Mass shooting in Orlando - Politics

[everettT]

Guess we aren't the only County with mass murders, so sad
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/armed-man-opens-fire-german-cinema-complex-50-143855941.html

 

[Steve81]

Let's try not to make it personal folks. I know it's not easy given the nature of the topic, but this thread isn't going to last much longer if we can't all get along and discuss things like rational adults.

 

[Alex2507]

we broached a sensitive topic without name calling, so that's a win.

My ignore list has grown as a result of this thread. That happens.

Sorry for your loss, Barry.

 

[psbfan9]

Yet to think his faith does not play a role is mistaken IMO.

This is what I have been saying. It was a religious conflict.
For some reason the christians fail to acknowledge this type of thing has been going on in their community for eons. The fact that he was Muslim is secondary. It was a religious conflict.
It's because of hatred and bigotry that his religious affiliation is being brought up.
Doesn't matter if he was Christian, Muslim, or Hindu or what ever.
Look at all the mentally ill people that have shot abortion drs. They say it's in the name of the 'Lord'. 99% percent identified as christian.

Manifest Destiny?
"courageous pioneers believed that America had a divine obligation to stretch the boundaries of their noble republic to the Pacific Ocean.

Crusades? Spanish Inquisition? All terror related perpetrated by people that identify as Christian.

 

[jinjuku]

Manifest Destiny?
"courageous pioneers believed that America had a divine obligation to stretch the boundaries of their noble republic to the Pacific Ocean.

This is what I was thinking of when we talk about 2nd amendment protections.

As the Constitution reads, Native Americans would have been well with in their rights, 100% justified, when they carried out attacks on encroaching settlers with the blessing of the U.S. Government.

The forced relocations, the forced death marches, the 300+ broken treaties by the Government.

I think that is a stark example of when the 2nd amendment would become useful. Same as when we interned U.S. citizens of Japanese decent and denied them Habeas Corpus.

 

[KEW]

So, we can see where the CDC took a stab at this but their null conclusion appears at odds with numerous studies that employed principles of economic data analysis.

I think you are too quick to buy into the Kool-Aid that you are being given by clearly biased sources.
The perspective of the "Gun Owners Association" (deemed "the only no-compromise gun lobby in Washington" per Paul Rand) is absurd.

The article states:

CDC admits there is no evidence that gun control reduces crime. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has long been criticized for propagating questionable studies which gun control organizations have used in defense of their cause. But after analyzing 51 studies in 2003, the CDC concluded that the "evidence was insufficient to determine the effectiveness of any of these [firearms] laws."(9)

Admits? How about "CDC found there is no evidence that gun control reduces crime."? An admission implies guilt or at least being wrong, but their mission is simply to find out. The gun lobbies want to use the fear that big government is at work fabricating or manipulating data to abuse you. Yet, their conclusion was "there is no evidence that gun control works". If the CDC actually operated as this site believes... with heavy bias and low ethics, and they had an agenda, why don't you believe they could be more effective? Explain what about their research you believe to be biased/bogus and why.
They did make the conclusion that "having a gun in the home increases the likelihood that a resident of that home will be injured. That seems a no-brainer and about equivalent to saying houses with electricity are more likely to have death by electrocution. Perhaps the NRA and Gun Owners feel threatened by that statement, but I would be inclined to reach two conclusions from that statements:
1) If you don't have a reason to own a gun, but just are thinking about getting one for "fun", You might reconsider (especially if you have family).
2) Gun safety needs to be emphasized according to an examination of the ways in which those deaths occurred. I believe there are many good designs for gun safety currently available, but I also believe there are plenty of gun owners who are not educated on this topic.

As a side story - When I was in 5th grade, I found a locked box in the back of my dad's closet. I started looking for keys stashed nearby. I found it in his nightstand and discovered my dad had a .38 in that box. For me that was the end of the story. Dad never knew I had found his gun.
However, in a parallel dimension, I could have shared the knowledge of that gun with peers or showed it off. The potential was there for an accident despite my dad believing all was safe. Today, the box would be more likely to have a combination, but I'm sure he wanted the key close to the gun so he could retrieve it if he heard strange noises in the house.[/QUOTE]

 

[KEW]

Well, I've had my fill on this topic, but I'll leave with a few thoughts.

Unfortunately it's never that simple. The NRA would argue they're fighting to reduce the deaths of innocent people as well. Simply reporting hard data ala the FBI is one thing, but interpreting that data is always prone to bias with such a divisive topic (and that applies to the NRA as well). Going back to the Harvard studies that GO-NAD linked to, one of the items was how in a survey of 5800 12-17 year-olds in California, they found that more adolescents were threatened by a firearm than used one in self defense. Maybe that seems alarming, but it should hardly be surprising given that 12-17 year-olds aren't supposed to own firearms or carry them in the streets for personal protection. One should always have some grains of salt ready given the old saying of "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics".

