbo jet successfully hijacked and crashed once every ~8 years (1 hijacking = 300 dead = approx. 8 average years worth of mass shootings involving assault weapons). We'll never be able to eliminate this risk as long as jumbo jets exist, hence it's best we ban jumbo jets. Small passenger jets are still OK." But this wouldn't be fair either, since jumbo jets admittedly have far greater utility than assault weapons. Comparing planes and guns just doesn't work as analogy. Too many dissimilarities. As for paragraph 3: every handgun going all the way back to 18th Century revolvers can shoot ten bullets in ten seconds, hence I'm not sure where you're going here. Did you mean ten bullets in one second?
The analogy is is something is broken you fix it be it mechanical or organic. I went looking for 18th Century revolvers (1700s) not finding ten bullet revolvers unless you mean the shooter shoots maybe six and then refills his weapon all within ten seconds. I gave you the opportunity to watch someone shoot a semi-assault weapon and get 10 bullets out 10 seconds. You declined to watch it.
|
|