Thoughtful piece on gun control from the WaPo/538

[The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior]

VERY much worth reading - by a woman data crunch at 538 - it'll surprise you, I've a feeling

Not sure this has "all the answers" but I love her approach or at least attempt to try something different

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?utm_term=.7ca1aa0cd5d3

[dotsla...@gmail.com]

From her former joint:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/mass-shootings-are-a-bad-way-to-understand-gun-violence/

Echoes many of the same thoughts.

Cheers.

[Ken Olson]

Good article. Thanks.

[wolfie]

"The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior" wrote

> VERY much worth reading

I'm pretty sure the "but this doesn't fix EVERYTHING" approach
is a fallacy.

It's not all that difficult to stop events like Las
Vegas; we just don't have the political will.

But this guy has shown what can be done. How
long until ISIL or the like take the same idea with
a bigger crowd and 10 or so shooters? One of the
ways we've been "lucky" is the idiots trying it and
having guns jam. This one's didn't; there'll be more.

[The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior]

Good link and you're correct - thanks.

[The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior]

On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 9:26:12 PM UTC-5, wolfie wrote:
> "The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior" wrote
>
> > VERY much worth reading
>
> I'm pretty sure the "but this doesn't fix EVERYTHING" approach
> is a fallacy.

Why?

[wolfie]

"The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior" wrote

> wolfie wrote:

>> I'm pretty sure the "but this doesn't fix EVERYTHING" approach
>> is a fallacy.

> Why?

You bought a car that's been sitting for 50 years.
(Hey, it's a 72 Hemi Cuda, gratz!)

You'll NEVER get it running if you insist on one fix
that does EVERYTHING. You fix one thing at a time and
move on to the next thing.

There's zero reason to confuse the LV shooting with
gun violence in Chicago. Different problems, different
solutions. That doesn't eliminate synergy (like changing
the corroded wire to the starter does wonders to the
problem of having the engine turn over), but it does
tend to make things do-able.

[The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior]

Derp - okay - I see where you're coming from.

I agree with you in principle - perhaps that's why I like both of these pieces so much. It does seem tho, that the knee jerk reaction is often a "one grand fix to solve everything"

[wolfie]

"The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior" wrote

> the knee jerk reaction is often a "one grand fix to solve everything"

And that's part of why it doesn't get done.
But the biggest part is money in politics.

[The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior]

The NRA has donated surprisingly little monies over the years to politicians - according to the WaPo ~$4m over the last 20 years in direct spending.

Is it money or is it something "elses"? (Plural b/c I think there are varied answers - including some money)

[Futbol Phan]

On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 9:51:59 PM UTC-5, wolfie wrote:

And the rather vague targeted interventions she suggests would cost substantial amounts of $$$$$$. That's about as likely as new gun control legislation.

[The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior]

Some would - some might not. Wouldn't you be okay with that tho as progress of at least some sort?

I mean isn't your ultimate aim to end gun deaths? If we can achieve this or at least significantly cut them down by means other than outright confiscation, wouldn't that be okay?

[Futbol Phan]

I'm not saying I wouldn't be in favor of such programs; I'm saying there's no way in hell that they would ever be approved in this political climate

[The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior]

I dunno....depending on "what" I can see some different approach based on the above being done or at least far more doable that what'll be showboat proposed

OTOH, given that nothing's getting done regardless of issue....

[Michael Press]

In article <1fc8f965-e905-46fd...@googlegroups.com>,

"The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior" <iamtj...@gmail.com> wrote:

> VERY much worth reading - by a woman data crunch at 538 - it'll surprise you, I've a feeling
>
> Not sure this has "all the answers" but I love her approach or at least attempt to try something different

[...]


Gun control is illegal.
Takes very little thought.

--
Michael Press

[Futbol Phan]

Always good to have open dialogue.

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

You can have all the open dialogue you want -- about a constitutional
amendment.

There are downsides to our second amendment, to be sure. Yet I am pretty
sure there are a whole lot of Venezuelans who wish they had one. I wish the
Germans had had one in the decades between WWI and WWII -- the second war
might not have happened.

--
Experience is what allows you to recognize a mistake the second time you
make it. -- unknown

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

On 2017-10-04, The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior <iamtj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 9:51:59 PM UTC-5, wolfie wrote:
>> "The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior" wrote
>>
>> > the knee jerk reaction is often a "one grand fix to solve everything"
>>
>> And that's part of why it doesn't get done.
>> But the biggest part is money in politics.
>
> The NRA has donated surprisingly little monies over the years to
> politicians - according to the WaPo ~$4m over the last 20 years in
> direct spending.

