Politics 20/20

[Sarex]

28 minutes ago, Orogun01 said:

Response times matter.
Image the following situation: 911 receives a call about a shooting in progress, the assailants are equipped with semi automatic rifles. If the cops go over there and assess the situation without the proper equipment then 2 things will happen:

1- Cops are in a active combat zone whilst outgunned
2-The situation will continue while the military rushes to the scene.

Putting aside the fact that it is not the military's job to respond to domestic crime, you now have double the response time and since military personnel is not actively patrolling an area a larger response time.

I understand why you think that way, but it is a severely impractical way to deal with real situations. Better that the cops are over-prepared for a shooting situation than having to wait until the military gets there.

We were talking about border towns with paramilitary assailants, that is something that is absolutely under the military purview.

Police is not trained, or responsible enough to handle military grade weapons. An argument could be made to give them access to military grade body west, but not for weapons.

That such a scenario is common enough, where civilians are committing crimes with heavy weaponry, is something that should be handled at the root of the issue. Not fighting fire with fire.

[LadyCrimson]

On 10/3/2020 at 12:21 PM, InsaneCommander said:

I'm thinking I might like Trump a little better with a muzzle, I mean, mask.

[Azdeus]

20 minutes ago, LadyCrimson said:

I'm thinking I might like Trump a little better with a muzzle, I mean, mask.

I think the word you're looking for is 'gag'

[ComradeYellow]

2 hours ago, Sarex said:

They should then call for military help, just like civilians call for police help. There should be a hierarchy.

That's how it is now, and it's not working too well because police are attacking the civilians they're supposed to protect, you don't see military attacking police do you?  There's a major antagonism going on here.

[Elerond]

9 hours ago, BruceVC said:

You have it almost right,  the national oil company was purged and then international oil companies, who  for some  had been invested in Venezuela for over 100 years, were  forced to hand over there investments, meaning control of the oil production within the country  and all its revenue because Chavez sold directly to the global oil markets like all oil producers. So any government can do this with any company that has a physical presence within the country....its highly unethical, illegal and should lead to sanctions but you can still do it as any government controls the army and police and they can take any company over they want

And even the examples about some oil companies becoming  minority share holders is the same outcome because oil companies are listed companies outside of the Venezuela stock exchange so what Chavez did was not gain control of these companies " international listing  "value but  he stole full control of the revenue produced by the oil production in the local sense as the oil company had a massive oil production plant in the country 

Chavez has done lots of things to destroy Venezuela's oil industry (like in 2005 selling oil to US 40% below market price), but he is not responsible of nationalization of Venezuela's oil industry and kicking out foreign companies  

"Under the presidency of Carlos Andrés Pérez, whose economic plan, "La Gran Venezuela", called for the nationalization of the oil industry, Venezuela officially nationalized its oil industry on 1 January 1976 at the site of Zumaque oilwell 1 (Mene Grande). This was the birth of Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. (PDVSA). All foreign oil companies that once did business in Venezuela were replaced by Venezuelan companies, such as Lagoven (Standard Oil), Maraven (Shell), and Llavonen (Mobil)."

[Darkpriest]

2 hours ago, Orogun01 said:

Response times matter.
Image the following situation: 911 receives a call about a shooting in progress, the assailants are equipped with semi automatic rifles. If the cops go over there and assess the situation without the proper equipment then 2 things will happen:

1- Cops are in a active combat zone whilst outgunned
2-The situation will continue while the military rushes to the scene.

Putting aside the fact that it is not the military's job to respond to domestic crime, you now have double the response time and since military personnel is not actively patrolling an area a larger response time.

I understand why you think that way, but it is a severely impractical way to deal with real situations. Better that the cops are over-prepared for a shooting situation than having to wait until the military gets there.

*sarcasm on*

Just call an airstrike and napal the feks out!!!!

*sarcasm off*

 

I'm fairly sure that unless you can remove guns from general populace and make it really hard for common thugs to get one, then you can't really address weapinized police issue in the US of A. 

[Orogun01]

1 hour ago, Sarex said:

We were talking about border towns with paramilitary assailants, that is something that is absolutely under the military purview.

Police is not trained, or responsible enough to handle military grade weapons. An argument could be made to give them access to military grade body west, but not for weapons.