Given that the CDC is the "Centers For Disease Control & Prevention" and not "The Centers For Violence Control & Prevention", it's not altogether surprising that the NRA would question their motives for expanding from studying bacteria, viruses, and other pathogens (or cigarettes, which cause/contribute to a multitude of diseases) to firearms.

I don't know that the CDC is the best source for these studies; however, as you suggested good data on this is useful, and no one else seems to be filling the gap left by the CDC's withdrawal.

As far as the classic quote on statistics, it is quite true that statistics can be used to lie! But when done right by people who truly value the science of statistics (it is like a religion or philosophy to many statisticians), it is an effective tool for making decisions. That is the value of an agency like the CDC.
1) As a government agency they have to be transparent with their methods. If survey questions are worded to pre-disposition an outcome or if they do a meta-study using research they cherry-picked to fulfill a bias, it will be readily apparent. If conclusions are inconsistent with the data, it will be apparent.
2) For the CDC to be effective, they must maintain their integrity. Often they depend on foreign countries to quickly implement methods prescribed by the CDC to contain/prevent/treat diseases. They cannot afford months of the other country questioning the CDC's motives.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/cdc-still-cant-study-causes-gun-violence-180955884/?no-ist

 

[KEW]

I think regulating guns like cars makes the most sense. Guns are as dangerous as cars and should be treated like them IMO, but each community obviously needs different laws. New York laws would never work out here for farmers who need firearms to protect their livestock and farm land.

I am absolutely in agreement with this!
A licensing process which requires training and testing just makes sense to help assure gun owners are being responsible about safety and procedures.

An aside, and a tip for cleaning guns:
My GF has a friend on the police force who was cleaning his gun and accidentally shot the chair where his wife often sits. He was mortified! He is a meticulous guy, the anal boy scout type. He cannot believe it was loaded, he has easily cleaned his guns 1,000 times over the last 30 years! Everyone who knows him well would list him as the last person to make such a mistake!
Maybe he was tired, or more likely preoccupied with something, but he definitely isn't the first to accidentally shooter a weapon while cleaning. A good solution is to unload your weapon and exchange the ammo for your cleaning kit. Think of it as "borrowing" your cleaning kit and leaving the ammo as "collateral" until you return it.

 

[Steve81]

Maybe he was tired, or more likely preoccupied with something, but he definitely isn't the first to accidentally shooter a weapon while cleaning. A good solution is to unload your weapon and exchange the ammo for your cleaning kit. Think of it as "borrowing" your cleaning kit and leaving the ammo as "collateral" until you return it.

The problem is that it can be easy to forget that one in the chamber. One more reason I like my revolver.

 

[KEW]

According to this article, there is an increased likelihood of a similar attack within two weeks!
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/shootings-and-mass-murders-seem-be-contagious-180955804/

 

[KEW]

The problem is that it can be easy to forget that one in the chamber. One more reason I like my revolver.

True, but I've spent a good part of my life designing work stations and procedures to prevent mistakes (generally during assembly operations). Strange as it may seem, shifting unloading the weapon from something you do as a wrote step within the cleaning task to an isolated activity (its own task) results in a much lower incidence of omission. Certainly no guarantees, but definitely better!

 

[Chu Gai]

I think you are too quick to buy into the Kool-Aid that you are being given by clearly biased sources.
The perspective of the "Gun Owners Association" (deemed "the only no-compromise gun lobby in Washington" per Paul Rand) is absurd.

In footnote No.9, which I gave in its entirety, several Economic journals, analyzed the data and came to the conclusion that essentially more guns = less crime. It's irrelevant what the source was that compiled them. To my knowledge, those journals are refereed and peer reviewed. The data is also subject to examination by interested third parties. Also, to my knowledge, the CDC report is not.

Now, that doesn't mean it's an overwhelming correlation but there is one. If you take them together, then there is no compelling reason to not have concealed carry.

The article states:


Admits? How about "CDC found there is no evidence that gun control reduces crime."? An admission implies guilt or at least being wrong, but their mission is simply to find out. The gun lobbies want to use the fear that big government is at work fabricating or manipulating data to abuse you. Yet, their conclusion was "there is no evidence that gun control works". If the CDC actually operated as this site believes... with heavy bias and low ethics, and they had an agenda, why don't you believe they could be more effective? Explain what about their research you believe to be biased/bogus and why.

For starters the results weren't published in a journal along with the relevant statistical analysis.

