Political Roundtable Cosmic String of Cataclysm - Part V

[Induveca]

New world, more violence, economic frustration, tons of enabling social programs, legalizing drugs and tons of cheap firearms. Recipe for more disasters........with everyone hyping up the "poor vs rich" 3rd world style bull expect more vs less.

"legalizing drugs" doesn't seem to fit in that list very well.

So you support 5/6 points but point out the one you disagree with?

We agree yes?

[nate33]

That's an expensive solution. Shocking considering the source.

This is a situation where cutting certain funding for a dire need isn't a horribly difficult thing.

Should kids enjoy 1/3rd less after school programs in exchange for a secure environment? Obviously the answer is yes.

The kids ARE in a secure environment. Violent crimes and murders in schools have steadily declined over the past 20 years:

According to data compiled by the National Center for Education Statistics, schools have been getting safer and less violent at least over the past couple of decades - despite what Huckabee would doubtless consider a period of rising godlessness. During the school year of 1992-93, for instance, the number of on-location murders of students and staff at K-12 public schools was 47 (out of population of millions). In 2009-2010 (the latest year for which data is listed), the number was 25. Over the same period, the rate on victimizations per 1,000 students for theft dropped from 101 to 18. For violent crimes, the rate dropped from 53 to 14. And for "serious violent" crimes, the rate dropped from 8 to 4.

http://reason.com/archives/2012/12/15/4 ... to-sandy/1

This is obviously a tragic situation, but bad policy is often made during emotional responses to tragic situations (see The Patriot Act). Looking at the big picture, our systematic policy of locking down schools during normal school hours is working. We don't need to turn our schools into prisons with armed guards and metal detectors at every entrance. At some point the cost of safety (both economic costs and social costs) is too high. You can't guarantee absolute safety for everyone.

[Induveca]

I hear you Nate but it's a logical approach. Extreme safety, even overpaid safety for ones children is logical.

If anything will get US politicians to cut bills and needless expenses in favor of something usedul it's issues such as this....unfortunately with the gangland mentality of US politics the only time for compromise and passing of solid legislation occurs during a senseless bloodbath.

[montestewart]

New world, more violence, economic frustration, tons of enabling social programs, legalizing drugs and tons of cheap firearms. Recipe for more disasters........with everyone hyping up the "poor vs rich" 3rd world style bull expect more vs less.

"legalizing drugs" doesn't seem to fit in that list very well.

So you support 5/6 points but point out the one you disagree with?

We agree yes?

They all sensibly fit together, except the aforementioned. Cheap, legal tranquilizers, etc. could head off a lot of rage. Well, maybe not PCP or depressants, but since alcohol's already widely available anyway, how much worse can it get? Several Iranian friends of mine have shared versions of modern Iran looking the other way at heroin use. It's so cheap that it doesn't lead to a crime wave, and it stupifies people who might otherwise be discontented dissenters.

[nate33]

I hear you Nate but it's a logical approach. Extreme safety, even overpaid safety for ones children is logical.

If anything will get US politicians to cut bills and needless expenses in favor of something usedul it's issues such as this....unfortunately with the gangland mentality of US politics the only time for compromise and passing of solid legislation occurs during a senseless bloodbath.

Well consider this. You suggested that kids should enjoy 1/3rd less extracurricular activities to pay for the cost of security. How many lives are saved by those extracurricular activities? How many kids would otherwise end up on the streets, in gangs, doing drugs, or hanging out with the wrong crowd ultimately to end up in prison or dead? The point is, there is a hidden downside to spending more resources on security.

Right now, a student has a .0000008% chance of being murdered each year in school. That's literally less than one in a million. Let's say an armed guard cuts than in half - down to a .0000004% of getting murdered. Is that really the best way to allocate our resources? If you want to save some lives, you're much better off demanding seat belts in all buses, or retrofitting old schools with fire sprinkler systems.

[hands11]

I hear you Nate but it's a logical approach. Extreme safety, even overpaid safety for ones children is logical.

If anything will get US politicians to cut bills and needless expenses in favor of something usedul it's issues such as this....unfortunately with the gangland mentality of US politics the only time for compromise and passing of solid legislation occurs during a senseless bloodbath.

Well consider this. You suggested that kids should enjoy 1/3rd less extracurricular activities to pay for the cost of security. How many lives are saved by those extracurricular activities? How many kids would otherwise end up on the streets, in gangs, doing drugs, or hanging out with the wrong crowd ultimately to end up in prison or dead? The point is, there is a hidden downside to spending more resources on security.

Right now, a student has a .0000008% chance of being murdered each year in school. That's literally less than one in a million. Let's say an armed guard cuts than in half - down to a .0000004% of getting murdered. Is that really the best way to allocate our resources? If you want to save some lives, you're much better off demanding seat belts in all buses, or retrofitting old schools with fire sprinkler systems.