That amount of money they mention over a 19 year period -- Planned
Parenthood donated ten times that, $38 million, more than that *just
last year*.

>
> Is it money or is it something "elses"? (Plural b/c I think there are
> varied answers - including some money)

It's the fact that deep down, most Americans don't want to be put in
jail for a Facebook post, which is where Europe has gotten to and where
the left would send us if they could.

And people are prepared to resist that type of thing at a more
visceral level.

[wolfie]

"The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior" wrote
> wolfie wrote:
>> "The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior" wrote
>
>> > the knee jerk reaction is often a "one grand fix to solve everything"
>
>> And that's part of why it doesn't get done.
>> But the biggest part is money in politics.

> The NRA has donated surprisingly little monies
> over the years to politicians - according to the
> WaPo ~$4m over the last 20 years in direct spending.

Direct spending, i.e., limited by campaign finance law.
They spent over $60M in 2016 indirectly. They spent
more than any other "outside" group on Trump.

Nobody worries the NRA gave $1000 to your opponent
and issued a press release. Thinking about them
spending over $6M like they did for Burr in NC is
something else.

[xyzzy]

On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 3:33:27 AM UTC-4, Con Reeder, unhyphenated American wrote:
> On 2017-10-04, The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior <iamtj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 9:51:59 PM UTC-5, wolfie wrote:
> >> "The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior" wrote
> >>
> >> > the knee jerk reaction is often a "one grand fix to solve everything"
> >>
> >> And that's part of why it doesn't get done.
> >> But the biggest part is money in politics.
> >
> > The NRA has donated surprisingly little monies over the years to
> > politicians - according to the WaPo ~$4m over the last 20 years in
> > direct spending.
>
> That amount of money they mention over a 19 year period -- Planned
> Parenthood donated ten times that, $38 million, more than that *just
> last year*.
>
> >
> > Is it money or is it something "elses"? (Plural b/c I think there are
> > varied answers - including some money)
>
> It's the fact that deep down, most Americans don't want to be put in
> jail for a Facebook post, which is where Europe has gotten to and where
> the left would send us if they could.
>

Ummm....

https://www.engadget.com/2011/06/28/first-rule-of-facebook-dont-quote-fight-club/

Not to mention that's a gargantuan logical leap anyway.

[xyzzy]

On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 11:04:21 PM UTC-4, The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 9:51:59 PM UTC-5, wolfie wrote:
> > "The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior" wrote
> >
> > > the knee jerk reaction is often a "one grand fix to solve everything"
> >
> > And that's part of why it doesn't get done.
> > But the biggest part is money in politics.
>
> The NRA has donated surprisingly little monies over the years to politicians - according to the WaPo ~$4m over the last 20 years in direct spending.

The NRA is very financially efficient because they can get their members to do a lot of the lobbying for then for free. Also lobbying by gun manufacturers, sellers, and other businesses don't count in the NRA's total.

The NRA is the perfect example of a well-known paradox of democracy. Large majorities in polls disagree with their positions, but the people in those majorities aren't nearly as motivated and dedicated as the minority that the NRA represents.

Coming at it from a conservative perspective, the NRA and the gun lobby is analogous to a special interest that gets federal money so the recipients are motivated to lobby for it, while the rest of the country may disagree with the subsidy but isn't about to get excited over it.

[xyzzy]

Good article.

The second amendment is a fact. It may not be as unconditional as we're interpreting it now but at the end of the day gun rights are civil rights.

Our culture is a fact. We're not Australia, Britain, 1930s Germany, or any other place.

The existence of millions of guns out there is a fact. Even if there was a political consensus to ban them, I doubt they could be rounded up.

In any solution or discussion, we have to deal with those facts. This article does a good job of working with reality and I like her targeted approach.

[Futbol Phan]

On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 2:28:15 AM UTC-5, Con Reeder, unhyphenated American wrote:
> On 2017-10-04, Futbol Phan <sgz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 11:47:32 PM UTC-5, Michael Press wrote:
> >> In article <1fc8f965-e905-46fd...@googlegroups.com>,
> >> "The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior" <iamtj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > VERY much worth reading - by a woman data crunch at 538 - it'll surprise you, I've a feeling
> >> >
> >> > Not sure this has "all the answers" but I love her approach or at least attempt to try something different
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >>
> >> Gun control is illegal.
> >> Takes very little thought.
> >
> >
> > Always good to have open dialogue.
>
> You can have all the open dialogue you want -- about a constitutional
> amendment.

