U.S. Politics 2017 (split fm US Election: 2016)

[kkwd]

You mention Canada. The only civilian I know of ( no doubt there are others that I do not know of ) with a permit that allowed him to carry a loaded weapon was Norm Gardner.

The permit said, "for protection-of-life". He had apparently received a death threat, he said.

So, I don't know what good that permit to carry would have been for a property crime.

I made no mention of guns of any kind in that post.

 

[mariomike]

I made no mention of guns of any kind in that post.

Your post was in reply to this,

"Well, if you actually look at those pesky statistics (2015), 327,526 robberies and 7,993,686 property crimes (burglary, larceny-theft, etc) were committed by those who wanted to potentially get shot.... in the most heavily citizen armed country."

Which was in reply to this,

Sure, my story is made up. But it makes sense, who wants to potentially get shot for a few dollars. What I should have added is that even thinking a potential victim is armed is a deterrent. Just like the police having take home cars keeps people in line as they go about their daily off duty routine. There is one thing there though, they are armed.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

You mention Canada. The only civilian I know of ( no doubt there are others that I do not know of ) with an Authorization to Carry ( ATC ) was Norm Gardner.

The permit said, "for protection-of-life only". He had apparently received a death threat, he said.

So, I don't know what good that permit to carry would have been for a property crime such as stealing a radio from a parked car.

Almost impossible to get historical information on CCW/ATC in Canada, but concealed carry was far more common than realized. Generally for people carrying large sums of money, jewelry, etc. You can see ATIP results for ATC wilderness carry on the web.

 

[kkwd]

Your post was in reply to this,

"Well, if you actually look at those pesky statistics (2015), 327,526 robberies and 7,993,686 property crimes (burglary, larceny-theft, etc) were committed by those who wanted to potentially get shot.... in the most heavily citizen armed country."

Which was in reply to this,

No. It was just about property crime rates plain and simple.

 

[mariomike]

From reply #1406

"Instead, residents in homes with a gun faced a 2.7-fold greater risk of homicide and a 4.8-fold greater risk of suicide."

Warning: This may be a bit morbid for young or sensitive readers.

I'm not a firearms expert, and this is not to debate if they should be kept in homes.

If looking for reliability ( a fail with this method is likely to cause a very unpleasant injury ), and least amount of agony, a shotgun  slug or buckshot to the head is a likely choice.

Definitely not recommended as a "gesture". ( No intent to die, but to give the appearance of a suicide attempt. Sort of a "cry for help". )

But, doing it in the family home - rather than a motel, parking lot, rail yard, field etc. - is something I used to wonder about.
They could have left a note / message where to find the body.

Perhaps they did not take time to consider the feelings of those discovering them in the family home?
They will not walk into a scene of serenity.

Doing it in the family home seemed to me to be more of an act of impulse, rather than having been thought through and planned in advance.

A reliable method coupled with not much thought is a scary combination.

I used to wonder if perhaps some of those using this method in the family home might not have gone through with it had they thought about what they were doing for a little longer?

Probably never know for sure.

 

[Jarnhamar]

http://www.dailywire.com/news/22419/last-fast-and-furious-suspect-arrested-murder-amanda-prestigiacomo?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro

In hindsight giving criminals guns was probably a bad idea.

 

[FJAG]

Point/Counterpoint: We should talk about gun control vs. I’m going to shoot your liberal face

https://www.duffelblog.com/2017/10/gun-control-point-counter/

;D

:cheers:

 

[kkwd]

Having a gun is a personal decision. Nobody is holding a gun to anybody's head to get one. If you are legally able to obtain one and want one (or 2 or more) get one, if you don't want one then don't get one. You have to decide what you want the gun for and what type to get. You have to make the decision yourself if having a gun is an advantage or disadvantage for you. It's a free country so make up your mind and act on your own conscience.

 

[FJAG]

Having a gun is a personal decision. Nobody is holding a gun to anybody's head to get one. If you are legally able to obtain one and want one (or 2 or more) get one, if you don't want one then don't get one. You have to decide what you want the gun for and what type to get. You have to make the decision yourself if having a gun is an advantage or disadvantage for you. It's a free country so make up your mind and act on your own conscience.

You miss the point. I don't want any guns yet still have three of them from when as a youngster I did want them.