They did make the conclusion that "having a gun in the home increases the likelihood that a resident of that home will be injured. That seems a no-brainer and about equivalent to saying houses with electricity are more likely to have death by electrocution. Perhaps the NRA and Gun Owners feel threatened by that statement, but I would be inclined to reach two conclusions from that statements:
1) If you don't have a reason to own a gun, but just are thinking about getting one for "fun", You might reconsider (especially if you have family).
2) Gun safety needs to be emphasized according to an examination of the ways in which those deaths occurred. I believe there are many good designs for gun safety currently available, but I also believe there are plenty of gun owners who are not educated on this topic.

Any gun owners I know take safety seriously and also practice. I'm sure there are others who are careless.

As a side story - When I was in 5th grade, I found a locked box in the back of my dad's closet. I started looking for keys stashed nearby. I found it in his nightstand and discovered my dad had a .38 in that box. For me that was the end of the story. Dad never knew I had found his gun.
However, in a parallel dimension, I could have shared the knowledge of that gun with peers or showed it off. The potential was there for an accident despite my dad believing all was safe. Today, the box would be more likely to have a combination, but I'm sure he wanted the key close to the gun so he could retrieve it if he heard strange noises in the house.

[/QUOTE]
You were mature, thoughtful, and introspective. Probably good upbringing.

 

[Chu Gai]

According to this article, there is an increased likelihood of a similar attack within two weeks!
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/shootings-and-mass-murders-seem-be-contagious-180955804/

I don't recall if it was in one of the Feakonomics books or a book that Stephen Dubner wrote but the topic of suicide was discussed.

Seems there was this island in some tropical locale. All of a sudden, young people started killing themselves. Nothing had really changed so why was this happening. The hypothesis was made that the first suicide acted as a legitimizing action for others to also take the approach to solve whatever problems they were experiencing.

So, while I don't know about the time frame, I expect to see others. Maybe gays will be targeted but Al Quaeda has publicly stated they don't want minorities targeted but rather white people.

 

[GO-NAD!]

I am absolutely in agreement with this!
A licensing process which requires training and testing just makes sense to help assure gun owners are being responsible about safety and procedures.

An aside, and a tip for cleaning guns:
My GF has a friend on the police force who was cleaning his gun and accidentally shot the chair where his wife often sits. He was mortified! He is a meticulous guy, the anal boy scout type. He cannot believe it was loaded, he has easily cleaned his guns 1,000 times over the last 30 years! Everyone who knows him well would list him as the last person to make such a mistake!
Maybe he was tired, or more likely preoccupied with something, but he definitely isn't the first to accidentally shooter a weapon while cleaning. A good solution is to unload your weapon and exchange the ammo for your cleaning kit. Think of it as "borrowing" your cleaning kit and leaving the ammo as "collateral" until you return it.

I know I said that I was leaving this conversation, and I am, as far as it relates to gun control. I just want to point out accidents quite often happen to the most experienced people. They are the results of complacency after all those years of experience. The only people I know who have had tablesaw accidents had been using them for years. Complacency can creep up on the most conscientious of us. I assume it would be the same in the US military as it is up here, in that when a firearm is passed from person to person, or picked up, it's treated as if it is loaded with a round in the chamber. If you are going to pass a firearm to another person, you check the chamber empty and put it on "safe". The person receiving it then does it again - doesn't matter if the first person says that he just checked it. If you put the firearm down, when you pick it up again, you check it again. EVERY time you get a firearm in your hands, you check it. I don't care if you are at home and just finished cleaning it - you pick it up, you check it safe. You take it out of a storage cabinet, you check it safe. It may seem excessive to some, but if it's ingrained, you are far less likely to have such an accident.

 

[herbu]

“We stand with you to say that the good in this world far outweighs the evil, that our common humanity transcends our differences, and that our most effective response to terror and to hatred is compassion, it’s unity, and it’s love,” Lynch said.

This statement is open to interpretation. Does "response" mean to the affected community or to the perpetrator(s)? No one disagrees with compassion to the community. It is the "response" to the shooter(s) where we disagree.

As you and others on the right refuse to see this was terror brought by a mentally ill individual

In my view, anyone who murders anyone is mentally ill. What right-minded individual would do that? Our disagreement is when it absolves the murderer of responsibility. To me, if the person had a choice and chose murder, he is responsible. He is only not responsible if his mental illness meant he didn't have a choice.

You, yourself have made disparaging remarks about gays on this forum.

No, I don't think so because I have no disparaging thoughts or feelings about LGBTs. If you can find where I have, I will sincerely apologize. I believe in equality. I believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I do not believe my rights trump yours, or vice versa. Our disagreements often come when "my" rights are in conflict with "your" rights. Does the good of the many outweigh the good of the few... or the one? It seems to me the libs most often choose "the few... or the one". Conservatives most often choose "the many".

So I can ask you the same question about 'libs'

No, I don't believe libs are dirty, rotten, evil, stupid bastards. At least most of them are not. I think they are idealistic. It is why young people are almost exclusively liberal, and have always been. They think about how things would be in Utopia.

