Political Roundtable Cosmic String of Cataclysm - Part V

[nate33]

FWIW, I'm definitely open to a discussion on limiting the rate at which accessible guns can reload and I can see limiting the number of rounds available in a magazine. I've never owned a gun and don't really understand if there's enough of a distinction between a "semi-automatic" rifle and a "normal" rifle to make much difference. Certainly, automatic weapons should be banned, and contrary to popular belief, they HAVE been banned.

I'm in favor of trying to acquire as many facts as possible before making decisions. For example, it is now conventional wisdom that mass killings are becoming more and more common. This is, in fact, false. Statistically speaking, incidents of mass murder in the U.S. have declined from 42 in the 1990s decade to 26 in the first decade of this century. Likewise, up until the Newtown incident, the three worst K-12 mass murders took place in Germany and Britain.

Also, John Lott notes that, “With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.”

He noted that the Aurora shooter, who killed twelve people earlier this year, had a choice of seven movie theaters that were showing the Batman movie he was obsessed with. All were within a 20-minute drive of his home. The Cinemark Theater the killer ultimately chose wasn’t the closest, but it was the only one that posted signs saying it banned concealed handguns carried by law-abiding individuals. All of the other theaters allowed the approximately 4 percent of Colorado adults who have a concealed-handgun permit to enter with their weapons.

(That last paragraph was copied entirely from a John Fund article at National Review)

[pineappleheadindc]

IMO any discussion about gun limitations must also confront the issue of the number of guns already out there. In a kinda/sorta parallel, it's like illegal immigrants. Those who advocate deporting illegals are often greeted with "how are you going to round up and deport so many millions of people?" Salient question in that context.

So too is it a salient question to ask: If you ban some guns or entire classes of guns, how are you going to round up so many guns - even the "worst" of assault weapons - if there are so many out there already?

I know I have no answer for that. Nor have i heard anyone else with an answer for that yet either. (Or perhaps it's not an issue and I'm just assuming it is).

[Nivek]

When Japan implemented its severe limitation on guns, it exempted guns already owned, but with a catch. People who already owned guns could keep them, but when they died their heirs were required to turn them in. It would take time, but a similar system in the US would eventually reduce the number of guns in circulation.

[popper]

I have never owned a gun, have no desire to own a gun, and do not plan to own a gun in the future. I have never given a dime to the NRA, never been to a rally or a gun show, and have no particular sympathy for certain types of weapons.

That said, I look at tragedies like this, and virtually the last thing I think is necessary to stop it (or, conversely is first in line for blame) are gun control laws. We have had long periods in our history of easy access to guns. And if the Westerns are to be believed, there were shootouts at high noon in the city streets.

But there was a difference. People lived by a code. Those shootouts didn't involve targeting women or children or even innocent bystanders. Things have changed. And until we get to the root of the heart, the discussion about the law is immaterial. (One might even say, "You can't legislate morality.")

Are you willing to ban violent movies that glorify death and killing? More importantly, are you willing to ban violent video games that desensitize children, putting them behind the trigger of a gun in increasingly realistic scenarios, spreading death over and over again, with a simple Reset button to wash it all away? Are you willing to ban music that glorifies bustin' a cap in someone's head? Do you really think those things don't matter? Do you own them yourself?

Again, I'm no NRA supporter, but pointing the finger for this at the NRA is misguided, IMO - and obscures the more important issue.

+1 - This is a complicated issue that requires intense research (much of it probably already done) and analysis in order to arrive at effective policy (something our governing body seems almost incapable of doing). Although I'm not an NRA member either I have shot competitively (VA state runner up in skeet shooting many years ago) and have taught gun safety as well.

We live in a sick society. Solve this problem and you solve most others. Mass murders are committed by and large by mentally ill persons. How are they getting access to guns? - lets start with identifying them and developing policy to deny them that access. Residents of Chicago are mowing one another down by the truckload and doing so with illegal guns. Therefore what difference does it make whether or not guns are legal or illegal in Chicago - none. Furthermore, the murder capital of the US has the second lowest federal gun prosecution rate in the country. Why won't our justice dept. prosecute these violent criminals.

For those in the media and others that have no experience with guns I offer the following clarifying points.