What concerns me is the horde of unwashed numbskulls that you see on the "Science of Stupid" who kick each other in the gonads to see if it really hurts or who can't control their road rage or who exercise their God given right to use alcohol and drugs to excess. (And yes, I don't like seeing them drive cars or flying drones at airports either)

The public worries because there is no shortage of bad examples out there and hazardous objects should be restricted to those people who demonstrate both competence and mental stability to use them. (except of course in the US where the 2nd Amendment reign supreme)

Your argument, however, is the one that I use about the issue of abortion and I know how far that sells down south these days.

op:

 

[kkwd]

You miss the point. I don't want any guns yet still have three of them from when as a youngster I did want them.
op:

Why don't you sell those guns if you don't want them?
Is the popcorn emoji your new signature now? 

 

[FJAG]

Why don't you sell those guns if you don't want them?
Is the popcorn emoji your new signature now? 

I've wondered that myself. I think it has to do with the fact that I bought them as a young lad shortly after my dad died and my uncle and I used to spend a good bit of a time on the ranges with them. And he's died since as well. So sentimental value I guess although I feel tremendously guilty about the fact that the last time they were cleaned was thirty years ago. (Please -- I don't need beating up about that)

Nope. The cheers emoji is still my standard. I use popcorn when I jump into an argument that I have no place to be in because I'm not all that invested in it. On this topic I'm torn between my usual libertarian (NOT liberal) philosophy and the fact that there truly are some morons out there that shouldn't be given permission to handle anything more dangerous than a can opener.

:cheers:

 

[Jarnhamar]

[quote author=FJAG]

The public worries because there is no shortage of bad examples out there and hazardous objects should be restricted to those people who demonstrate both competence and mental stability to use them. (except of course in the US where the 2nd Amendment reign supreme)[/QUOTE]

Generally I feel the same way. There are some big morons out there, like the guys who packed a lawn mower full of binary explosives and shot it with a rifle. Lawnmower explodes and the blade took his leg off below the knee.  All caught on youtube. I'm for firearm licensing, background checks, mental health checks and don't think it's a right to own a gun anymore than its a right to own a car. But how do you vett someone that essentially shoots a 100 pound hand grenade?  Or people that drink and drive, or punish a 4 year old disabled  kid by leaving them outside at 3am?

Your argument, however, is the one that I use about the issue of abortion and I know how far that sells down south these days.

Abortion reminds me about the statistics about suicides and firearms in the home in so far as people using it as an argument point.  Are people I never met THAT genuinely concerned about me having an increased chance of suicide if firearms are present at home? Are these the same people that would say I deserve to die if I voted for Trump, or if I'm X politics/views then I'm a piece of shit? Are all these strangers worried about suicide rates also pro-life?

I say thanks but no thanks. If someone is that concerned about suicide then they should make an effort and talk to someone instead of using suicide rates as a way to push gun control.

I'm curious about the stat that someone in a home with firearms is more likely to be killed than without, or whatever it was.
Is that a reflection of someone shooting back and being killed instead of just putting their hands up, a reflection of where people live such as they live in bad neighborhoods already so they're more likely to own firearms?

No one has explained why "assault weapons" are responsible for 300ish murders in the states where as handguns are closer to 9000 yet the antigun mantra is to ban assault rifles.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

As soon as they ban "assault rifles", they go after "sniper rifles", first any bolt action with a scope, plastic furniture and a bipod, or capable of taking a bipod. Then they go after "Combat Shotguns", etc,etc. They don't take the loaf at once, they take slice by slice.

 

[FJAG]

The NRA Wants Gun Owners To Carry Everywhere. Here’s Why They Shouldn’t.
A new study finds that weaker concealed carry laws are linked to significantly higher rates of gun homicide.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/concealed-carry-laws_us_59e8b879e4b08f9f9edd3e52?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

:cheers:

 

[kkwd]

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/concealed-carry-laws_us_59e8b879e4b08f9f9edd3e52?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

:cheers:

I can't find a link to the study in this Huffpo piece. Wait, no problem, it is a pay for view article at AJPH.

 

[FJAG]

I can't find a link to the study in this Huffpo piece. Wait, no problem, it is a pay for view article at AJPH.