About our_ interpretation_ of an amendment. Perhaps your consider this madman with ~50 guns and 'many thousands' of rounds of ammunition to be part of a 'well regulated militia'. I don't.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

The article was in the local paper this AM.

The answer is not like athletic socks - one size fits all.

One can quote all the stats he wishes and they do nothing to combat
the insanity displayed by our current society.

Something needs to be done about the insane violence. But trying to
take our guns will only create more violence. Unfortunately that's the
square wheel liberals always prefer to round.

Hugh

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[unclejr]

On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 9:37:17 PM UTC-5, wolfie wrote:

> "The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior" wrote
> > wolfie wrote:
>
> >> I'm pretty sure the "but this doesn't fix EVERYTHING" approach
> >> is a fallacy.
>
> > Why?
>
> You bought a car that's been sitting for 50 years.
> (Hey, it's a 72 Hemi Cuda, gratz!)

Unpossible. The car was made 45 years ago.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 06:33:18 -0700 (PDT), xyzzy <xyzzy...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>The NRA is the perfect example of a well-known paradox of democracy. Large=
> majorities in polls disagree with their positions, but the people in those=
> majorities aren't nearly as motivated and dedicated as the minority that t=
>he NRA represents.

Substitute liberals for NRA and it reads the same.

The difference is that libs have to pay people (unentitled welfare) to
side with them.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 07:52:17 -0700 (PDT), Futbol Phan
<sgz...@gmail.com> wrote:

>About our_ interpretation_ of an amendment. Perhaps your consider this madman with ~50 guns and 'many thousands' of rounds of ammunition to be part of a 'well regulated militia'. I don't.

But you consider the gun the problem, not the madman. Stupids want to
control guns; intelligence says we need to control the madmen - along
with some thought about gun types. Hopefully some of your students can
teach you the difference.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 07:20:16 -0700 (PDT), xyzzy <xyzzy...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Good article.
Agreed.

>The second amendment is a fact. It may not be as unconditional as we're interpreting it now but at the end of the day gun rights are civil rights.

Agreed.

>Our culture is a fact. We're not Australia, Britain, 1930s Germany, or any other place.

Agreed.

>The existence of millions of guns out there is a fact. Even if there was a political consensus to ban them, I doubt they could be rounded up.

Your "doubt" could be much firmer.

>In any solution or discussion, we have to deal with those facts.

Your current liaison seems to be helping. Bravo zulu to her.

[darkst...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 9:30:45 AM UTC-7, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 06:33:18 -0700 (PDT), xyzzy <xyzzy...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >The NRA is the perfect example of a well-known paradox of democracy. Large=
> > majorities in polls disagree with their positions, but the people in those=
> > majorities aren't nearly as motivated and dedicated as the minority that t=
> >he NRA represents.
>
> Substitute liberals for NRA and it reads the same.
>
> The difference is that libs have to pay people (unentitled welfare) to

> keep them from killing everyone in their path.

IFYPFY.

Mike

[Michael Press]

In article <ae39c49c-0232-4164...@googlegroups.com>,

You are incompetent to say so.

--
Michael Press

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

There was nothing wrong with my peter.

[Futbol Phan]

Simpletons are hard to have discussions with.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 12:17:22 -0700 (PDT), Futbol Phan

<sgz...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 2:07:05 PM UTC-5, Michael Press wrote:
>> In article <ae39c49c-0232-4164...@googlegroups.com>,
>> Futbol Phan <sgz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 11:47:32 PM UTC-5, Michael Press wrote:
>> > > In article <1fc8f965-e905-46fd...@googlegroups.com>,
>> > > "The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior" <iamtj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > VERY much worth reading - by a woman data crunch at 538 - it'll surprise you, I've a feeling
>> > > >
>> > > > Not sure this has "all the answers" but I love her approach or at least attempt to try something different
>> > >
>> > > [...]
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Gun control is illegal.
>> > > Takes very little thought.
>> >
>> >
>> > Always good to have open dialogue.
>>
>> You are incompetent to say so.
>>
>> --
>> Michael Press
>
>Simpletons are hard to have discussions with.

That's what he just told you.

