In Defense of Crass Politicization

. I've never, however, really understood what the problem with this is. Most people don't pay attention to most issues most of the time. Advocates for causes need to find opportunities when it's possible to grab attention and then go out and grab it.

At a minimum, you might not want to seem like a solipsistic dick the one time people are actually paying attention to you. I admit I'm guessing, but I think that's probably not good for "the cause," whatever the cause is.

AP-BREAKING NEWS

Updated: 10 minutes ago
BAGHDAD - Four large bombs exploded in mostly Shiite areas of Baghdad on Wednesday, killing at least 157 people and wounding scores as violence climbed toward levels seen before the U.S.-Iraqi campaign to pacify the capital began two months ago.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Five times as many deaths in a few hours as VATECH experienced in the same time frame. Five times. I'll wait for Bush to announce flags at half staff for that.

There's a basic flaw in your logic. My goal is not to minimize the total number of deaths, but rather to minimize the chances of me dying. For example, draconian laws that prohibit smoking might be very successful at lowering the death rate, but since I don't smoke, I DON'T CARE.

Driving laws are similar (except when it comes to reckless and drunk drivers). I drive safely and wear a seatbelt. As long as other people are only risking their own life by not wearing a seat belt, who cares?

What's so scary about spree shootings is that there's no reasonable way to protect yourself. Its absolutely insane to allow any nut to buy a semi-automatic pistol. There will always be nutty people out there. The only protection from them is to keep them away from dangerous weapons. We're lucky that more people don't die from this sort of thing. As technology advances, the number of ways for these people to create death and destruction will only grow.

I completely agree that these are occasions where we should point out the idiocy of the current gun laws (although, being realistic, I know there's very little chance of things changing).

"At a minimum, you might not want to seem like a solipsistic dick the one time people are actually paying attention to you."

I was raised (70s-early 80s) to believe that seeming like a solipsistic dick was a bad thing.

But sometime in the last few years, such behavior seems to have become in America a sign of one's sincerity (although "solipsistic" is maybe inaccurate--"focused on a single issue" is more precise.)

Well, one problem with policy making in the wake of a tragedy (as opposed to policy debates in the wake of a tragedy) is that you often get really stupid policies. This is especially true when children are involved. Most of the stupid sex-offender laws were a reaction to specific crimes. Then there's the Patriot Act.

And I believe you've just encapsulated the argument against most of the war on terror.

'll wait for Bush to announce flags at half staff for that

This I don't get at all. Surely, at a minimum, we're allowed to distinguish between American deaths and others, or "expected" deaths and others. That I'm much more upset by a harm done to my family member than a greater harm done to some random seems pretty normal and human.

"That I'm much more upset by a harm done to my family member than a greater harm done to some random seems pretty normal and human."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yeah, living in a nation waging undeclared wars and wrecking uninvited and undeserved death and destruction upon the local populace does sort of cultivate a quasi-sociopathic mindset in said nation's citizens.

As a matter of fact SomeCallMeTim, don't you find it just as easy to not be troubled by notice of 157 Iraqi deaths as 20? It's all just numbers, correct?

Well I guess a thread entitled "In Defense of Crass Politicization" invites efforts to use the VT shootings as an excuse to complain about Iraq.

I just wonder if the above commenters were engaging in intentional or unintentional irony.

a quasi-sociopathic mindset in said nation's citizens.

I'm sorry, but that's a ridiculous charge. Steve, do you even know what the meaning of the word "sociopathic" is? How about this (for "sociopath"):

a person, as a psychopathic personality, whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

If you have a better definition, please feel free. But how does Tim's suggesting that an American might feel more anguished about the mass killing of Americans than of Iraqis in any way lead to the conclusion that such a person "lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience"? Even with your weasely attachment of "quasi" to it, it's still a ridiculous claim.

None of that is to say that it's not valid to consider whether we are insufficiently anguished over the death and destruction we have caused in Iraq. As a country, we certainly have been, in my view. But to say that because we don't express the same level of grief over every Iraqi death as we do over the Virginia Tech victims is "quasi-sociopathic" is just fucking mental.

Well, one problem with policy making in the wake of a tragedy (as opposed to policy debates in the wake of a tragedy) is that you often get really stupid policies. This is especially true when children are involved. Most of the stupid sex-offender laws were a reaction to specific crimes. Then there's the Patriot Act.

Well, there is a difference between a sudden and reactionary response to an event (Patriot Act, etc) than using an event to make hay for an established position, isn't there?

It's one thing to notice a drunk driving accident, declare it horrible, and then figure out what to do about it in 48 hours. That might lead to prohibition. It's another thing entirely to say that this particular accident bolsters the known case that drunk driving should be illegal.

I'm not particularly a gun control advocate, but I think MY's point here is a pretty good one. The challenge is to be an opportunist without seeming unsympathetic, but it can be done.

it doesn't make sense to engage in policy shifts with large costs (in terms of money or even just inconveniencing tons of people) in order to reduce the risk of something that's already very rare.

Unless that policy shift also reduces the risk of something that's very common, but for some reason less visible or less likely to provoke political sympathy than the rare thing. There were about 8,000 gun homicides in the US in 2004, over 90% of them gang-related. But most of the people at risk of being killed by guns aren't likely to get media or political attention, because they're poor. College and high school student victims make much better poster children for the cause of gun control than the poor people who die in most gun violence.