1. Automatic weapons are illegal in the US without a very expensive license which almost no one can get.
2. Semi-automatic weapons are legal but not the most efficient killing machines. One can kill far more people far quicker using a standard 12 gauge pump shotgun loaded with buck shot or #2 or #3 shot. One can also kill almost as quickly using a standard revolver with an assist from the speed-loaders available at any gun store. Likewise, using a simple homemade device, one can achieve the same body count as that achieved with semi automatic weapons with far less expense.

With that said, I do agree with the proposal to ban assault weapons. It won't solve our problem but I don't see it as an infringement of the second amendment.

Many things can be done to vastly reduce gun violence but we will have to make major changes in the way we conduct our politics and policy. For an excellent analogy to the above read the attached article - it is more evidence verifying that almost nothing we do in this country makes sense. I could go on and on with examples of ridiculous and counter-productive policies but I won't bore you further.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/com ... 5290.story

[popper]

More than anything, our country suffers from an acute case of anomie (collapse of social stability as from erosion of standards). This disease can be cured but the American public and the gutless leaders who represent us don't have the stomach for the requisite policy adjustments. Anomie starts in the home with out of wedlock children and single parent households. Children go unsupervised and undisciplined. It is then exacerbated with schools that are not allowed to demand and enforce discipline within the classroom. We could easily develop policies to reverse these trends but few seem to want to take the steps necessary.

Following is an example of a creative way to instill and enforce discipline while saving billions of dollars. A friend of mine was recently convicted of a nonviolent crime and sentenced to 3 years in Federal Prison. His incarceration will cost the taxpayers approx. $40,000 per year for a total of $120,000. Why not give him and other nonviolent criminals a choice to avoid prison and save the taxpayer money. They could trade each month of incarceration for one lash of the whip. Instead of a pitching machine, we could develop a whipping machine, triggered by the prisoner so as to avoid the "cruel and unusual punishment" law. Govt. would not force him to be lashed but would rather offer the lash as a choice. My friend has told me he would gladly absorb 36 lashes in order to avoid separation from his family.

Words of wisdom from the country's newest Senator (Scott from South Carolina) - “I am thankful for a strong mom that understood that love sometimes comes at the end of a switch,” Scott said.

[DCZards]

For an excellent analogy to the above read the attached article - it is more evidence verifying that almost nothing we do in this country makes sense. I could go on and on with examples of ridiculous and counter-productive policies but I won't bore you further.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/com ... 5290.story

The antiquated tenure rules that most teachers work under do indeed have to change. They harken back to a time when educators needed to be protected from losing their jobs because they got pregnant, questioned the school principal’s actions, and other unfair and discriminatory personnel policies.

What the article doesn’t say, however, is that teachers unions are also increasingly concerned about the loss of talented young teachers like Bhavini Bhakta, and are working with school districts across the country on a system that keeps talented young teachers in the classroom, but doesn’t discriminate against older teachers, which is what happened in DC under the Michelle Rhee regime.

The national teacher unions, as well as some local and state ones, have also been collaborating with school superintendents and others on crafting a fair and effective teacher evaluation system—one that does not judge a teacher’s effectiveness solely on the basis of a student test score. Contrary to popular—and misinformed—opinion, teacher unions have no interest in keeping bad teachers in the classroom. And it’s a red herring to suggest, as this writer does, that the union values teachers’ rights over student rights.

And, while I don’t know the author of the column or why she has lost teaching positions in four schools over eight years, I can assure you that most principals know how to go about keeping around the teachers they really want on their staff—despite seniority rules.

[DCZards]

More than Words of wisdom from the country's newest Senator (Scott from South Carolina) - “I am thankful for a strong mom that understood that love sometimes comes at the end of a switch,” Scott said.

Violence begets violence. It's well-known that many of the men and women who are now perpetrators of child and spousal abuse were victims of abuse themselves as kids.

[pancakes3]

I'm just totally shellshocked at what happened and have been reading a ton of opinions as to how best curb these things. I've just concluded that there is no feasible, effective solution.

The best I can think of is to have severe, draconian bullet control and even then, there is just too big a black market and existing bullets/guns to control.

Honestly though, you can have self defense without guns. Tasers, beanbags, bb's all can easily be substituted for guns on a wholesale level.