That such a scenario is common enough, where civilians are committing crimes with heavy weaponry, is something that should be handled at the root of the issue. Not fighting fire with fire.

Except that even in border towns the assignment would go to the cops because its a 911 call.

Police self train more than people think, but that's a great argument for more funding of police.

What's the root of the issue, guns? The highest rate of gun crime is in the states with the strictest laws, and before you go off on illegal smuggling across state lines you should research the ghost guns coming in from the Philippines. Plus the majority of crimes are committed with handguns, not the "assault" rifles everyone wants to ban.

[Malcador]

Sort of funny they took Trump for a drive, then back to the hospital.

[Hurlshort]

42 minutes ago, Orogun01 said:

 The highest rate of gun crime is in the states with the strictest laws.

I'd love to see where you are pulling that information from:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_death_rates_in_the_United_States_by_state

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/guns-crime/news/2019/11/20/477218/gun-violence-america-state-state-analysis/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/02/21/states-most-and-least-gun-violence-see-where-your-state-stacks-up/359395002/

Pretty easy to find a ton of data that says the exact opposite of what you are claiming.

Edited October 4, 2020 by Hurlshot

[Orogun01]

25 minutes ago, Hurlshot said:

I'd love to see where you are pulling that information from:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_death_rates_in_the_United_States_by_state

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/guns-crime/news/2019/11/20/477218/gun-violence-america-state-state-analysis/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/02/21/states-most-and-least-gun-violence-see-where-your-state-stacks-up/359395002/

Pretty easy to find a ton of data that says the exact opposite of what you are claiming.

Sir, those are obviously per capita comparisons of firearm deaths, not gun crimes. But feel free to believe that Alaska is a den of organized crime and not a frozen wasteland where people are suiciding.

[Hurlshort]

1 minute ago, Orogun01 said:

Sir, those are obviously per capita comparisons of firearm deaths, not gun crimes. But feel free to believe that Alaska is a den of organized crime and not a frozen wasteland where people are suiciding.

Wow, you clearly didn't look at the links. 

[Orogun01]

3 minutes ago, Hurlshot said:

Wow, you clearly didn't look at the links. 

Here you go
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

Edit: I guess we should argue the difference between rate and number of deaths

Edited October 4, 2020 by Orogun01

[ComradeYellow]

Which is why Maine and New Hampshire pwn the gun argument, we have some of the lowest rates and slackest restrictions at the same time.

New England is truly Middle Earth.

[Hurlshort]

Whoa whoa, Orogun is the one making a gun argument here, stating states with strict laws have worse gun violence.

I tend to point at poverty figures over anything else.

Edited October 5, 2020 by Hurlshot

[Orogun01]

2 minutes ago, Hurlshot said:

Whoa whoa, Orogun is the one making a gun argument here, stating states with strict laws have worse gun violence.

I tend to point at poverty figures over anything else.

I would love to see some numbers, but just off the top of my head some of the poorest rural districts have low gun crime. If we are talking correlation, then there needs to be both motive and opportunity when it comes to crime.

Regardless of which, my original point is that overbearing gun regulation doesn't solve gun crimes.

[Gromnir]

45 minutes ago, Hurlshot said:

Whoa whoa, Orogun is the one making a gun argument here, stating states with strict laws have worse gun violence.

I tend to point at poverty figures over anything else.

yeah, but try and explain causation v. correlation to folks is doomed. is a reason why so many folks is having their minds blown by how similar is 5g and covid-19 infection maps.

the assault weapon ban, because o' how severe were the punishments, did indeed lead to a reduction in a certain class o' weapons being used in crime. not even @Guard Dog would deny such.

warning: kinda sweary

is not wrong 'bout the enhancement o' crimes committed with automatic weapons.

make a genuine punishing law which prevented gun ownership o' any kind would not be Constitutional, which is why the whole "strict gun laws" bit is relative nonsense. only in the US would our strict gun laws be considered particular strict. 

regardless, you are wasting your time trying to explain causation v. correlation.

HA! Good Fun!

ps however, am gonna observe how poverty is less direct responsible than might be imagined. poor and rural don't have same gun violence numbers. urban environments, even republican urban such as fort worth, tx, has higher gun violence numbers than rural even where poverty numbers is similar. fort worth has higher gun murder numbers than nyc btw.