More attention is paid to isolated events like VT precisely because they're so unique, and thus hard to rationalize. As readers (viewers) we "know" what happened in a car accident-we understand it from the begininng, and further coverage is unnecessary. But when we hear about Columbine, or VT, or 9/11, we have no understanding of what happened or why. There's a psychological need to get more information, which drives further press coverage, which in turn drives policy.

The way out is to have better-informed policy-makers.

I would just mention that your argument is not, of course, against the need for gun control. It's only an argument against seeing a mass murder like VA Tech as a compelling reason for more gun control. If you merely want to argue about statistical relevance you don't need to invoke a mass murder. Enough gun crimes go on in America that the quantitative need for more gun control is already there. But then, you're opposed to gun control, despite the quantitative evidence and despite what you've just said concerning car accidents. So I have a hard time giving a shit about your seat belt initiatives.

As a matter of fact SomeCallMeTim, don't you find it just as easy to not be troubled by notice of 157 Iraqi deaths as 20?

I'm not particularly troubled by Iraqi deaths shorn of any other characteristics. If we weren't there, I probably wouldn't notice at all. I can almost guarantee you that life is an unimaginable hell for a significantly sized group of people who live under conditions for which the US is essentially blameless. I'd point them out, but I don't know who they are because I--and similarly, the people who make up the market that drives the newspapers I read--don't care beyond some minimal instinctive reaction of sympathy. This is pretty much the standard way everyone on earth--save, obviously, you--behaves.

The other reason not to use this particular incident to make a larger point is that equally strong but opposing arguments can be made:

a) people should not legally be allowed to buy guns

b) people should be able to carry concealed weapons to protect themselves.

"The other reason not to use this particular incident to make a larger point is that equally strong but opposing arguments can be made:"

True. For every issue in existence, there is always an equally strong argument to be made on both sides. I guess we can call this the "Broder postulate".

Contrast that with a newsworthy tragedy like John Corzine's car accident. Normally, car wrecks and the resultant injuries don't make national news. But they happen all the time. Slightly higher compliance with seat belt laws...

TOO SOON!

Surely, at a minimum, we're allowed to distinguish between American deaths and others, or "expected" deaths and others. That I'm much more upset by a harm done to my family member than a greater harm done to some random seems pretty normal and human.

I don't get what point you're trying to make here, SCMT. I take it you're not related to anyone at VA Tech, right? So the people who died in Virginia are just as randomly related to you as the people who just died in Baghdad. Why should we grant more weight to the deaths of thirty-plus strangers in Virginia than a hundred and fifty-plus strangers in Baghdad? The only real distinction between these groups of strangers is that one group is American and one is Iraqi. I don't believe being born within a certain set of borders makes a given person worth more - or more worthy of my attention, my empathy or my grief - than another.

Re: "b) people should be able to carry concealed weapons to protect themselves."

Am I the only one, or does the idea of kids bringing concealed handguns to their classes strike anyone else out there as being truly bizarre and horrendous?

Re the comment "What's so scary about spree shootings is that there's no reasonable way to protect yourself. Its absolutely insane to allow any nut to buy a semi-automatic pistol. There will always be nutty people out there. The only protection from them is to keep them away from dangerous weapons."
---------
Or to buy a Glock 9mm yourself and shoot them before they shoot you.

NB: Aim for the brain -- it's an instant stop whereas the commonly recommended "center of mass" will often give the enemy 2 minutes to kill you before he bleeds out enough to lose consciousness.

Hey , I'm just saying..

I don't believe being born within a certain set of borders makes a given person ... more worthy of my attention, my empathy or my grief - than another.

There we just disagree. I'm not suggesting that my position is the morally proper one, but rather that it's the standard one and likely to remain so.

Christmas,

You don't sound like a real American to me. Don't you know that the lives of Americans are priceless? And that we're all supposed to weep (at least inside) every time we hear of a brave American dying overseas, at the hands of those barbarians?

On a serious note. It is the responsibility for our government to put our people first. That is because our government represents our people. But there is no rational reason for us to therefore value people who happen to be born within one set of borders higher than those born somewhere else. Its just stupid sentamentality.

Or to buy a Glock 9mm yourself and shoot them before they shoot you.

Except that most people are bad at most everything. I know people say that an armed populace is a safe populace. Do you really want to arm this populace? Do you really feel confident in John Q. Public walking around with a gun? I'd like to consider myself a moderately intelligent person. But the chances of my hurting myself with a gun (if I had one) are pretty much 100%.

I concur with the last half of Matt's post, and would also add that it's completely unclear to me what the policy implications of the VT shooting actually are. My own preferences for or against gun control aside, what sort of non-draconian policy could be crafted that could plausibly prevent middle class college students with no history of crime or violence from engaging in a shooting spree? If there's any hope of preventing this sort of occurrence, it would seem that campus mental health services are the key, not gun control.

And the flip side of the argument -- everyone should be encouraged to carry concealed weapons so that we might be better prepared to defend ourselves against spree killers -- is so obviously stupid that it doesn't really need to be addressed.