Conservatives share the vision of Utopia. We are more cautious about how we get there. We're leery of unintended consequences, compromising the rights of the many for the few, and having to pass a piece of legislation to see what's in it. I see libs as more, "Damn the torpedoes... full speed ahead!".

Conservatives would love to see free college for everybody. Love to see free food, medical, housing and entertainment for everybody. But we want to see how we can pay for it without tramping on people's rights and having only a few support the many. We would love to sit around the campfire with Islamic Extremists and sing kum ba yah. But we cannot ignore their stated goal to destroy us.

 

[Steve81]

I assume it would be the same in the US military as it is up here, in that when a firearm is passed from person to person, or picked up, it's treated as if it is loaded with a round in the chamber. If you are going to pass a firearm to another person, you check the chamber empty and put it on "safe". The person receiving it then does it again - doesn't matter if the first person says that he just checked it. If you put the firearm down, when you pick it up again, you check it again. EVERY time you get a firearm in your hands, you check it. I don't care if you are at home and just finished cleaning it - you pick it up, you check it safe. You take it out of a storage cabinet, you check it safe. It may seem excessive to some, but if it's ingrained, you are far less likely to have such an accident.

That's how it's generally taught here, at least with the class I took, and online literature I've read. The only "unloaded" weapon is the one that's completely disassembled. Personally, I wouldn't even clean a weapon in a living area. I do that kind of work on the unfinished side of my basement, as far away as I can get from the wife and kids.

 

[Steve81]

Does the good of the many outweigh the good of the few... or the one? It seems to me the libs most often choose "the few... or the one". Conservatives most often choose "the many".

The US is a constitutional republic specifically because the good/will of the many doesn't necessarily outweigh the rights of the few or the one. It might be preferable to ban hate speech from the likes of the Westboro Baptist Church, but even in those extreme cases, we err to the side of the right to free speech because the alternative tends to be far worse.

 

[herbu]

The US is a constitutional republic specifically because the good/will of the many doesn't outweigh the rights of the one. It might be preferable to ban hate speech from the likes of the Westboro Baptist Church, but even in those extreme cases, we err to the side of the right to free speech because the alternative tends to be far worse.

But hate speech in Westboro doesn't affect my right to the same, and I don't have to listen to them. So in this case there is no conflict, just disagreement. But how about the right of some Westboro guy to come into my church and preach? Now my right to chose and peaceably assemble in a church that reflects my beliefs is infringed. In this case, I do not believe his rights trump mine.

Whenever the discussion turns toward someone's "rights", I always consider if that "right" is negating someone else's right.

 

[Steve81]

But hate speech in Westboro doesn't affect my right to the same, and I don't have to listen to them. So in this case there is no conflict, just disagreement. But how about the right of some Westboro guy to come into my church and preach? Now my right to chose and peaceably assemble in a church that reflects my beliefs is infringed. In this case, I do not believe his rights trump mine.

Whenever the discussion turns toward someone's "rights", I always consider if that "right" is negating someone else's right.

Going into a church means they're not on public property any more. OTOH, they often protest at funerals while remaining on public property, and in an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court effectively said they had the right to do that, and that the "church" wasn't liable for damages.

 

[Chu Gai]

The late Charlie Reese used to writ for the Orlando Sentinel. He published a piece, which was updated as the years went on. It was titled, Looking for Someone to Blame? Congess is a Good Place to Start.

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits? Have you ever wondered why if all politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does. You and I don't have Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does. You and I don't write the tax code. Congress does. You and I don't set fiscal policy. Congress does. You and I don't control monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices — 545 human beings out of 235 million — are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excused the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered by private central bank.

I exclude all of the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it.

No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislators' responsibility to determine how he votes.

Don't you see the con game that is played on the people by the politicians? Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of Tip O'Neill, who stood up and criticized Ronald Reagan for creating deficits.

The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it. The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating appropriations and taxes.

Those 545 people and they alone are responsible. They and they alone should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses — provided they have the gumption to manage their own employees.

We elect these people thinking and expecting that they'll this job and and make it their top priority to do right by the country. In a business sense, they're the board of the company and we are the shareholders. They're supposed to be smarter and wiser. Only if we step back and try to look at this not through the lens of our political persuasion do we come to realize their first priority is to get elected. Their second priority and just as important is to get reelected. In a distant third place is to get some work done but that is always conflicted with #2.

So what are some of the things that happen? How's about a tax code that has something like over a thousand pages? Why? Because both sides have played favorites and thought they could and should have an obligation to pick winners. We permit massive cost overruns when it comes to projects like that roadway thing in Massachusetts or weapons development. You and I are on the hook but we keep electing them. In a company, the shareholders would have long fired the board. But when these bastards leave they become lobbyists, throwing money at their buddies while we the people become we the suckers. It's always somebody else's fault.