[popper]

More than Words of wisdom from the country's newest Senator (Scott from South Carolina) - “I am thankful for a strong mom that understood that love sometimes comes at the end of a switch,” Scott said.

Violence begets violence. It's well-known that many of the men and women who are now perpetrators of child and spousal abuse were victims of abuse themselves as kids.

DCZ - I think there is a difference between violence and a corrective swat on the rear end. My father spanked me several times as a youngster and I deserved it. I learned my lesson and was then able to distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate behavior. During that period and decades before spanking was commonplace and acknowledged as an effective means of behavioral modification. Not saying time-outs wouldn't work just as well .... I don't have any personal experience with them and so cannot comment on their effectiveness.

[montestewart]

More than Words of wisdom from the country's newest Senator (Scott from South Carolina) - “I am thankful for a strong mom that understood that love sometimes comes at the end of a switch,” Scott said.

Violence begets violence. It's well-known that many of the men and women who are now perpetrators of child and spousal abuse were victims of abuse themselves as kids.

I hear people speak nostalgically about switches, belts, etc. What utter nonsense, glazing sadism with a folksy veneer. My parents never spared the rod, and were quite creative at it. Once I ended up in the hospital, another time I was punished for spilling a skillet on myself, then taken to the hospital for the burns I suffered. I don't see the connection between their corporal punishment and anything I am today, other than someone who was able to overcome it and forgive them because they just didn't know any better. I see parents punish their kids in public, and I always think the parent looks more out of control than the kid. I don't think most parents can be trusted to know where good parenting ends and child abuse begins.

[hands11]

FWIW, I'm definitely open to a discussion on limiting the rate at which accessible guns can reload and I can see limiting the number of rounds available in a magazine. I've never owned a gun and don't really understand if there's enough of a distinction between a "semi-automatic" rifle and a "normal" rifle to make much difference. Certainly, automatic weapons should be banned, and contrary to popular belief, they HAVE been banned.

I'm in favor of trying to acquire as many facts as possible before making decisions. For example, it is now conventional wisdom that mass killings are becoming more and more common. This is, in fact, false. Statistically speaking, incidents of mass murder in the U.S. have declined from 42 in the 1990s decade to 26 in the first decade of this century. Likewise, up until the Newtown incident, the three worst K-12 mass murders took place in Germany and Britain.

Also, John Lott notes that, “With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.”

He noted that the Aurora shooter, who killed twelve people earlier this year, had a choice of seven movie theaters that were showing the Batman movie he was obsessed with. All were within a 20-minute drive of his home. The Cinemark Theater the killer ultimately chose wasn’t the closest, but it was the only one that posted signs saying it banned concealed handguns carried by law-abiding individuals. All of the other theaters allowed the approximately 4 percent of Colorado adults who have a concealed-handgun permit to enter with their weapons.

(That last paragraph was copied entirely from a John Fund article at National Review)

In that case, it looks like he was looking to make a point. Which is all part of the problem. The whole people against the government fever that is feed to yahoo America by one of our parties. Same type of people that blow up abortion clinics.

The Yahoo America message is a well crafted one that is feed by big money looking to make big money. Its the same crap message that gets people in a fever so they support blowing up people in another country. The same people I have spoken to that are otherwise intelligent people that would say things like, just nuke IRAQ. Kill them all. Just for the record. I have never heard a Dem say anything like that. Only Rs.

Go watch the video I posted a few pages back. I love my country but I am not so blinded by that love that I don't recognize the terrible things we allow to happen and that we actively do... all in the name of maximizing profits. We have done plenty good for the world. We have also gone against the core principle plenty of times when we allow the government to represent rich and corporations at the expense of the people.

I am not anti business or anti the approach of maximizing profits in general. I just know that it is not the answer to everything and it needs it limits. Yes. Regulations. Thinking so does not make me a communist. It makes me a rational human being. An American that wants my country to be the best that it can be.

[hands11]

I was not disciplined often with anything physical. The few times I was, I thought my father was a complete rss. Mostly because what he did was done out of his own anger. It wasn't one of those, this is going to hurt me more then it hurts you type things. There was no emotionally removed lesson in it.

Worst thing a parent ever did that thought me something was done by my mother. I said something to her I shouldn't have and she didn't talk to me for a week. Maybe it was two weeks. I said I was sorry several times but she would just look at me with disgust and wasn't giving in. For a least a week she game me that treatment. That got my attention more than taking away any privileged I had or anyone touching me in a physical way.