"If there's any hope of preventing this sort of occurrence, it would seem that campus mental health services are the key, not gun control."

I agree that this direction is the most important. I think creating an environment where kids don't feel bad about informing authorities about other kids they think are dangerous is important. A bigger problem is: once the authorities know that someone is "troubled" (as they did in this case), what can they legally do about it? Not much, it seems. Particularly in a public school.

Or to buy a Glock 9mm yourself and shoot them before they shoot you.

Or, more likely, buy a Glock, shoot first, then: a) miss, and make the possibility you were going to get shot into a certainty, or b) miss, and hit some poor innocent schmuck who just walked into the room and hasn't drawn her Glock yet, or c) hit the target, and find out that that wasn't a gun they were holding after all (shooting first necessarily involves drawing first if you're giving advice to the general population), and look forward to a long stay in our fine prison system.

And what's with the stupid head shot "instant stop" bit? It's an automatic handgun, not a musket. You could, you know, shoot a second time. Even a third.

Now a I feel like an idiot for even engaging this goof.

I can't help but feel that Matt is pulling a bait and switch in his middle paragraph. He's implying that the costs of gun control are high and that it's impact is insignificant, so he chooses a criteria (statistical likelihood of death by murder spree) to dismiss the discussion without having it.

Bad form.

At the current level of gun ownership, the likelihood of a criminal shooter being successfully gunned down by an armed civilian is pretty low. Especially compared to the probability of bystanders being hit in a shoot-out. So the pro-gun-ownership argument only works if you massively increase the levels of gun ownership in the population, which in turn will have a ridiculous and dramatic increase of violent deaths by loss of temper.

On the contrary, it's pretty obvious that less availability of guns would force violent criminals work harder to get the same body counts. Bombs take expertise and preparation, and have a chance of going off while being prepared. Vehicular homicide has a pretty low upper-limit on deaths. Poisoning and sabotage require access and planning, and don't seem likely to appeal to the rageaholic mindset in the same way that point and click death does.

Frankly, it's pretty obvious that strong gun control in high-population density is the easiest solution to problems of domestic gun violence, street gun violence, and yes, the less common psychopathic killing streak. The resistance to strong gun control is the success of paranoids and violence fetishists.

Re the comment "everyone should be encouraged to carry concealed weapons so that we might be better prepared to defend ourselves against spree killers -- is so obviously stupid that it doesn't really need to be addressed."
-----------
I dunno. It works in Israel.

I never understand why people have more faith in a police state than in their neighbors. The idea of my neighbors being armed doesn't scare me -- what scares me is that Rudi Giulani is a viable candidate for President.

After all , this is the guy whose police has shot innocent men to death on several occasions. When you see a corpse with 50 bullet holes in it and the corpse is unarmed, there's something wrong.

Plus lets not forget the black guy who had to be hospitalized after Giulani's finest sodomized the guy with the handle of toilet plunger.

Another point is, this kid in VT was an awkward, socially isolated, loner. He would have had an awfully hard time obtaining a gun illegally.

Matt:

How crass is crass politicization? Here's the Church of Scientology's take on the shooting. http://www.cchr.org/index.cfm/9027/19828
it's all the fault of anti-depression drugs...

"I dunno. It works in Israel."

Yes, we can dream. Maybe someday the US will be as safe as Israel.

"Plus lets not forget the black guy who had to be hospitalized after Giulani's finest sodomized the guy with the handle of toilet plunger."

Too bad he wasn't carrying a concealed handgun. I'm sure he'd have been better off.

It seems to me that there's no better way to earn plaudits in the blogopshere than to slam people who deploy something like the Virginia Tech massacre as a pretext for grinding some political ax. I've never, however, really understood what the problem with this is.

More importantly, though, I think most of the comments above are correct. Outrage based on a single incident is a lousy way to generate sound policies. Witness, for example, the entire "War on Terror" with the pointless, expensive orange alerts and the neocons slavering at the possibility of using the political moment to topple Saddam. Witness also our draconian drug laws, such as the crack/powder cocaine sentencing discrepancy, and the insane sex-offender laws that force 18 year old boys who have consensual sex with 15 year old girls to be registered as sex offenders for life.

Or review the Simpsons' "Bear Patrol" episode if you have any additional questions.

The right thing to do is to mourn the deaths, let the passions cool a little bit, and then rationally discuss whether there is a way to reduce the risk of such events without introducing negative externalities that cause even greater problems.

Not going to happen in a million years, of course, but it would be nice.

So, how about cars, how do we prevent those deaths?

I don't know how many accidents happen at very high speeds, but if it's a lot, can't we require manufacturers to physically limit cars to some reasonable top speed? Right now, the speedometer goes to double the speed limit. Corzine's driver was going around 90mph -- who needs to do that? Ambulances other emergency vehicles, I guess, but could we restrict all other cars to, say, 75?

Another idea I've heard floated is a breathalyzer on the ignition, which sounds incredibly annoying, but maybe it's worth it for the reassurance that the other cars on the road are not being driven by drunks. Anyway, little though I would like the nuisance, I have to admit that if anything else were causing that many deaths, we'd be taking precautions at that level. Look at airplane security after only 3,000 deaths.