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

Suggest you debate this with the Supreme Court, as has been done repeatedly
over our history. You can do this by finding a case and ponying up the bucks
to pursue it. Good luck.

--
The problem with Internet quotations is that many of them
are not genuine. -- Abraham Lincoln

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

That's a threat of violence.

> Not to mention that's a gargantuan logical leap anyway.

Not at all. Would Nazi brownshirts have been able to run roughshod over
the Social Democrats with their bullying tactics if Germans had been
able to resist with firearms? I don't think so -- the whole Nazi power
grab was a very close-run thing in 1933.

Venezuela has become a dictatorship. Would that have happened if the
people had been able to arm themselves to resist the bullying tactics
of the police? It wouldn't have been nearly as easy.

More importantly, the threat of this type of resistance means that there
is a certain respect given to constitutional rights.

In Britain, Holland, and France, Muslims with their threat of violence
create a hecklers veto of speech they don't like. And they do it with impunity,
because no one is armed. If you try and do stuff like that in the U.S., you'll
get your ass shot. And they know it, so they don't do it.

And the governments help them do it with "hate speech" bans. If
U.S. Democrats could make laws like that, we'd be having the same thing.
They've already proposed modifying the First amendment to chill dissent.

I like having constitutional rights. And I like the fact that the police
and government can't get too cavalier in their abrogation of them.

[wolfie]

"Con Reeder, unhyphenated American" wrote

> Suggest you debate this with the Supreme Court

The *conservatives* on the current SCOTUS have
said there's no right to military-style weapons.
See Scalia et al.

[Ken Olson]

Thank you.

[wolfie]

"xyzzy" wrote

> The existence of millions of guns out there is
> a fact. Even if there was a political consensus
> to ban them, I doubt they could be rounded up.

Because gun owners aren't law-abiding citizens?

No one's talking about banning all guns anyway.
That's an argument the NRA and gun manufacturers
use to rile up their rubes.

[Ken Olson]

No trust and a slippery slope.

[dotsla...@gmail.com]

Boy, what a load of bullshit. You've complained in the past about folks here shouting down others right to speak freely, now suddenly "if you did that here you'd get your ass shot".

Lol. I mean I realize this is just another of your thinly veiled screeds on the superiority of white christians, but even so, it's a particularly large and steamy pile.

Cheers.

[wolfie]

"Ken Olson" wrote

> wolfie wrote:

>> No one's talking about banning all guns anyway.
>> That's an argument the NRA and gun manufacturers
>> use to rile up their rubes.

> No trust and a slippery slope.

Like I said, rubes.

[Michael Press]

In article <3aa1de16-8cd7-4ca6...@googlegroups.com>,

Futbol Phan <sgz...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 2:07:05 PM UTC-5, Michael Press wrote:
> > In article <ae39c49c-0232-4164...@googlegroups.com>,
> > Futbol Phan <sgz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 11:47:32 PM UTC-5, Michael Press wrote:
> > > > In article <1fc8f965-e905-46fd...@googlegroups.com>,
> > > > "The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior" <iamtj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > VERY much worth reading - by a woman data crunch at 538 - it'll surprise you, I've a feeling
> > > > >
> > > > > Not sure this has "all the answers" but I love her approach or at least attempt to try something different
> > > >
> > > > [...]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Gun control is illegal.
> > > > Takes very little thought.
> > >
> > >
> > > Always good to have open dialogue.
> >
> > You are incompetent to say so.
> >
> > --
> > Michael Press
>
> Simpletons are hard to have discussions with.

You are incompetent to infer from

"You are incompetent to say so"

as a reply to

"Always good to have open dialogue."

--
Michael Press

[Ken Olson]

Whatever.

[Ken Olson]

On 10/4/2017 8:32 PM, wolfie wrote:

If the NRA didn't exist we would have that 2nd Civil War already.

[wolfie]

"Ken Olson" wrote

[wolfie]

"Ken Olson" wrote

They'd have to be: there's already legal
limitations on the types of weapons you can
buy and/or possess, so where's the "slippery
slope?"

[michael anderson]

I thank god everyday that there are still some dems who want to push gun legislation because that gives us an issue we can use to win voters and races we otherwise wouldn't win.

[Ken Olson]

When you start to affect personal property that people already have you
have greased the lip of the slope.

BTW,

Very proud to be from the country.

[Ken Olson]

There's a limit to the legal onus the law-abiding will accept. Without
the NRA the anti-civil rights politicians would have pushed it far
beyond that limit.