But since that wouldn't work on adults, the self whipping machine would get my attention.

[Zonkerbl]

The people who go on gun rampages are a completely different kind of person. Some nasty combination of depressed and psychotic. I don't think corporal punishment would have made any difference. I think having a place to take a kid who is having mental health issues would help. I think not having a whole arsenal of guns around when your kid is having mental health issues would help. Columbine didn't look very preventable, but this one did.

[nate33]

FWIW, I'm definitely open to a discussion on limiting the rate at which accessible guns can reload and I can see limiting the number of rounds available in a magazine. I've never owned a gun and don't really understand if there's enough of a distinction between a "semi-automatic" rifle and a "normal" rifle to make much difference. Certainly, automatic weapons should be banned, and contrary to popular belief, they HAVE been banned.

I'm in favor of trying to acquire as many facts as possible before making decisions. For example, it is now conventional wisdom that mass killings are becoming more and more common. This is, in fact, false. Statistically speaking, incidents of mass murder in the U.S. have declined from 42 in the 1990s decade to 26 in the first decade of this century. Likewise, up until the Newtown incident, the three worst K-12 mass murders took place in Germany and Britain.

Also, John Lott notes that, “With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.”

He noted that the Aurora shooter, who killed twelve people earlier this year, had a choice of seven movie theaters that were showing the Batman movie he was obsessed with. All were within a 20-minute drive of his home. The Cinemark Theater the killer ultimately chose wasn’t the closest, but it was the only one that posted signs saying it banned concealed handguns carried by law-abiding individuals. All of the other theaters allowed the approximately 4 percent of Colorado adults who have a concealed-handgun permit to enter with their weapons.

(That last paragraph was copied entirely from a John Fund article at National Review)

In that case, it looks like he was looking to make a point. Which is all part of the problem. The whole people against the government fever that is feed to yahoo America by one of our parties. Same type of people that blow up abortion clinics.

The Yahoo America message is a well crafted one that is feed by big money looking to make big money. Its the same crap message that gets people in a fever so they support blowing up people in another country. The same people I have spoken to that are otherwise intelligent people that would say things like, just nuke IRAQ. Kill them all. Just for the record. I have never heard a Dem say anything like that. Only Rs.

Go watch the video I posted a few pages back. I love my country but I am not so blinded by that love that I don't recognize the terrible things we allow to happen and that we actively do... all in the name of maximizing profits. We have done plenty good for the world. We have also gone against the core principle plenty of times when we allow the government to represent rich and corporations at the expense of the people.

I am not anti business or anti the approach of maximizing profits in general. I just know that it is not the answer to everything and it needs it limits. Yes. Regulations. Thinking so does not make me a communist. It makes me a rational human being. An American that wants my country to be the best that it can be.

WTF?

What are you talking about, hands? Of course, Lott is making a point. His point is that concealed carry is a deterrent to mass murder. How is this a crap message and what in the world does it have to do with Iraq? You really need to quit with this guns for profits angle. Gun makers aren't brainwashing hapless idiots into wasting their money on guns. Guns are being bought because there is a legitimate demand for them.

[Nivek]

I agree with monte's thoughts on switches, belts, etc. I had a similar experience with parents who punished "creatively." It took some work to overcome what they did to me.

My own kids have been left unbeaten aside from an occasional swat as an attention-getter when they were too young to reason with. And oh yeah, I held my teenage son against a wall one time when he was being disrespectful to his mother. Somehow, all three of my kids are able to distinguish right from wrong.

Also agree with zonker's thought that beatings won't help people with mental illness. Spankings, switchings, etc. teach them to hide behaviors to avoid pain. That's not a recipe for treating mental illness -- it's a recipe for creating more mass shootings.

[nate33]

The only physical punishment that I consider to be acceptable is a smack on the hand or the butt immediately after an offense in an unusually critical situation when dealing with a toddler who can't fully grasp logical reasoning yet. Punishment like that (when delivered immediately after an offense) can be the quickest avenue to behavior modification, and there are times when speed is of the essence, for example: a quick swat when your toddler rushes out onto a street without looking.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

More than Words of wisdom from the country's newest Senator (Scott from South Carolina) - “I am thankful for a strong mom that understood that love sometimes comes at the end of a switch,” Scott said.

Violence begets violence. It's well-known that many of the men and women who are now perpetrators of child and spousal abuse were victims of abuse themselves as kids.

Kids are different. I believe corporal punishment has its place when a kid is really young. So do the schools in the South. I know as recently as 6 years ago principals were still paddling kids, if the parents gave permission. I have seen it work wonders in a classroom. It is an effective deterrent that prevents kids from being disrespectful or repeatedly "clowning". .

My conclusion: Parents who are real calm, good communicators, and who are capable of doing things like taking away rewards like allowance, television, privileges, etc. can very likely do a good job without spanking (I call them whippings). However, some kids need their butt whipped! You get a hard head who does things like talk back to parents, try to strike a parent (I've seen it in department stores) and who is a brazen brat--I have something for that kid. Many times I have seen a parent being ruled by a kid and think to myself, "I know what that boy/girl needs."

My frame of reference is that neither I nor my two sisters ever did any jail time and none of us have any convictions. Our parents beat our asses--but only when we earned them, and only with a switch or a belt in some non-vicious way. They were not mean-spirited or hard-hearted people. They taught us right from wrong and they lived in harmony with others.

I feel very strongly, DCZ, that people who say violence begets violence probably didn't raise the kids. I am a single dad and one thing my boys do know is respect. They don't cuss adults. They don't hit girls. (One of them did, and he suffered consequences at school and at home. Turned out to be a very teachable moment in which he learned a great lesson.) They don't steal. They don't start fights. And the thing I really respect: they man up. If they do something wrong, like have a dispute in school or don't do their homework, when the teachers call (and they have) my boys know I love them and they tell me the truth. I very, very rarely have to discipline them any more because when they were real little I took the time to get some things straight back then.

Probably because early in life they learned of the consequences for lying to me.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

The only physical punishment that I consider to be acceptable is a smack on the hand or the butt immediately after an offense in an unusually critical situation when dealing with a toddler who can't fully grasp logical reasoning yet. Punishment like that (when delivered immediately after an offense) can be the quickest avenue to behavior modification, and there are times when speed is of the essence, for example: a quick swat when your toddler rushes out onto a street without looking.

Exactly. That and getting near the stove are no nos. Most things a kid learns pretty fast, but sometimes they have to be redirected quickly.

[montestewart]

The only physical punishment that I consider to be acceptable is a smack on the hand or the butt immediately after an offense in an unusually critical situation when dealing with a toddler who can't fully grasp logical reasoning yet. Punishment like that (when delivered immediately after an offense) can be the quickest avenue to behavior modification, and there are times when speed is of the essence, for example: a quick swat when your toddler rushes out onto a street without looking.

My personal experiences and observation of other parents makes me think many parents lack the self control to pull that off. Watching my sister and her husband (both working very demanding jobs) raise my nephew without corporal punishment, and seeing him show much more discipline, self-awareness, and manners than I did at his age, makes me think childrearing can be successful without physical punishment, and I see more and more parents practicing the same. Still, yours is a very reasoned approach, and I don't judge people who successfully employ that method.

PS: I used to have a foster son living with me. He came from an abusive home. That likely further colors my view. I've had to deal with some really atrocious behavior without resorting to corporal punishment. The fact that I routinely felt like hitting him told me exactly why I should never hit him. I told him my parents and his father weren't so different, and that he and I had to find another way. It wasn't a perfect system, but at least we related to each other.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

I just thought about something. If a parent is physically abusive in that they smack small kids hard, they do lose control and they do beget violent people. I have seen a kid trying to go blow-for-blow with his mom. In that case, a monster is being formed.

Parents with anger issues, those are the people who are raising monsters. So, when I say I believe in corporal punishment I want to qualify that by saying the parent needs to be a right-thinking person in the first place. The punishment should fit the offense and there should not be anything egregious or destructive in the punishment.

Also, that saying "This is going to hurt me more than you" should apply. I can remember being in a great mood but having to correct one of my kids. I felt like crap afterward. It is a sad thing, not something you rage into. It is also something where you're not going off on a kid either. It is actually very difficult to be corrective and measured at the same time.

If you can't do that then by all means do not use corporal punishment on kids.