Edited October 5, 2020 by Gromnir

[Orogun01]

19 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

the assault weapon ban, because o' how severe were the punishments, did indeed lead to a reduction in a certain class o' weapons being used in crime. not even @Guard Dog would deny such.

Honestly, this isn't a challenge but I would love to see some figures to back this up. I'm only going off from what the statistics have been since I've been interested in the topic (2009-2020) but most crimes are committed with handguns not rifles. So I have to ask  how frequently were assault rifles  used in crimes during the 90's and how big was the drop after signing the Assault weapons ban.
Was it effective or was it another dud like the National Firearms Act?

[Gromnir]

37 minutes ago, Orogun01 said:

Honestly, this isn't a challenge but I would love to see some figures to back this up. I'm only going off from what the statistics have been since I've been interested in the topic (2009-2020) but most crimes are committed with handguns not rifles. So I have to ask  how frequently were assault rifles  used in crimes during the 90's and how big was the drop after signing the Assault weapons ban.
Was it effective or was it another dud like the National Firearms Act?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/02/15/its-time-to-bring-back-the-assault-weapons-ban-gun-violence-experts-say/

https://law.stanford.edu/2019/10/15/the-assault-weapon-ban-saved-lives/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5993698/

where the numbers is not clear is the suggestion the assault weapons ban made Americans safer. too much sketchy info to prove such. in fact, Gromnir has argued numerous times how bans on so-called assault weapons is stoopid 'cause is handguns which cause a disproportionate number o' firearms deaths, with blunt force weapons signifficant oustripping long rifle as cause o' death in US homicides. if goal is to make americans safer, the focus on assault weapons misses the point.

wasn't our argument that assault weapons ban made americans safer or reduced gun violence. what it did do were make it less likely for folks to use such weapons in crime. laws regarding machine guns and assault weapons has indeed worked. is proven that with terrible enough punishments, people stop using those kinda weapons to commit crime. the argument that criminals don't care 'bout laws and thus ignore such laws is not supported.

create a draconian law which prevents gun ownership would likely save lives. is a pointless discussion however as "strict gun laws" cannot actual exist in this country. 

HA! Good Fun!

ps am suggesting a closer reading o' third link as it shows how following the expiration o' the aw ban, numbers returned and even increased to pre 1990s levels. 

 

Edited October 5, 2020 by Gromnir

[Orogun01]

26 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

where the numbers is not clear is the suggestion the assault weapons ban made Americans safer. too much sketchy info to prove such. in fact, Gromnir has argued numerous times how bans on so-called assault weapons is stoopid 'cause is handguns which cause a disproportionate number o' firearms deaths, with blunt force weapons signifficant oustripping long rifle as cause o' death in US homicides. if goal is to make americans safer, the focus on assault weapons misses the point.

I agree with you and I think most second amendment advocates would, the focus on "assault" rifles often comes from politicians that have never shot a gun, and have never bothered their bodyguards what they think about guns. It is highly hypocritical to advocate for disarmament when being surrounded by armed security.

 

29 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

wasn't our argument that assault weapons ban made americans safer or reduced gun violence. what it did do were make it less likely for folks to use such weapons in crime. laws regarding machine guns and assault weapons has indeed worked. is proven that with terrible enough punishments, people stop using those kinda weapons to commit crime. the argument that criminals don't care 'bout laws and thus ignore such laws is not supported.

I didn't take it as such, I just wondered about the figures and whether or not the gun ban actually correlated to a reduction in gun crime. I can only guess at what other factors could explain the reduction of gun crime, particularly since the same type of gun ban did nothing to curb violence during prohibition. My guess would be a consolidation in organized crime and their transition into political entities, but I"m mostly coming from the lesser known history of the Cuban mafia during the 80's and early 90's. I can also think of Giuliani and his crackdown against organized crime during the 80's through the early 90's.

 

35 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

create a draconian law which prevents gun ownership would likely save lives. is a pointless discussion however as "strict gun laws" cannot actual exist in this country. 

HA! Good Fun!

I would have to point out how draconian gun laws have not reduced crime in States that have implemented them and has created an underground market for guns from foreign sources.
One big point that its ignored in the gun debate when comparing US to other countries is the presence of organized crime. I doubt Sweden or Australia has a large Mafia presence, but anti gun advocates love to use them as examples of why a wide gun band would work in the US.
In short, our situation is unique and has to be analyzed by American standards. You bring some good points, but at the same time that low level of crime happened at the same time when there were crackdowns against organized crime.