[wolfie]

"Ken Olson" wrote

> When you start to affect personal property
> that people already have you have greased
> the lip of the slope.

Ah, yeah, as you see it the horror of ending
slavery. I'm still one thinking "real Americans"
are able to sacrifice for the common good.
Too bad that's antithetical for many people and
the GOP.

> Very proud to be from the country.

Who isn't?

[wolfie]

"michael anderson" wrote

Yeah, I can only hope they run in 2018 on the
lawfulness of Paddock's arsenal. But first, they
can refuse to vote or vote against the bump-stock
ban. I'm sure that'll help in 2018 too.

[michael anderson]

you still donut get it. oh well.

[wolfie]

"Ken Olson" wrote

> Without the NRA the anti-civil rights politicians would
> have pushed it far beyond that limit.

Ah, yes, the civil rights NRA - that said nothing when a
black man with a legal carry permit was killed for simply
saying he was armed. Or when a kid gets killed in an
open carry state because he appeared to have a visible
weapon. The same NRA that supports the ability of the
shooter in Las Vegas to build that arsenal solely for the
purpose of killing as many law-abiding citizens as possible.
Good guys.

[wolfie]

"michael anderson" wrote

> you still donut get it. oh well.

No, I do get it. People want to be safe.
People want their kids to be safe. At
some point, they'll demand the government
do something about it. That blowback is
very likely to be more far-reaching than
something sensible that could be done now.

There's a reason the NRA delayed their ad
buys this week. There's a reason Ryan delayed
voting on NRA-backed legislation. It's certainly
not because it'd be popular and win elections.

[michael anderson]

On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 9:48:40 PM UTC-5, wolfie wrote:
> "michael anderson" wrote
>
> > you still donut get it. oh well.
>
> No, I do get it. People want to be safe.
> People want their kids to be safe. At
> some point, they'll demand the government
> do something about it.

no, they have made it very clear and have ALREADY DEMANDED that the govt not put meaningful gun laws into place. We already know that. And don't cite public opinion polls because thats different than actual electoral politics as I described earlier.

[Ken Olson]

What else do you know about the NRA?

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

On 2017-10-05, Ken Olson <kol...@freedomnet.org> wrote:
> On 10/4/2017 8:08 PM, wolfie wrote:
>>
>>

>> "xyzzy"?? wrote
>>> The existence of millions of guns out there is a fact.?? Even if there

>>> was a political consensus to ban them, I doubt they could be rounded up.
>>
>> Because gun owners aren't law-abiding citizens?
>>
>> No one's talking about banning all guns anyway.
>> That's an argument the NRA and gun manufacturers
>> use to rile up their rubes.
>>
>
> No trust and a slippery slope.

Amen, brother.

After the gay marriage debacle, there will be no trust ever. The
left wins total victory, then instead of proclaiming peace and
healing the wounds, proceeds to run around the battlefield shooting
the wounded with the cake-baking suits and a full-court press on the
transgender crap.

The left cannot be trusted to be reasonable. They grease every slope.

This type of behavior is how you get Donald Trump. I can't stand the
man, but I can see why he is where he is.

--
Being against torture ought to be sort of a bipartisan thing.
-- Karl Lehenbauer

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

On 2017-10-04, xyzzy <xyzzy...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Our culture is a fact. We're not Australia, Britain, 1930s Germany, or
> any other place.

And thanks to our Constitution for preserving that culture.

--
Personally, I liked the university. They gave us money and facilities,
we didn't have to produce anything! You've never been out of college!
You don't know what it's like out there! I've *worked* in the private
sector. They expect *results*. -- "Dr. Ray Stantz", Ghostbusters

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 20:20:35 -0400, Ken Olson <kol...@freedomnet.org>
wrote:

>On 10/4/2017 8:08 PM, wolfie wrote:
>>
>>
>> "xyzzy"  wrote
>>> The existence of millions of guns out there is a fact.  Even if there
>>> was a political consensus to ban them, I doubt they could be rounded up.
>>
>> Because gun owners aren't law-abiding citizens?

We try to match the ones trying to illegally take them.

Hugh


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

Please advise if you plan to ban suppressors. I will need to buy one.
Otherwise don't bother.

[Some dued]

FYI I'm pretty sure buggering horses in Alabama is banned.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 04:45:12 -0700 (PDT), Some dued
<theodo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>FYI I'm pretty sure buggering horses in Alabama is banned.

Thanks for the info - I have never needed to check.

I would have thought horses were too tall for you.