Re Michael's comment "On the contrary, it's pretty obvious that less availability of guns would force violent criminals work harder to get the same body counts. Bombs take expertise and preparation, and have a chance of going off while being prepared. Vehicular homicide has a pretty low upper-limit on deaths. Poisoning and sabotage require access and planning, and don't seem likely to appeal to the rageaholic mindset in the same way that point and click death does."
----------

If you check wikipedia.org for "spree killings" you will see that gun control does nothing to stop determined killers.

The worst spree killing ever -- 1982 in South Korea -- was done with grenades stolen from a police armory. The third worst spree killing -- in 1938 in Japan --was done with Japanese swords (silent --hence no alarm ). The Red Lake High School shooting were done with a firearm that the shooter had stolen from his policeman Grandfather --after killing his grandfather while the grandfather slept.

If you look at the larger set of "mass murders", you see that firearms play no part -- bombs or arson is the tool. Look, for example, at the 87 people killed in 1990 when Julio Gonzalez set fire to a crowed New York City nightclub. Or the Oklahoma City bombing, which killed 168.

The Virginia Tech shooter bought his pistols two months ago, learned how to shoot them accurately, and worked out in the gym for weeks. He chained Norris Hall's doors together (presumably after classes had met and the hall was empty).
Does that suggest any cold pre-planning and calculation?

I'm sorry if my introduction of some real world facts disrupts you Lego Set social engineering.

"So, how about cars, how do we prevent those deaths? "
-------
Frankly, if someone is traveling 91 MPH and not wearing their
seat belt -- especially on a crowded road like the NJ Turnpike-- then I have a hard time summoning up much concern about what happens to them.

"How crass is crass politicization? Here's the Church of Scientology's take on the shooting. http://www.cchr.org/index.cfm/9027/19828
it's all the fault of anti-depression drugs..."

Well, even the scientologists could be right sometime. I wouldn't put it out of the question that Cho's AD drugs played a factor, given what we know about some ADs increasing risk of suicide in adolescents.

On Matt's point, I'd rather have crass politicization (i.e. trying to actually do something), than the schlochy syrupy sentimentality that we'll be treated to, with the ritual castigations of Hollywood and Video Games, followed by doing absolutely nothing about availability of firearms.

If only someone would be honest and say "look, we luurvve our firearms, right? So occasionally a nut gets a firearm and uses it in a public setting. Those 32 innocents are the price we pay for the purported right to own serious firepower. So we'll keep having one of these every few years or so, unless there's serious legislation which doesn't get stricken down by the courts. But given how the GOP's stacked the federal bench, don't hold your breath."

Yeah, banning small pieces of easily manufactured, easily concealed metal, in a nation of 300 million people which supposedly values something called a 4th Amendment (ignoring the 2nd for now), and where there is significant demand for such objects, and where a couple hundred million such objects are already in circulation, is sure to bring about desired results in larger proportion to undesired results. Also, the sophisticated distribution channels needed to effect wide commerce in such contraband do not already exist. Finally, there just aren't enough profit sectors for well-organized violent criminals yet.

By all means, let's create another market that is largely regulated by illegal violence, in order to reduce the number of spree killings by lunatics from their current levels. That's a good trade-off.

Re: "If you check wikipedia.org for "spree killings" you will see that gun control does nothing to stop determined killers."

Similarly, if you check the obituary pages and look up all the cancer deaths, you will find that modern medical treatment did not prevent a single death! Brilliant.

Yeah, socially awkward loners in this country have a really difficult time obtaining illegal contraband. Really.

I dunno. It works in Israel.

Numerous things wrong with this. First, although it is easier to obtain a gun in Israel than in most countries, it is actually more difficult to obtain a gun in Israel than in the U.S. (it is generally easier to legally carry a gun in Israel however).

More importantly, Israel is a nation with mandatory military service. In otherwords, nearly all Israelis have been provided significant high-level training in the use of a firearm. Needless to say, the vast majority of Americans have no firearm training whatsoever. Having untrained or under-trained people carrying around guns is a recipe for disaster. Anyone with common-sense can see that.

"If you check wikipedia.org for 'spree killings' you will see that gun control does nothing to stop determined killers."

Because we all know that wikipedia is an excellent source for identifying all of the potential spree killers who were thwarted by their inability to instantly access a weapons more dangerous than kitchen knives.

Countries with strict gun control (such as the UK) tend to have fewer gun homicides but also have widespread incidents where drunken yobs beat people up on the street or break into their houses. And it won't stop a committed killer who has access to illegally smuggled weapons. I think the 30-day waiting period is a reasonable solution to deter such crimes, in that it slows the criminal down and increases the odds that someone like Cho would have his gun spotted by a roommate or have his plans foiled in some way. In this particular case, unfortunately, it didn't help.

However, it's impossible to prove a negative. You can't look at the small number of actual spree killers and assume that deterrent measures haven't stopped other potential spree killers. You also can't just look at the relative dearth of spree killings (or terrorist attacks, for that matter) and claim that this vindicates our current policies. These issues are a mite too complicated to be resolved by a few "real-world facts" from wikipedia.