I have to admit that I find "pay for view" a pain in the ***; not just in this case but for a number of research papers I've tried to find/access. I agree that the article would be much more persuasive if the research was easily accessible.  :dunno:

:cheers:

 

[Kirkhill]

"The right to be wrong is at the core of the democratic idea, and it must be protected,"

Opinion: Why your alarmism over Trump is dangerous for democracy

Oct 18, 2017 10:15 pm EDT

We live in an era of alarmism. Everyone, or at least Trump opponents, seems alarmed nearly all the time. Even when we can’t quite summon the energy, we’re expected to be outraged. Our outrage is then presented as a badge of honor, evidence of virtue at a time of historic challenge to the Republic. But the nature of the outrage – overwrought before even Trump took office – has taken a new turn.

We are confronted daily not simply with outrage, but a kind of end-of-worldism: America is on the brink of dictatorship; Trump is going start World War III; the president’s access to the nuclear codes might actually destroy the universe; if he manages to control his impulses, then his withdrawal from the Paris climate change accords will still destroy the universe, just a bit more slowly.

As someone who works on the Middle East, I find myself, oddly enough, in a near constant state of relief. Nine months into Trump’s tenure, it could have been better, but it could just as well have been worse, perhaps much worse.

The world hasn’t ended.

Every new day, though, seems to bring new cause for panic. Republican Senator Bob Corker’s biting remark that “the White House has become an adult day care center,” and that “someone obviously missed their shift” was tailor made for liberal fantasies. Vanity Fair correspondent Gabriel Sherman, parrying the thin line dividing news and gossip, reported on the “speculations” of an unnamed former official. According to the official, there was the open question of whether White House Chief of Staff John Kelly and Secretary of Defense James Mattis would “tackle” Trump, presumably to prevent him from ordering a nuclear strike.

To state the obvious, Americans, like all citizens of a democracy, have the right to elect bad, even very bad, politicians.
Before Trump even had a chance to prove just how unfit for office he was, liberals and Democrats were already preemptively tossing around the word “impeachment.” The vigor for the Russia investigation is driven, in part, by the hope that clear evidence of criminal activity will emerge, thereby justifying the introduction of articles of impeachment. Yet despite no smoking gun, 40 percent of Americans – and more worryingly 72 percent of Democrats – say they would support impeachment, according to one recent poll.

If unimpeachable evidence does, in fact, emerge, then fine. Since some are realizing how unlikely this is, the conversation is now moving onto the 25th amendment, with mainstream outlets covering it as a serious possibility. It’s almost as if the goal is to find a reason to get rid of Trump, by any means, or amendment, possible. The very eagerness with which some on the left (and the never-Trump right) are raising such drastic measures is, itself, cause for concern.

A plain reading of 25th amendment makes clear that it doesn’t apply to our current situation. Section 4 allows a majority of cabinet members or Congress to submit a written declaration that “the president is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.” President Trump is able to discharge the powers of the presidency; the problem is how he discharges them, and the fact that many Americans believe (rightly) that he is discharging them rather badly. This is primarily a political, and therefore a subjective, judgment. To state the obvious, Americans, like all citizens of a democracy, have the right to elect bad, even very bad, politicians.

Yet someone as well regarded as legal scholar Eric Posner has made the argument, shared by apparently millions, that Americans should consider new ways, however unprecedented, to remove a president who reaches a certain level of subjective badness. Posner is explicit about this, writing that the president “can be removed, under the conventional understanding of the 25th Amendment, if he is incapacitated by mental or physical illness. But there is no obvious solution for a president who has not committed a crime or been disabled by illness, but has lost the confidence of the public because of a failure of temperament, ideology or ability.”

…Trump’s actual policies have been a number of things: damaging, dishonorable, illiberal, and racist, but they have not been undemocratic.
The argument amounts to something more simple and sinister: that presidents who express ideologies that we find outside the bounds of acceptability can be removed, despite being democratically elected by voters. Posner is also quite explicit that he is talking about political, not mental, incompetence. The entirely subjective criteria, which could easily be applied to any president going forward, include: “[His] values fall outside the mainstream… he lacks the interest or attention span to inform himself about issues; or he lacks management abilities and is unable to govern effectively.” Tennessee Congressman Steve Cohen makes a similarly ideological argument for impeachment that bears no relation to anything the constitution says: “If the president can’t recognize the difference between these domestic terrorists and the people who oppose their anti-American attitudes, then he cannot defend us.”