Agreed Nate The ROI of putting guards at every school is very low. Not to mention the message it sends to kids which is, America is unsafe. Should we really act and look like a 3rd world country because we are so afraid to take on the NRA. Are we really so stuck in this "free market capital" model that we have zero common sense? Do we really have to max. profits for corporations at the cost of everyone else ?

Indu, you usually add good value to the debate. Now you are forcing your one solution approach to every problem and it exposes why it doesn't work that way. It's kind of like how Rs say tax cuts is the answer to everything.

The obvious answer to this problem is that there are to many gun in America. The reason there are to many is because of the NRA. The solution is to make it harder to get some models and hold those with them more responsible. We need to limit what kinds of weapon people can legally own. We also need a social network that help mentally ill people. We used to have that but because of cost decision, those things have been closed.

Here is the simple equation of what is going on. There is lots of money to be made in selling guns. The more they sell, the more people get shot. The more they get shot, the more people feel they need one to protect themselves the more money the gun sellers make. They even passes laws that protect them against law suits. Its a perfect profit making model for gun manufactures. They max profits and have no downside risk for their product. They would love the solution to be buy more guns to protect yourself against all the guns they already sold. What a dream marketing approach. They sell more, you need more.

Maybe the solution is using common sense to realize this is there model. Max profits at any cost.

[DCZards]

Well consider this. You suggested that kids should enjoy 1/3rd less extracurricular activities to pay for the cost of security. How many lives are saved by those extracurricular activities? How many kids would otherwise end up on the streets, in gangs, doing drugs, or hanging out with the wrong crowd ultimately to end up in prison or dead? The point is, there is a hidden downside to spending more resources on security.

I've been involved with and an advocate for after-school programs/extracurricular activities for more than 20 years, and you are absolutely right. These programs, including athletics, keep kids out of trouble, engaged and, in many instances, learning a new skill and how to work with and get along with others. These are EXACTLY the kind of programs that should be expanded rather than cut. They are often the answer to addressing the needs of our most troubled youths.

[nate33]

The obvious answer to this problem is that there are to many gun in America. The reason there are to many is because of the NRA. The solution is to make it harder to get some models and hold those with them more responsible. We need to limit what kinds of weapon people can legally own. We also need a social network that help mentally ill people. We used to have that but because of cost decision, those things have been closed.

Here is the simple equation of what is going on. There is lots of money to be made in selling guns. The more they sell, the more people get shot. The more they get shot, the more people feel they need one to protect themselves the more money the gun sellers make. They even passes laws that protect them against law suits. Its a perfect profit making model for gun manufactures. They max profits and have no downside risk for their product. They would love the solution to be buy more guns to protect yourself against all the guns they already sold. What a dream marketing approach. They sell more, you need more.

Maybe the solution is using common sense to realize this is there model. Max profits at any cost.

I don't think it's that simple, hands11.

If we could wave a magic want and make all guns disappear, that would be one thing. But we can't. Practically speaking, the European no-gun model isn't applicable in the U.S. because of our lower population density. It's easy, coming from suburbia, to talk about gun control when the police are just 3 minutes away. The police therefore serve as a reasonable deterrent for most crime. It's not the same in a rural area. In the boonies, the police are 10-20 minutes away... long enough for an armed intruder to do whatever he wants. You need a gun to defend yourself.

With guns necessary in rural areas, guns will therefore be reasonable available in rural areas. With guns available in rural areas, guns will therefore be relatively easy to access for criminals in suburban and urban areas. With criminals having access to guns, gun control only takes guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

Read this Harvard study on gun control. The bottom line is that when you make an effort to compare apples to apples (comparing European gun control nations to European no gun control nations for instance) the data clearly shows that having armed citizens reduces the incidence of violent crime. Likewise, the liberalization of gun ownership in portions of the U.S. has led to a greater reduction in crime than in areas were gun control persists.

I repeat again, emotional reactions generally lead to bad laws. We are all horrified at what happened at Sandy Hook, and we all want to do something to prevent it from happening again. But we have to make sure that our response would actually be appropriate and effective (not to mention Constitutional). We can't just do something to make us feel better about ourselves. Sometimes, bad stuff just happens and there's nothing anybody can do about it.

[Zonkerbl]

At a minimum, residents who own guns in a household where a mentally ill person resides should be required to keep their weapons locked up. They should also pay a fee for the local sheriff to confirm the foregoing. Don't most of these mass murderers have documented mental issues?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/1 ... 11009.html

As you all know, I was held at gunpoint by a psychotic teenager when I was 5-6 years old and am myself psychotically anti-gun and cannot have a rational conversation about it. I have NO SYMPATHY for any of the idiotic counterarguments to gun control. None at all.

Obviously there needs to be less guns in circulation in this country. WAY less.

But this article says that another low hanging fruit to think about is doing a better job creating a national solution for families dealing with mental health issues.

[DCZards]

Mental health issues, education, gun control, the sale of guns at gun shows, background checks, etc. will all need to be in the mix as we have this long overdue national conversation about guns. But I'm still waiting for a gun advocate to tell me what's wrong with an immediate ban on the sale of automatic and semi-automatic guns, which has been the weapon of choice at every one of these mass murders.