Re the comment "You can't look at the small number of actual spree killers and assume that deterrent measures haven't stopped other potential spree killers"
---------
Sigh.
Unlike the gun control social engineers, I don't confuse inner fantasies with real life. Hence, I don't worry about imaginary spree killers that slunk away.

I consider it enough to look at the small number of actual spree killers and show that several of them would not have been stopped by the most stringent gun control regime.
I think it is then reasonable to conclude that stringent gun control would provide little benefit --because it is easily circumvented -- and hence is not worth the
very real costs/dangers.

Armchair social engineers often don't get out much --hence,
don't see real world facts. Consider , for example, the much maligned gun shows. Gun control advocates don't attend them--for fear of an allergic reaction no doubt. If they did, however, they would see that the most dangerous things are not the hundreds of registered guns lying on the tables. Or even the fully automatic M60 and Browning 50 machines displayed by the class III dealers. Or the submachine guns with silencers.

It is rather the tables of book dealers , selling things like the "Improvised Munitions Handbook" -- a book developed by the US Army for CIA and Special Forces -- which tells hows to make high explosives from household chemicals.

Sometimes the pen IS mightier than the sword..er, gun. So do you scrape the First Amendment along with the Second? Maybe even set up a Second Inquisition to keep scientific knowledge under control and burn the occasional Galileo at the stake?

I thought it was hilarious that the same Bush Administration which was elected by the National Rifle Association wrote a Constitution for Iraq which deliberately left out a right to own firearms. Indeed, a Constitution which explicitly stated that Iraqis could own firearms only as a privilege granted by the Iraqi government. So how did that gun control regime work out??

"Unlike the gun control social engineers, I don't confuse inner fantasies with real life. Hence, I don't worry about imaginary spree killers that slunk away."

Unlike medical doctors, I don't worry about imaginary cancer cells that slunk away after application of chemotherapy and other treatments.

Given the admitted propensity of certain bloggers to randomly click around the screen as they read, I'm especially concerned about "point and click death". The NY Times dictionary function caused enough trouble - isn't it time to stop the madness?

Re "nearly all Israelis have been provided significant high-level training in the use of a firearm. Needless to say, the vast majority of Americans have no firearm training whatsoever. Having untrained or under-trained people carrying around guns is a recipe for disaster"
----------
If this is a real concern, why is it that the NRA provides probably 95% of firearm safety training in this country whereas the gun control lobby provides..er..none??

Maybe because the gun control lobby is heavily invested in the myth that handling a firearm can't be done by a mere mortal absent sanction by the State. Which is garbage.

The military provides little training in handguns to troops,other than for special units , because the handgun is laughable on a battlefield where the enemy is carrying automatic assault rifles. Plus, most military personnel are support troops in non-combat units.

The police make greater use of the handgun, with standards that officers must meet. But they sensibly see the handgun as a tool and don't obsess over it --because they have too many higher priority things to do. Civilians who attend some of the gun training schools (Gunsite,etc) can probably shoot as well and handle tactical situations as well as many policemen.
Especially policemen in peaceful towns/suburbs who go for years without pulling their gun.

The police have influence on the training courses that civilians must take to get a concealed carry license.
The length and content of those courses are described -- they generally run several days and cover the legal requirements for use of deadly force, gun safety ,etc. The essentials don't take that long to acquire.

Note that the armed civilian has a MUCH easier job than a policeman. The policemen has to approach and subdue/handcuff a suspect who may be armed with a concealed knife/gun and then must maintain treatment/control of the suspect in a way that allows a legal conviction. All the time using methods which will not allow the suspect to sue if the suspect turns out to be innocent. The policeman can't avoid bad neighborhoods or bad situations -- he has to charge into them if called.

But the gun control lobby argues "It's too hard" because they have never investigated what's involved in shooting a gun and self defense. They operate on the basis of superstitution, not reason.

Re "Unlike medical doctors, I don't worry about imaginary cancer cells that slunk away after application of chemotherapy and other treatments"
--------
And I myself don't dose the entire population with chemotherapy
chemicals simply because I have an unjustified,paranoid fear that most of my fellow citizens are a dangerous cancer.

Which is the underlying rationale of the gun control social engineers, if you look closely.

Don,

As a general matter, I am not in favor of gun control. So I'm not saying the "gun control lobby" is right here. I'm only saying that the idea that we should have a bunch of untrained or under-trained people carrying around guns is nonsense. It would obviously make our society more dangerous, not less. If people get proper training (and pass a background check), I have no problems, for the most part, in allowing them to carry weapons.

But lobbying for people to be able to carry weapons without sufficient training is, in my opinion, utterly insane. I applaud the NRA for offering training courses (though I have no idea how substantial the training offered is), but I condemn them to the extent that they argue that Americans should be able to carry weapons at all times even if they have not been properly trained.

higher compliance with seat belt laws, better compliance with speed limits

This is particularly valid as a lesson to draw from the Corzine incident, where speeding and failure to wear a seat belt very nearly could have killed the top elected official of a state.

"I've never, however, really understood what the problem with this is."

I know that this might seem pretty naive, but isn't there something to be said for common decency? There are a lot of families out there trying to deal with a tremendous loss. I assume that at least a few of them include people who are in the NRA. And a few who are opposed to the NRA. Can't we give them a few days before we start pointing fingers and saying, "Hey, seems to me your son/daughter wouldn't be dead if idiots like you weren't for/against gun control."