Ironically, the arguments made by the likes of Posner and Cohen represent a greater long-term threat to American democracy than anything Trump has done so far. With the exception of some tweets that have raised the possibility of de-licensing certain networks or challenging judicial independence, Trump’s actual policies have been a number of things: damaging, dishonorable, illiberal, and racist, but they have not been undemocratic. Making this distinction – difficult for Americans since constitutional liberalism and democracy have gone hand in hand – has never been more important.

To take one example, modified versions of the January “Muslim ban” were bigoted and mean-spirited and counterproductive, but there was nothing intrinsically undemocratic about them. In other words, the president, like heads of government in any other country, has considerable leeway in deciding which non-citizens are permitted to enter the country. The rescinding of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), which allows minors who entered the country illegally to stay, is cruel, but it is not undemocratic (particularly considering Trump campaigned explicitly on reversing it on “day one.”) To take this one step further, after reviewing Trump’s most controversial policy ideas – the ones that have been implemented and not merely mentioned in passing in unscripted campaign speeches – none of them can be deemed, strictly-speaking, undemocratic.

In effect, what many Democrats would like, whether explicitly declared or privately hoped for, is the criminalization of behavior that the “smarter” or “rational” among us deem unacceptable, racist, or evil. But, the great thing, and sometimes the scariest thing, about democracy is that it explicitly allows people to be, well, evil, as long their “evil” is expressed within the the law. Democracy is not meant to protect us from other Americans we don’t like.


Perceiving our fellow citizens, endowed with the same rights as the rest of us, as fundamentally “irrational” in a way that, in effect, excommunicates them from society, leads us toward other dangers. If they are deemed irredeemable, then we must search for explanations of how they became this way. As Alan Jacobs, author of “How to Think,” tells Emma Green here in The Atlantic: “Conspiracy theories tend to arise when you can’t think of any rational explanation for people believing or acting in a certain way. The more absurd you think your political or moral or spiritual opponents’ views are, the more likely you are to look for some explanation other than the simplest one, which is that they believe it’s true.”

Jacobs continues: “One category that’s gone away in America is ‘wrong’.” It just happens to be that the right to be wrong is at the core of the democratic idea. Without it, there isn’t much left. We might not be able to control Donald Trump, nor should we expect to, but America will survive Trump. It is less clear whether we will find a way past some of our own darker impulses, however well intentioned they might be. Once the door to the criminalization of political and ideological disagreement is opened, it may be near impossible to close it.

Above: The right to be wrong is at the core of the democratic idea, and it must be protected, argues author Shadi Hamid. Photo by Noam Galai/WireImage


By — Shadi Hamid
Shadi Hamid is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and the author of the book Islamic Exceptionalism: How the Struggle Over Islam is Reshaping the World.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/why-your-alarmism-over-trump-is-dangerous-for-democracy

 

[FJAG]

"The right to be wrong is at the core of the democratic idea, and it must be protected,"

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/why-your-alarmism-over-trump-is-dangerous-for-democracy

I think that the concept that there is a "right to be wrong" and that it is at the "core of the democratic idea" is pure sophistry.

Democracy comes in many forms and has many positive and negative aspects. Fundamental to democracy is the ability to freely debate opposing views in order for the majority to choose which course of action to take. That however is not to say that there is a "right to be wrong"; one merely has a right to state a position different from your opponent.

Being wrong is not a right. It is a state of being. Being wrong includes: not being in accordance with what is morally right or or good; deviating from truth or fact; being erroneous; being not correct in action, judgment, opinion, method; etc.

Democracy deals with governing and being governed. In its simplest form opposing views were debated to allow the majority to decide which course of action or which leaders should prevail. Inherently, in early democracies those who were believed to be incapable of rational deliberation and thought were excluded from participating in the process; the mentally inform, the young, slaves, women etc. In any real debate within a democratic system there is an attempt to expose and reject ideas that deviated from truth or morality, etc.

The idea of elevating "being wrong" to a "right" which can be maintained without consequence is anathema to democracy. Once an idea or a leader is found to be "wrong", democracy demands a change. Whether that change happens at the next election or whether it is big enough to call down an extraordinary remedy depends entirely on the degree of the "wrong".

Sorry. Hamid's article is full of rationalizations based on spurious "democratic" principles. Democracy demands more. The question is whether or not the American system of democracy in this day and age is capable of delivering.