[ComradeYellow]

48 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

 is a pointless discussion however as "strict gun laws" cannot actual exist in this country. 

Thank God for that, one thing I agree with conservatives over liberals on is gun control and this is by a mile.  Maybe perhaps for slightly different reasons but I'd say gun ownership is an American pastime and shouldn't be taken away.

Edited October 5, 2020 by ComradeMaster

[Gromnir]

50 minutes ago, Orogun01 said:

 

 

I would have to point out how draconian gun laws have not reduced crime in States that have implemented them and has created an underground market for guns from foreign sources.
 

again, this just isn't true. the thing is, we ain't had draconian gun laws in the US since the mid 20th century. is ironic, but the wild wests stories is mostly fiction because o' draconian gun laws. recall, the ok corral killings resulted from enforcement o' municipal gun laws. old west towns w/o such gun laws ordinarily had gun murder rates many times that o' those which had law and order and gun laws. do a little research on bodie, ca, in the late 1800s and then compare to wichita, abilene or dodge city.

as early as 1619 in the colonies, one could receive the death sentence for selling firearms or gunpowder to native americans. 

concealed carry laws, btw, were the norm rather than an exception going as far back as the founding, and extreme stiff penalties were enforced. were 29 states in 1847, and nineteen had concealed weapons prohibitions or outright prohibitions on pistols.

most US gun law restrictions were municipal, but in 1875, wyoming banned possession o' any firearm (pistol or long rifle) within the limits o' any city, town or village. 

etc.

again, until 1934, draconian gun laws were the norm and they were the norm 'cause they worked. those old west towns which is misrepresented in movies provide some o' the best evidence for just how effective were such laws. is worth the effort to do a little self education and compare places like bodie to wichita in the mid/late 19th century. compare homicides as a whole and deaths from firearms in particular. 

for all the folks who thinks gun possession is some kinda God given right which were codified in the Constitution and is only now under threat by far-left libs is revealing a profound lack o' historical awareness. 

HA! Good Fun!

ps to clarify in case it were missed, we haven't had genuine draconian gun laws in this country in a long time. argue such is a good or bad thing, but is difficult to claim such laws were ineffective when they did exist.

Edited October 5, 2020 by Gromnir

[Orogun01]

39 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

again, this just isn't true. the thing is, we ain't had draconian gun laws in the US since the mid 20th century. is ironic, but the wild wests stories is mostly fiction because o' draconian gun laws. recall, the ok corral killings resulted from enforcement o' municipal gun laws. old west towns w/o such gun laws ordinarily had gun murder rates many times that o' those which had law and order and gun laws. do a little research on bodie, ca, in the late 1800s and then compare to wichita, abilene or dodge city.

as early as 1619 in the colonies, one could receive the death sentence for selling firearms or gunpowder to native americans. 

concealed carry laws, btw, were the norm rather than an exception going as far back as the founding, and extreme stiff penalties were enforced. were 29 states in 1847, and nineteen had concealed weapons prohibitions or outright prohibitions on pistols.

most US gun law restrictions were municipal, but in 1875, wyoming banned possession o' any firearm (pistol or long rifle) within the limits o' any city, town or village. 

etc.

again, until 1934, draconian gun laws were the norm and they were the norm 'cause they worked. those old west towns which is misrepresented in movies provide some o' the best evidence for just how effective were such laws. is worth the effort to do a little self education and compare places like bodie to wichita in the mid/late 19th century. compare homicides as a whole and deaths from firearms in particular. 

for all the folks who thinks gun possession is some kinda God given right which were codified in the Constitution and is only now under threat by far-left libs is revealing a profound lack o' historical awareness. 

HA! Good Fun!

ps to clarify in case it were missed, we haven't had genuine draconian gun laws in this country in a long time. argue such is a good or bad thing, but is difficult to claim such laws were ineffective when they did exist.

As I'm not an expert in law I would have to defer to you in this matter, and whilst I do find your examples of Wild West gun legislation interesting(that should be a topic by itself) the loose interpretation of gun ownership of recently integrated Western states should not be the a good example of gun legislation, nor should it be any State interpretation of the constitution. That's why we have the Supreme Court.

But really, we are just arguing the meaning of "Draconian". To gun folks any legislation is too much, to anti gun folk anyone owning guns is too much. My happy middle is you can own a cannon but you can't fire it because it would be a public disturbance,I think there's a precedent for that.

[Guard Dog]

3 hours ago, Gromnir said:

 

ps however, am gonna observe how poverty is less direct responsible than might be imagined. poor and rural don't have same gun violence numbers. urban environments, even republican urban such as fort worth, tx, has higher gun violence numbers than rural even where poverty numbers is similar. fort worth has higher gun murder numbers than nyc btw.

I'm curious. To what do you attribute that fact? I have an idea that may or may not be correct. In fact the actual reason for that fact may not be knowable. But what is your best guess at the reason this is so?

[Gromnir]

7 minutes ago, Orogun01 said:

As I'm not an expert in law I would have to defer to you in this matter, and whilst I do find your examples of Wild West gun legislation interesting(that should be a topic by itself) the loose interpretation of gun ownership of recently integrated Western states should not be the a good example of gun legislation, nor should it be any State interpretation of the constitution. That's why we have the Supreme Court.
 

you were making claims 'bout the effectiveness o' gun laws, and referenced rural districts 'n such. you have referenced current city gun control laws when identifying the ineffectiveness o' strict gun laws. complain how strict local laws don't work but reject evidence they has indeed worked because they are local? how does that square?

you got a basic fundamental misunderstanding 'cause all firearm laws pre 1930s were gonna be state or local. there were no real meaningful Court decisions until 1939... save one: presser v. illinois (1886). SCOTUS made clear the 2nd amendment were a prohibition on the national government and not state or local. 

"We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state."

2nd amendment honks may claim God is on their side, but the better part o' the entirety o' US history and and all relevant Court decisions until 1939 (and perhaps far more recent as miller serves only to confuse,) is favoring state and local gun control... and such gun control ran the gamut from incidental to draconian. definition matters not save for your arguments regarding strict gun control laws.

@Guard Dog

am not certain as to causes. urban is more likely to result in homicides and violent crimes as 'posed to rural regardless o' general poverty stats. fact. why? dunno. most homicides is actual crimes o' passion as 'posed to planned, but even gun violence which don't end in death and would appear to be premeditated is having similar skew towards urban. sure, w/i the municipality, poverty appears to be a major contributing factor, but why is so much more likely in urban?

am recalling a british paper which found that impulsivity in rats increases once a non-specific population density is reached, with a sharp escalation in the prevalence o' aberrant behaviours once the threshold is exceeded.

*shrug*

HA! Good Fun!

 

[MedicineDan]

The results are mixed, but I think the current polling supports a Biden win over Trump in the debates.  Meh.  I can admit I'm wrong, but being wrong about these things is only as significant as the end result.  So, when someone snips 13 to 15 words out of this text as a concession, keep in mind that current polling doesn't make any difference.  I tend to believe in the fundamental science behind polling, but it has had some significant errors in the past.  There might be some genius, a real braniac, who can tell you what's going to happen in this election, but most people who make such claims, regardless of whether or not they're true, are either fools or liars.  No one in our lifetime has had the sheer number of random variables in an election year as we've had in 2020.  I'm a recovering nihilist, so I tend separate my religious conviction from my rational assessment, but it's hard not to wonder who broke the ****ing mirror this year.  Seriously, WTF?  So, I'll stick by my previous statements.  Not because of Robert's rules or some other dismissive statement from the Demonsthenes among us, but because it's just good form.  I called it likely for Biden, but this Covid-19 thing is really interesting.  ...And, as someone who has cared for Covid patients and had Covid coworkers, I do get tired of the "think of the children!" arguments.  I'm putting my money where my mouth is.  My actions attend my prayers.

The president coming down with Covid-19 one month before the election?  If his campaign doesn't start running, "Covid, I'm facing it with you!" ads, they deserve to lose.  I have never been more invested nor more confounded by an election in my life.  ...And I have donated time, talent, and treasure to campaigns in the past.  I can't stomach going door to door for Trump.  It's just not in me, but I have donated to the RNC.  Still feel stupid, but, like my actions, my money goes where my mouth dictates.