OK. Sure. I doubt many of them are breathlessly scanning the editorial pages to see how these things are hashing out. Still, it just strikes me as kind of unseemly. On both sides. Sure, it will get politicized eventually. And it probably ought to. But come on. Is two days too much to ask? Or at least long enough to find out what actually happened?

The main thing to remember is this: No matter how bad the tragedy at VT was, at least nobody's 2nd ammendment rights were violated. Now, that would have been a true tragedy.

Re "But lobbying for people to be able to carry weapons without sufficient training is, in my opinion, utterly insane"
-------
And I would agree with you.

I would note that a firearm is a small part of self defense--
alertness, good habits, avoidance of bad situations, good locks and a dog/alarm system,etc
are probably far more important in most cases.

The biggest danger to most people is going around in daze , daydreaming or thinking about a problem, and being unaware of their surroundings.

Plus any gun owner should know that he risks losing his life savings/home in a civil suit if he uses his firearm, even if the police/DA rules his action was justifiable self defense.

Re "The main thing to remember is this: No matter how bad the tragedy at VT was, at least nobody's 2nd ammendment rights were violated. Now, that would have been a true tragedy."
---------
No, a true tragedy is that 5+ million people were exterminated in Nazi Germany and were just as helpless as the students in Norris Hall. After the Nazis had confiscated private firearms.

What's striking to me is that, as far as I can tell, not a single person in this thread advocates substantially stricter gun control laws, yet Don Williams carries on arguing with straw-social-engineers.

What's also striking is the way his primary argument could be used to criticize every single law on the books. "I consider it enough to look at the small number of actual spree killers and show that several of them would not have been stopped by the most stringent gun control regime." Yet, oddly enough, the VA Tech killer, who legally purchased two semiautomatic weapons with large clips, would have been thwarted by such laws. At minimum, he would have needed to make an illegal purchase and run the risk of being caught. Damn those facts and their bias!

And clearly, Don believes that if we can't stop all spree killers we shouldn't try to stop any of them. Many people are arrested every year on weapons violations, but even expressing the possibility that one of them might have been planning to shoot up the local school or post office is pure fantasy?

Again, I don't support onerous gun control. Spree killings are much less common than home invasions, and many people don't have a police station right down the street from their home. They should probably own a gun. But I'm genuinely confused as to why a law-abiding citizen needs to purchase multiple semiautomatic handguns with 15-round clips for either hunting or self-defense purposes. Exactly how often are American homes invaded by gangs of marauding ninjas?

"Exactly how often are American homes invaded by gangs of marauding ninjas?"

Mine was. Twice. Last week. Luckily, I dropped 'em with head shots. Only took three clips. Like they say: don't carry a gun unless you intend to aim it. Don't aim it unless you intend to shoot it. Don't shoot it unless you intend to kill. Or something like that. I saw that line in the movie Phantasm and always thought it sounded cool. And about as logical as the arguments that gun-nuts make.

Or as Outkast put it, "Don't pull the thang out, unless you plan to bang." Words of wisdom.

"No, a true tragedy is that 5+ million people were exterminated in Nazi Germany and were just as helpless as the students in Norris Hall. After the Nazis had confiscated private firearms."

ACtually, the Nazis did not pass any gun laws until 1938, five years after coming to power. The 1938 Reichswaffengesetz law actually liberalized private firearms relative to the 1928 Act from the Weimar era: rifles became unregulated for citizens, permits for handguns were increased. [Of course, if you were Jewish, you'd already been stripped of your citizenship in 1935, so that was a different matter.]

Also, on your contention that the improvised explosive books at gunshows are more dangerous than the guns: you're guilty of armchair chemistry here. It's a damn sight more difficult to get a recipe to work than you think.

"What's striking to me is that, as far as I can tell, not a single person in this thread advocates substantially stricter gun control laws,"

Err, I do, in that I believe they'd lower the lethality of crime (but probably not affect the frequency of crime). I've no illusions that such laws would pass constitutional muster nor that they're politically in the offing.

There is such a thing as a decent interval and Tim Kaine had it right when he implied that there was something patently indecent about making a pitch within a day of the event. It's unseemly and unproductive to not think first and foremost about *today's* victims first before, after a respectful interval, turning our attention to preventive measures.

I basically agree with MY's point. When people complain about something being politicized, they often seem to imply that politics is some parlor debate, or just a game which is *about* certain life and death issues but has little or nothing to do with them. In fact it is the case that political disputes often *decide* the fate of e.g. victims of crime.

People who fight for a political cause, of course, are not typically motiviated by their concern for the particular individuals caught up in mass shootings, wars, etc. But they often are motivated by the general harms involved. So while it's fair to say "Those gun control advocates aren't concerned about by brother Johnny who was shot", it's unfair to say that they are concerned with something other than victims of gun crimes.

Another problem people have, which is to some degree legitimate, is that starting a public political discussion disrupts the obligation to mourn the dead properly. Mourning focuses on the dead individual, whereas the debate over public policy, safety measures and even punishment of crime focuses on the living population in general.

Err, I do, in that I believe they'd lower the lethality of crime (but probably not affect the frequency of crime). I've no illusions that such laws would pass constitutional muster nor that they're politically in the offing.

Which is to say you aren't ADVOCATING such laws.

Re "ACtually, the Nazis did not pass any gun laws until 1938, five years after coming to power. "
-------
And the Final Solution to the Jewish Question kicked into gear when? 1942? 1943?

The Weimar gun control law probably helped the Nazis, since it tended to disarm the left while the right wing Nazis could get weapons from sympathizers in the German army. (Hitler started out as a domestic intelligence agent for the German army).

Recall that the left-- especially the Communists, which included a number of Jews -- was the only force standing up to the Nazis and fought the Nazis to a draw in raging street battles during Weimar.

"And the Final Solution to the Jewish Question kicked into gear when? 1942? 1943?"

How's that relevant to your point? You blamed the Holocaust on the confiscation of private firearms by the Nazis: 'After the Nazis had confiscated private firearms". The Nazis didn't touch the Weimar laws until 1938, when they *liberalized* firearms laws for German citizens.

"The Weimar gun control law probably helped the Nazis"

Don, the fact that you know and acknowledge the laws controlling guns dated from the Weimar era make me think you were extremely disingenuous spouting the standard NRA talking point above.

"Recall that the left-- especially the Communists, which included a number of Jews -- was the only force standing up to the Nazis and fought the Nazis to a draw in raging street battles during Weimar."

Well, the KDP made a big mistake with its "Social Fascism" doctrine up that it held until 1933, i.e. that both the SDP and the NSDAP were essentially the same. Not the best piece of political analysis in history. Also, recall the failed Luxembourg/Liebknecht attempt at revolution by the KDP in 1919: Weimar had a good rationale to take weapons off the streets.

in re: Nazi gun laws,

Consider the activity of the S.A. (brownshirts) in the early 1930s. They created chaos and mayhem in the streets -- defending the country against communism, supposedly -- while Hitler was promising to end the chaos and mayhem. In other words, the Nazis were contributing to the problem they campaigned to solve. The Weimar government had limited options to deal with the very real paramilitary threats from both sides (the commies were no angels) given their treaty obligations. Gun control was ultimately unsuccesful at stemming paramilitary activity, but it might have contained it for some time. The problem was a lack of power and respect for the lawful authorities, not an excess of power. Gun control is only tyrannical in the hands of tyrants, and until BushCo's assault on the constitution, I never imagined a future where American political culture might one day support a sort of tyranny where we'd need the ultimate backup plan. This is not to call for revolution, but the association in the US of the far right with gun freedom is based on a crazy fear of left-wing authoritarianism that has been never really existed. Right-wing authoritarianism, on the other hand...

Re "association in the US of the far right with gun freedom is based on a crazy fear of left-wing authoritarianism that has been never really existed. Right-wing authoritarianism, on the other hand..."
----------
1) Yes, what's been really crazy is how the NRA leadership ranted about "jackbooted federal thugs" during the Clinton Administration but has remained totally silent during the Bush administration.

2) All Janet Reno did at Waco was execute a legal search warrent issued by an independent judge. Bush, by contrast has scrapped 1000 year old Angle-Saxon rights for US citizens: habeas corpus. right to trial by jury. ban on cruel and unusual punishments. ban on search and seizures other than based on a warrent issued by the judicial branch and naming what specifically is to be searched.

3) Major constitutional checks on the Executive. All gone. And Wayne LaPierre of the NRA lets it roll over him like a cool summer breeze.

Which is really strange. Because if the NRA leadership really believed their rhetoric about resistance to a tyrant, they would realize that only the Executive branch has the power to become a threat.

4) And firearms would play a small role in a real resistance to such a threat -- covert communications and counter-surveillance measures are far more important. The NRA doesn't seem to realize that if the Executive can watch their every move on thousands of surveillance cameras -- can listen to their every word with warrentless wiretaps -- and can read every thing they write , then the Executive can seize their guns --and their persons -- any time it wants.

5) What's REALLY interesting is that some right wing people are getting really nervous about where Bush and Cheney are heading.

Look at the scathing remarks the conservative group American Freedom Agenda made a few days ago in calling for Attorney General Gonzales to resign:
--------------
"WASHINGTON - Leading conservatives called for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to resign Monday, saying he has "brought the rule of law into disrepute" by firing eight U.S. attorneys for questionable reasons.
In a letter to Gonzales and President Bush, the American Freedom Agenda, a conservative constitutional rights group, said the attorney general is an "unsuitable steward of the law."

The attorney general "has presided over an unprecedented crippling of the Constitution's time-honored checks and balances," wrote five of the group's members, including former Georgia Republican Rep. Bob Barr, former Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Fein, and Richard Viguerie, a conservative activist and author.

"He has brought the rule of law into disrepute, and debased honesty as the coin of the realm," the conservatives wrote."
Ref: http://www.newsobserver.com/114/story/564870.html
-----------------

It also interesting to see some statements that the conservative American Freedom Agenda has posted on it's web site. It states:
---------------
Especially since 9/11, the executive branch has chronically usurped legislative or judicial power, and has repeatedly claimed that the President is the law.

The constitutional grievances against the White House are chilling, reminiscent of the kingly abuses that provoked the Declaration of Independence.

The 10-point American Freedom Agenda would work to restore the roles of Congress and the federal judiciary to prevent such abuses of power and protect against injustices that are the signature of civilized nations.

In particular, the American Freedom Agenda would:

1) Prohibit military commissions whose verdicts are suspect except in places of active hostilities where a battlefield tribunal is necessary to obtain fresh testimony or to prevent anarchy;
2) Prohibit the use of secret evidence or evidence obtained by torture or coercion in military or civilian tribunals;
3) Prohibit the detention of American citizens as unlawful enemy combatants without proof of criminal activity on the President’s say-so;
4)Restore habeas corpus for alleged alien enemy combatants, i.e., non-citizens who have allegedly participated in active hostilities against the United States, to protect the innocent;
5) Prohibit the National Security Agency from intercepting phone conversations or emails or breaking and entering homes on the President’s say-so in violation of federal law;
6) Empower the House of Representatives and the Senate collectively to challenge in the Supreme Court the constitutionality of signing statements that declare the intent of the President to disregard duly enacted provisions of bills he has signed into law because he maintains they are unconstitutional;
7) Prohibit the executive from invoking the state secrets privilege to deny justice to victims of constitutional violations perpetrated by government officers or agents; and, establish legislative-executive committees in the House and Senate to adjudicate the withholding of information from Congress based on executive privilege that obstructs oversight and government in the sunshine;
8)Prohibit the President from kidnapping, detaining, and torturing persons abroad in collaboration with foreign governments;
9) Amend the Espionage Act to permit journalists to report on classified national security matters without fear of prosecution; and;
10) Prohibit the listing of individuals or organizations with a presence in the United States as global terrorists or global terrorist organizations based on secret evidence
-------
If conservatives can push for the above, why can't our Democratic leadership grow a pair?

Hmmm. It occurs to me that maybe conservatives realize that Hillary may well win the election in 2008 -- in which case she acquires Bush/Cheney's powers.

ha ha ha

"I'm back -- and this time, no more mister nice guy"

Armchair social engineers

I'm sure you felt very clever when you came up with this particular ad hominem, but can you stop repeating it, please?

For the record, I am advocating stronger gun control in high-population density areas. The simple numerical asymmetry between when some real, physical, threat prevails and when some really, genuinely upsetting event occurs almost ensures that increased frequency of guns being carried increases the liklihood of people getting shot in rage/despair, etc.

In response to Don's defense of spree killings: There was a guy in Massachusetts recently who blew up his girlfriend and himself in an elevator using gasoline. Was that a terrible outcome? Yes. Could it have been massively worse if he went into the building armed to the teeth and tried to shoot his way out, yes.

Having armed militias as a defense against government tyranny is a rather odd solution to an often hypothetical problem. On the other hand armed mobs of enraged civilians was common place at various times and places in U.S. history, with dubiously just outcomes for the outsider/minority/target of the mob.

I don't propose that gun control can prevent psychopaths from attempting mass homicide. I believe that it can make them have to work much harder to achieve as much damage. On the other hand, I can't imagine a realistic scenario where there are enough per capita citizens packing heat to be an effective deterrent to such an attack.

I do believe that gun control can reduce the numbers of domestic violence fatalities, accidental shootings, kid on kid homicides, lethality of street violence, loss of police life, and other obvious social ills in highly population dense areas. If people who have acres of land to themselves want to fire off some rounds at wild animals in their back yards, I have no problem with that. If someone in the bungalow across the street is shooting at squirrels and shoots out my window, I do have a problem with that.

There just isn't any genuine upside to an armed urban populace outside of apocalyptic revolutionary fantasies.

mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırcturk
turkmırc
mırc turk
turk mırc
turkiyemirc
türkiyemirc
turkiye mirc
türkiye mirc
mircturkiye
mirctürkiye
mirc turkiye
mircturk
turkmırc
muhabbet
forum
forum
turkforum
turkiyeforum
mirc
turkmirc
toplist
site ekle
pagerank
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet
chat
sohbet odaları
bedava sohbet
bedava chat
türk
karar

thankss

That these imbalanced situations exist at all is one good reason to make IBC compliance a matter of law instead of guideline TSDAS

thanks ;)

zayıflama

Eğlence ve Bilgi Merkezi
SohbetOriflame
ForumOriflame Kozmetik
Bilgi
Yemek Tarifleri
Sohbet
Şarkı Sözleri
Forum
Sevgi
Aşk Şiirleri
Yemek Tarifleri Sağlık
Dini Bilgiler
Güzel Sözler
Manzara Resimleri
Video izlesene
Sinema
Astroloji ve Buçlar
Cinsel Hastalıklar
Fıkralar
Pastalar, Börekler, Kekler, Tatlılar, Hamur işleri, Et Yemekleri, Yemek Tarifleri
Oriflame Üyelik Formu
Cilt Bakımı
Güzellik Sırları
Oriflame Kozketik
Oriflame Bayan Parfümleri
Orilame Erkek Parfümleri
Oriflame Ürün Kataloğu

sdffbbgfee

thanks
http://www.sohbetf.net/

ooooo bayildim