The killer in CT didn't go to the school with one of the hunting rifles he had access to in his mother's home....he grabbed the freaking semi-automatic weapon.

Those guns are designed for law enforcement and fighting wars. Do people really need to have them laying around their homes?

[nate33]

Connecticut has an assault weapons ban on the books. The Bushmaster rifle utilized by Adam Lanza would not have been restricted by the law. The rifle was legal even under the federal assault weapons ban that expired in 2004.

The school was a "gun free zone".

The gun was purchased through all the appropriate legal channels by Adam Lanza's mother. No additional background checks would have made any difference.

[DCZards]

I hear ya, Nate. But the fact that all the boxes were checked regarding the laws, background checks, etc. doesn't answer my question as to why private citizens need weapons like the Bushmaster or why a weapon like that shouldn't be banned...along with the ability to purchase large amounts of ammunition mail order with, I assume, very little background check.

[montestewart]

nate33, that is not a Harvard study, but an article whose authors have no apparent affiliation with Harvard, other than publishing it in a Harvard sponsored journal. At a glance, it looks an interesting premise, but based on a table included in the study, data looks skewed by: Luxembourg (practically a city-state) and the Eastern European countries included in the table. There might be more to the story than just gun ownership and violent crime rates. Interesting premise, which will likely be cited approvingly (as a Harvard study) by gun rights advocates, as there doesn't seem much alternate research so far available on the internet that replicates these results.

[Zonkerbl]

You can have hunting guns, and a very limited gun specifically defined for self defense. Ban the production and sale of everything else.

Self defense gun should be large and difficult to conceal, be the minimum power necessary to discourage assailants who are invading your property, and should not contain more then a few bullets. Low power shotgun would work nicely.

[Severn Hoos]

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.

[montestewart]

2nd Amendment and 1st Amendment, fight it out! I'm going to get some popcorn.

[dobrojim]

I'm for original intent - all the flintlocks and muskets you want

edit to add - apologize for the flippant nature of this post.

I am all for more stringent regulations of guns. It's simply insane
that so many other aspects of our lives are regulated in generally
sensible ways that we all, again generally, accept. But not guns.

That said, I also believe the horse has left the stable.
But that's not a reason to do nothing which is what the
NRA, who serve the manufacturers and dealers much
more attentively and effectively than average owners,
wish to do. What Kev posted below is a logical response
to the whole 'guns don't kill people' meme that so many of
us are so sick of.

[Nivek]

But there was a difference. People lived by a code. Those shootouts didn't involve targeting women or children or even innocent bystanders.

Don't get too romantic. Many of those shootouts did hit innocent bystanders. And many of those "shootouts" involved men being ambushed and/or shot in the back.

Here's the counter to the "gun control won't fix this" argument -- human nature in the rest of the world is presumably much the same as it is in America. Yet these kinds of atrocities are rarer than they are in the US. Saw a stat that since Columbine, there have been 31 mass shootings in the US -- 14 in the rest of the world combined.

Human nature is the same everywhere, but it's in the US that we get more deaths by guns going off accidentally than Japan (for example) has TOTAL.

And, the rest of the industrialized world has the same access to violent movies and video games as we have in the US. The difference is not the entertainment or a difference in human nature -- it's easy access to guns.

[hands11]

Nate,

I agree with the assessment of rural America and how that is different and I am not an advocate of taking all guns away from everyone. Not sure what I wrote that made you think that was what I was advocating.

What I do support is limits on what kinds of guns and clips and ammo you can purchase. i.e. The assault rifles ban. I do agree with closing the gun show loop hole.

I don't think the solution to having to many weapons out there is to have more weapons out there. This shouldn't turn into an arms race. What I tried to outline in the money model behind this and what the marketing message have been via the NRA that allows them to maximize profits while having no responsibility for the equipment they manufacturer. Their money bought them those laws and they have been promoted through one party primarily. Dems don't dare bring up the gun conversation for fear of getting slammed by Rs.. Dems want to take you guns away. Hell, they even did it to Obama and he has done nothing to limit guns. Actually, he made it easier for people to carry them.

This is the same thing Rs have done with taxes which is why we kicked that can down the road for some long that got us into the mess we are in now. But none of that matters as long as corporations can maximize their profits next quarter.

[montestewart]

But there was a difference. People lived by a code. Those shootouts didn't involve targeting women or children or even innocent bystanders.

Don't get too romantic. Many of those shootouts did hit innocent bystanders. And many of those "shootouts" involved men being ambushed and/or shot in the back.

And some towns banned handguns (at least temporarily) when things got out of control and searched people to enforce the laws. I could rest upon anecdotal evidence from my relatives (mom's side of the family from Dodge City, Kansas: steak and guns; many other relatives in Oklahoma, Colorado, etc. in the Old West) but Dodge City wasn't the only town to face that issue.