:cheers:

 

[Kirkhill]

Democracy doesn't demand more.

The corollary to the Universal Franchise is that every opinion is equally valid.  The basis behind selecting governments by election is that the "other side" wins as often as "your side".  Time limits minimize the damage that either side can do.  The notion that no parliament can be bound by a previous parliament acts like regulating mechanism which moderates the more extreme positions of any particular government.

Our Westminster System is not based on Truth or Justice.  If you want to find those then you can go to Church and join all the other seekers there.  Our system is based purely on pragmatic accommodation and the avoidance of civil insurrection.

Even our Courts are based on people agreeing that their peers will decide the merits of the case, not a group of experts deciding on absolutes.  The outcome is not based on who is right but rather which argument the citizenry finds most acceptable.

And that is the reason that I am no fan of constitutions.  They satisfy those that search for absolutes.

They do nothing to encourage pragmatic accommodation.

I've always considered the essence of the British system to be encapsulated in Henry Newbolt's line "Play Up! Play Up! And play the game!"

:cheers:

 

[FJAG]

Democracy doesn't demand more.

The corollary to the Universal Franchise is that every opinion is equally valid.  The basis behind selecting governments by election is that the "other side" wins as often as "your side".  Time limits minimize the damage that either side can do.  The notion that no parliament can be bound by a previous parliament acts like regulating mechanism which moderates the more extreme positions of any particular government.

Opinions are not equally valid. In a democracy some people pretend that they are in order to support the concept of egality. Opinions vary in quality and its high time we recognized that not every opinion is worth listening to.

The fact that a subsequent government can change a law dramatically. The biggest example of this right now is the process underway to repeal/emasculate Obamacare which is fueled by the competing concepts that 1) healthcare should be universal across the US v each State manages its own system and 2) healthcare should be in the hands of private industry v a government service. These conflicting opinions are leaving tens of millions of US citizens either without healthcare or in a limbo of changing programs.

While I agree that a legislature should be able to change and build on prior laws, there needs to be a moderating brake. And no, I do not know what the full structure of those brakes should be but a reasonable constitutional framework that defines basic principles of governance and protected rights is a good start.

Our Westminster System is not based on Truth or Justice.  If you want to find those then you can go to Church and join all the other seekers there.  Our system is based purely on pragmatic accommodation and the avoidance of civil insurrection.

Neither truth nor justice will be found in any church save as a result of pure serendipity.

Even our Courts are based on people agreeing that their peers will decide the merits of the case, not a group of experts deciding on absolutes.  The outcome is not based on who is right but rather which argument the citizenry finds most acceptable.

You are equating the entire legal system with the jury system. In most legal systems the jury has a lesser role or no role at all than it does in the US. The US and the Canadian and the UK constitutions only provide for the constitutional right to a jury for criminal trials (and in Canada and the UK that relates to the more serious felony crimes) Civil juries are the rare exception in Canada and the UK and even in the US there are extensive State laws that limit some of the effects of jury trials. In addition higher end commercial disputes frequently by-pass the court system entirely by making contracts or disputes  subject to such dispute resolution agencies as the ICDR/AAA or the LCIA or the ICC.

The concept that you ought to be tried by a jury of your peers is also an anachronism relating back to the days where legal resources were sparse and you were judged by your neighbours who knew of your reputation or of the facts because they occurred locally. These days we expressly exclude from a jury anyone who knows the parties or knows of the facts in an attempt to find impartiality. In Canada and the UK we have fixed the system significantly. The US is due for a correction.

And that is the reason that I am no fan of constitutions.  They satisfy those that search for absolutes.

They do nothing to encourage pragmatic accommodation.

I've always considered the essence of the British system to be encapsulated in Henry Newbolt's line "Play Up! Play Up! And play the game!"

:cheers:

If I remember correctly, Newbolt's altruistic championing of the virtues of chivalry and that wars should be fought in the same spirit as school sports ran face-first into the coal face that was the First World War. Even he later came to despise his poem and described it as a "kind of Frankenstein monster that I created thirty years ago."

I personally trust neither the public nor politicians and would prefer to protect our basic rights by constitutional provisions that are hard to change. I even find the 2nd Amendment in that vein. At the time it was a necessity but it has since been badly interpreted and IMHO has had it's day and should have been repealed or amended into something more pragmatic.

:cheers: