Political Roundtable Cosmic String of Cataclysm - Part V

[nate33]

There's an obvious solution here -- ban the manufacture of all guns in the United States. Ban the import of all guns. Ban the possession of firearms by any civilian. **** the Constitution -- I'm sick of kids getting shot. I'm sick of hearing gunshots outside my house every weekend. I'm sick of of insane teenage jerks waving guns in my face. SICK SICK SICK!!! Just ban them all, dammit, once and for all.

Utter sophistry. That's no solution at all. It would make the situation worse. Criminals with guns would be undeterred. Crime would increase everywhere.

Well that's just idiotic. You can't tell me that if there were no guns there would be as much crime as we have today. You can do better than that Nate, shame on you.

Your policy only results in less guns for law abiding citizens. It does little-to-nothing to affect the guns in the hands of criminals.

[pineappleheadindc]

.
To my buddy, Zonker:

The gun debate is one of those problems that seems to be impossible to fix.

There are supposedly over 200M guns in a bunch of someones' hands in America. And since the expiration of the assault weapons ban, an increasing share of purchases are high velocity, rapid-fire weapons coupled with high capacity magazines. Heck, refresh my memory, but didn't the Colorado theater shooter have a 100 round magazine drum?

That many guns out there would be impossible to do anything about without a consistent and ongoing multi-generational effort. Even if by some miracle, you spiked the water on Capitol Hill and Congress voted to ban all guns (except for single shot, barrel-loaded muskets consistent with an originalist reading of the Constitution), and having banned all guns, tried a mechanism to round them up from the public, how long would it take till they were out of circulation?

Those who blame the plethora of other things: movies, video games, lack of religion in society, etc. Even if there were a clear path forward to fixing those things, it would take years....generations to fix and change. And I'm not convinced a centralized effort to change culture ever works efficiently or effectively. I don't get Jersey Shore, baggy jeans, the million different Vampire movie series, Gangnam style, and a jillion other things. But they exist, get popular, and move culture by the force of their own will and the aggregate of millions of individual minds.

I do know this:

-- We accept gun violence too readily. Nick Kristof did some research and came up with this: "More than twice as many preschoolers die annually from gun violence in America as law enforcement officers are killed in the line of duty." IN total, 11,000 people die via gun violence per year. Imagine if any other product in America killed that many people. Gun supporters like to cite cars (you gonna ban cars?) to which I reply: Corvair. We should not accept this many people dying.

-- Facts are elusive. The gun lobby in Congress has prevailed in banning agencies from merely collecting data about guns and gun violence. That's shameful. But the lack of statistical evidence is a great state of being for the gun manufacturers. If we want to address the problem, we need to understand it factually, not emotionally.

-- The pro-gun culture is nuts. Enough already with pushing pro-gun laws. To carry them into preschools. To let college kids carry guns into bars (gee, what could possibly go wrong). Or the absolute worst: To allow people to have guns even on property where the property owners don't want guns. (Link: http://is.gd/Dk7p66) Really, gun nuts. Just stop it already.

Zonker, my friend, I feel your pain. The events in CT struck home because many of the victims were similar in age to my little girl. I don't know anyone who did not feel bad for the tragedy associated with such violence (well, except Wayne LaPierre at his press conference). But dude, this is not going to be solved in our lifetimes. Particularly when Congress is either scared or bought off. When limited data exists to help make an anti-gun case. When entrenched attitudes exist that won't be changed in anyone's lifetime.

But guns will eventually be banned. In total. There will be a tipping point. That tipping point will eventually come after enough people are killed for no reason. It's like, eventually there will be too many surviving relatives and friends of gun victims to ignore. At that point, long after millions of additional guns are in circulation...only then, will we do something about it.

Hang tough, my friend,

Pine

[pineappleheadindc]

LaPierre's press conference bugged me. Armed guards at schools? Yeah, great idea. What could possibly go wrong?

Too many violent video games?

Yes, the cause of ACTUAL gun violence is children taking part in PRETEND gun violence. It wouldn't be something like say cheap and easy access to guns.

Breaking news: According to the NRA and its supporters, EVERYTHING is responsible for gun violence. Except guns.

[pineappleheadindc]

Curious about the relative mortality rates of knife vs. gun attacks.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/FIFC.PDF

This is interesting:
"While the majority of victims of intentional gunshot wounds were black, most victims of unintentional firearm injury and suicide attempts with firearms were white."

Speaking of the relative mortality rates of knife vs gun attacks:

On the same day that 20 children were being mowed down by an AR15 in Newtown, CT. A gun that, to my knowledge was legally owned and registered, another crazed man attacked kids in a school. Halfway around the world, some Chinese dude attacked 22 kids and 1 adult with a knife.

In Newtown, CT, 20 children and 6 adults died.
In China, all 22 kids and the 1 adult survived the knife attack.

But if we ban guns, people will apparently still use knives to attack folks (says the NRA). To which I reply, I'm not liking any mass attacks, but if given a choice, I choose the knife.

Link to news story on the Chinese knife attack: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2 ... fe-attack/

[nate33]

Here is a great article from the Wall Street Journal on global warming. In a nutshell: most of the dire predictions on global warming have been based on unproven models. We now have observational data that disprove those models.

Most scientists agree that CO2 will double and that will raise the temperature by 1°C over the next century. Where the confusion arises is in the prediction of the amplification affects based on various positive feedback loops. A 1°C increase will stimulate more cloudcover, which models assume will cause significantly more warmth. That part has now been disproven. Observational data shows minimal feedback loops. The Earth's temperature is only going to increase by about 1.6°C over the next century rather than the 3°C increase predicted by alarmists. Indeed, scientists agree that a modest 1.6°C increase will be a net benefit for humanity. Snippets below:

Cooling Down the Fears of Climate Change
by Matt Ridley

By far the most important debate about climate change is taking place among scientists, on the issue of climate sensitivity: How much warming will a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide actually produce? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has to pronounce its answer to this question in its Fifth Assessment Report next year.

*snip*

Mr. Lewis tells me that the latest observational estimates of the effect of aerosols (such as sulfurous particles from coal smoke) find that they have much less cooling effect than thought when the last IPCC report was written. The rate at which the ocean is absorbing greenhouse-gas-induced warming is also now known to be fairly modest. In other words, the two excuses used to explain away the slow, mild warming we have actually experienced—culminating in a standstill in which global temperatures are no higher than they were 16 years ago—no longer work.

In short: We can now estimate, based on observations, how sensitive the temperature is to carbon dioxide. We do not need to rely heavily on unproven models. Comparing the trend in global temperature over the past 100-150 years with the change in "radiative forcing" (heating or cooling power) from carbon dioxide, aerosols and other sources, minus ocean heat uptake, can now give a good estimate of climate sensitivity.

The conclusion—taking the best observational estimates of the change in decadal-average global temperature between 1871-80 and 2002-11, and of the corresponding changes in forcing and ocean heat uptake—is this: A doubling of CO2 will lead to a warming of 1.6°-1.7°C (2.9°-3.1°F). This is much lower than the IPCC's current best estimate, 3°C (5.4°F).

*snip*

Given what we know now, there is almost no way that the feared large temperature rise is going to happen. Mr. Lewis comments: "Taking the IPCC scenario that assumes a doubling of CO2, plus the equivalent of another 30% rise from other greenhouse gases by 2100, we are likely to experience a further rise of no more than 1°C."

A cumulative change of less than 2°C by the end of this century will do no net harm. It will actually do net good—that much the IPCC scientists have already agreed upon in the last IPCC report. Rainfall will increase slightly, growing seasons will lengthen, Greenland's ice cap will melt only very slowly, and so on.

*snip*

How can there be such disagreement about climate sensitivity if the greenhouse properties of CO2 are well established? Most people assume that the theory of dangerous global warming is built entirely on carbon dioxide. It is not.

There is little dispute among scientists about how much warming CO2 alone can produce, all other things being equal: about 1.1°-1.2°C for a doubling from preindustrial levels. The way warming from CO2 becomes really dangerous is through amplification by positive feedbacks—principally from water vapor and the clouds this vapor produces.

It goes like this: A little warming (from whatever cause) heats up the sea, which makes the air more humid—and water vapor itself is a greenhouse gas. The resulting model-simulated changes in clouds generally increase warming further, so the warming is doubled, trebled or more.

That assumption lies at the heart of every model used by the IPCC, but not even the most zealous climate scientist would claim that this trebling is an established fact. For a start, water vapor may not be increasing. A recent paper from Colorado State University concluded that "we can neither prove nor disprove a robust trend in the global water vapor data." And then, as one Nobel Prize-winning physicist with a senior role in combating climate change admitted to me the other day: "We don't even know the sign" of water vapor's effect—in other words, whether it speeds up or slows down a warming of the atmosphere.

*snip*

The scientists at the IPCC next year have to choose whether they will admit—contrary to what complex, unverifiable computer models indicate—that the observational evidence now points toward lukewarm temperature change with no net harm. On behalf of all those poor people whose lives are being ruined by high food and energy prices caused by the diversion of corn to biofuel and the subsidizing of renewable energy driven by carboncrats and their crony-capitalist friends, one can only hope the scientists will do so.

[dobrojim]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... ked-online

The leaked draft "summary for policymakers" contains a statement that appears to contradict the climate sceptics' interpretation.

It says: "There is consistent evidence from observations of a net energy uptake of the earth system due to an imbalance in the energy budget. It is virtually certain that this is caused by human activities, primarily by the increase in CO2 concentrations. There is very high confidence that natural forcing contributes only a small fraction to this imbalance."

[popper]

I am hesitant to reference the link below because gun control is such an emotional issue for some. It does make some interesting points however.


http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/ ... media.html

[hands11]

Just to cut through the BS

Boner is stalling because he wants to wait until after he get elected to a second term as house leader which happens after the new year. So the Nation waits while Boner secures his job in a vote on Jan 3rd. Nice.

For that, he is willing to play this political game of us going past the deadline.

Because here is what he could do. He could allow the Senate bill to get voted on the floor in an open vote. That would extend the tax cuts for the middle class. The very thing Obama ran on and that the majority of America supports.

What game is the Tea People playing ?

They could pass middle income tax cuts now which would be allowing the higher rates to go up.

or

They can let them all go up and then vote for only the middle income tax cuts which is also allowing the top rates to go up.

Same difference. So who do they think they are fooling ? Would this fool the base that are the Tea People ? If so, they are fools. If not, why do it like this ?

Sorry but this version of the R party is a complete joke. Incompetent. I have never seen worse and that include the Newt Congress.

So are the Rs back to Lincoln with the Wigs and Abolitionists ?

So Boner is trying to save his job.
McConnnel is trying to save his.

So neither will do anything.

They said they wanted to be lead. President gave him the plan his ran on. Nope.
He negotiated a compromise. Nope.
McConnell and Reid could work it out but McConnell is a no show.
The Senate already passed a bill that could get voted on. Nope.

Now both Boner and McConnel say the President has to get it done when bills about appropriations are supposed to come from the congress. These two Rs leaders are total FOS This party is a total joke.

[montestewart]

I am hesitant to reference the link below because gun control is such an emotional issue for some. It does make some interesting points however.


http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/ ... media.html

Oh, it's not too emotional anymore. That was last week. The article is a remarkable blend of statistics, analysis, and insight. I especially liked this:

As Peter Baldwin put it in his book, The Narcissism of Minor Differences, "Take out the black underclass from the statistics, and even American murder rates fall to European levels."

Get rid of black underclass = safe. It's so simple, I can't believe I didn't see it.

[Ed Wood]

Truly the final solution to all of our firearm-related problems.

Dammit I think that's the first time I've violated Godwin's Law.

[popper]

I am hesitant to reference the link below because gun control is such an emotional issue for some. It does make some interesting points however.


http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/ ... media.html

Oh, it's not too emotional anymore. That was last week. The article is a remarkable blend of statistics, analysis, and insight. I especially liked this:

As Peter Baldwin put it in his book, The Narcissism of Minor Differences, "Take out the black underclass from the statistics, and even American murder rates fall to European levels."

Get rid of black underclass = safe. It's so simple, I can't believe I didn't see it.

Below is info from the CDC regarding firearm homicides. Inner-city Blacks have been the majority of victims in these crimes. Most firearm homicides occur in cities that already outlaw guns. Why the big push now for gun control? Is it because the latest victims were children, or white, or both? Sensible gun control is good policy but the debate we are currently having in this country is the usual politically correct tripe that won't do a darn thing in drastically lowering firearm homicides. Politicians will pass a law, pat themselves on the back in front of the cameras, and then we will go back to killing each other in the inner-cities with illegal weapons. Wouldn't it be more productive to have a real debate using readily available facts and data?


From the CDC ...................

Large metropolitan areas suffer about two-thirds of all firearm homicides in the United States, with inner cities most affected, according to a new report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

"The central cities really bear the burden of firearm homicides," said Linda L. Dahlberg, the associate director for science in CDC's Division of Violence Prevention, noting that the gun murder rate was highest among male children and teens.

These findings "speak to the importance of addressing youth if we really want to do something about the gun violence problem," Dahlberg said.

According to the CDC, 25,423 murders by gunfire took place in the United States in 2006 through 2007 — the years of the most recent available statistics. Among these deaths, the rate of firearm homicides was higher in inner cities than in other parts of cities and higher than the murder rate of the country as a whole, Dahlberg said. People living in 50 of the largest cities, in fact, accounted for 67% of all firearm homicides.

In addition, children and teens aged 10 to 19 in these areas — more than 85% of them male — accounted for 73% of all firearm homicides, Dahlberg noted.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/hea ... 47159990/1

[nate33]

I am hesitant to reference the link below because gun control is such an emotional issue for some. It does make some interesting points however.


http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/ ... media.html

Oh, it's not too emotional anymore. That was last week. The article is a remarkable blend of statistics, analysis, and insight. I especially liked this:

As Peter Baldwin put it in his book, The Narcissism of Minor Differences, "Take out the black underclass from the statistics, and even American murder rates fall to European levels."

Get rid of black underclass = safe. It's so simple, I can't believe I didn't see it.

I know there are people out there who look for racism in every statement uttered by conservatives, but let's not ignore the truth of what the man is saying.

The United States is different from most Western European countries in that we have a sizable class of citizens with a troubled history. Black Americans first had to assimilate as freed slaves when there was obviously rampant discrimination working against them. The shadow of slavery extended well into the 20th century until equal rights legislation was passed. And even with most of the legal hurdles cleared, Black Americans had to face substantial discrimination as most of white America was still ingrained with Jim Crow mindset. Racism is far less rampant today but it is obviously still present. And furthermore, Black Americans are having to deal with the unintended consequences of the Welfare State which promoted such a ridiculously high illegitimacy rate.

The bottom line is that there is indeed a significant "Black underclass" in America and they do commit a disproportionate amount of the gun murders. This reality is obviously going to distort the gun murder statistics when comparing America to Western Europe. If one factors for this distortion, then the stats show that America isn't really any more dangerous than Western European countries. Gun control therefore isn't the problem and won't be a solution. A more direct approach would be to address the myriad of problems faced by the black underclass. (Of course, different ideologies will disagree on the solutions, but that's another discussion.)

What's sad is that the public doesn't stand up and take notice until it's a bunch of rich white kids that die.

[dandridge 10]

I am hesitant to reference the link below because gun control is such an emotional issue for some. It does make some interesting points however.


http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/ ... media.html

Oh, it's not too emotional anymore. That was last week. The article is a remarkable blend of statistics, analysis, and insight. I especially liked this:

As Peter Baldwin put it in his book, The Narcissism of Minor Differences, "Take out the black underclass from the statistics, and even American murder rates fall to European levels."

Get rid of black underclass = safe. It's so simple, I can't believe I didn't see it.

I know there are people out there who look for racism in every statement uttered by conservatives, but let's not ignore the truth of what the man is saying.

The United States is different from most Western European countries in that we have a sizable class of citizens with a troubled history. Black Americans first had to assimilate as freed slaves when there was obviously rampant discrimination working against them. The shadow of slavery extended well into the 20th century until equal rights legislation was passed. And even with most of the legal hurdles cleared, Black Americans had to face substantial discrimination as most of white America was still ingrained with Jim Crow mindset. Racism is far less rampant today but it is obviously still present. And furthermore, Black Americans are having to deal with the unintended consequences of the Welfare State which promoted such a ridiculously high illegitimacy rate.

The bottom line is that there is indeed a significant "Black underclass" in America and they do commit a disproportionate amount of the gun murders. This reality is obviously going to distort the gun murder statistics when comparing America to Western Europe. If one factors for this distortion, then the stats show that America isn't really any more dangerous than Western European countries. Gun control therefore isn't the problem and won't be a solution. A more direct approach would be to address the myriad of problems faced by the black underclass. (Of course, different ideologies will disagree on the solutions, but that's another discussion.)

What's sad is that the public doesn't stand up and take notice until it's a bunch of rich white kids that die.

Nate, I was kinda sorta with you until your last statement. People didn't take notice because it was a bunch of rich white kids. People took notice because it was a bunch of little kids, period. If all of those kids were black, there would still be an outrage.

[dobrojim]

Agree BobbyD. Mayhem in a KG reaches out and smacks you in the face
and screams THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE in no uncertain terms.

[nate33]

Nate, I was kinda sorta with you until your last statement. People didn't take notice because it was a bunch of rich white kids. People took notice because it was a bunch of little kids, period. If all of those kids were black, there would still be an outrage.

Perhaps you are right, dandridge10.

Let's hope we never find out.

[popper]

So my point is that our politicians are not even discussing the root causes and solutions to gun related homicide issues. Most of the American public seems to be ok with that and there lies our biggest challenge with this and many other issues we confront today. A good leader would force the necessary dialogue upon the country but we have not had one of those for many years. Solving our problems is not rocket science but it does require principled and courageous leadership.

[dobrojim]

some people think the fact that we have way too many guns is the first and foremost
cause of having way too much gun violence.

[popper]

some people think the fact that we have way too many guns is the first and foremost
cause of having way too much gun violence.

I am aware of that dobrojim and that is precisely the kind of thing that needs to be debated by our leaders.

[Zonkerbl]

We have a lot of different gun problems in this country. Our inner cities are awash with guns, with all the problems associated with that. We also have a problem that when unbalanced psycho killers decide to go massacre a bunch of kids, it's too goddamn easy for them to get guns. It doesn't seem that hard to understand to me that banning the manufacture and ownership of guns would go a long way towards solving this problem. What annoys the hell out of me is the stupid economist side of my brain who's all "won't banning guns just lead to gun smuggling?" and "what do you do about the fact that the marginal cost of manufacturing a gun is so low?" and "didn't you just spend a good portion of November rejoicing over the partical de-criminalization of marijuana? aren't you being a hypocrite?" and then the angry part of my brain says "I HAVE TWO KIDS!!!! BAN ALL GODDAMN GUNS!!!"

[popper]

We have a lot of different gun problems in this country. Our inner cities are awash with guns, with all the problems associated with that. We also have a problem that when unbalanced psycho killers decide to go massacre a bunch of kids, it's too goddamn easy for them to get guns. It doesn't seem that hard to understand to me that banning the manufacture and ownership of guns would go a long way towards solving this problem. What annoys the hell out of me is the stupid economist side of my brain who's all "won't banning guns just lead to gun smuggling?" and "what do you do about the fact that the marginal cost of manufacturing a gun is so low?" and "didn't you just spend a good portion of November rejoicing over the partical de-criminalization of marijuana? aren't you being a hypocrite?" and then the angry part of my brain says "I HAVE TWO KIDS!!!! BAN ALL GODDAMN GUNS!!!"

It seems Zonk that you are having the debate in your own mind that our leaders should be having in public. I went to the Chantilly gun show today to pick up a concealed carry piece and the lines to get in were incredible. Could not take it and returned home instead. There were literally tens of thousands of people looking to upgrade their arsenals. Banning all guns will never happen but could spark a civil war. 95 percent of gun owners are perfectly good and law biding citizens. We should enact sensible gun control but really focus in on the 5 percent that are committing these heinous crimes.