U.S. Politics

Page 270 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Glenn_Wilson said:
I don't remember and probably will not go back and read the article again but did it say if the home owner bothered to call 911 before he began blasting away?

Something that has not been said but I think needs to be said. Has anyone on here considered the actual use of deadly force before? If you haven't then I suggest spending a few minutes of time to contemplate this.
For me many things have to be answered when the use of deadly force is actually used. For example....the intruder we are discussing was armed with a spade/shovel. Was there no way to talk said intruder out of your house and detain him until the "law" shows up that you called previously on 911.

Oh well never mind. Just thinking is all. I was poking fun at you Rhubroma about the red wine, so just in case someone gets the willies up.
Deadly? No. Dogs, roommates, and blunt instruments directed elsewhere than the head have all been deployed against people in different situations. In all cases I or we had the element of surprise working for us. Would that have worked out the same if they were carrying a gun? No way of knowing, but even if they were, it wouldn't incline me to equalize the situation with a specifically deadly weapon.
 
Glenn_Wilson said:
I don't remember and probably will not go back and read the article again but did it say if the home owner bothered to call 911 before he began blasting away?

Something that has not been said but I think needs to be said. Has anyone on here considered the actual use of deadly force before? If you haven't then I suggest spending a few minutes of time to contemplate this.
For me many things have to be answered when the use of deadly force is actually used. For example....the intruder we are discussing was armed with a spade/shovel. Was there no way to talk said intruder out of your house and detain him until the "law" shows up that you called previously on 911.

Oh well never mind. Just thinking is all. I was poking fun at you Rhubroma about the red wine, so just in case someone gets the willies up.
No, not through any gun assured means. Although we could just as well ask ourselves what it also means to contemplate not using deadly force, no? I don't perceive Americans' not willing to contemplate the use of deadly force as frankly being something of concern here. Perhaps it's just part and parcel to growing up in a country that ingrains a wholly positive notion of self-defense and individual survival, as being among the highest civic values.

Personally what is rather unappealing to me is the all too facile recourse to a contemplation of deadly force that seems to dramatically typify today’s US society, as if an obsession, or fantasy, or demonstration of individual preparation; that's been converted into a kultur through a number of commercial, entertainment and pedagogical outlets. Values like restraint, measure and proportion, or a state of non-conflict, on the other hand, are equated with weakness, never civility; while the actual culture thus created has been reinforced through a number of market and social praxis under the nation's rather perverse (from my way of thinking) romance with firearms. I think this is a significant problem (also for the high levels of violence): namely, the mass diffusion of a mentality that promotes artificially enhanced potency as a sign of individual “empowerment” and “liberty,” which operates on multiple levels and which is a defining element in the forma mentis of a large portion of Americana. It's something to applaud when the bad guys get taken out by a housewife, though not condemned at the level of artificial enhancement itself when turned against a movie theater or school.

Here is a case, however, for which “those who live by the sword, shall die by the sword,” becomes a self-inflicted reality.

I think its time for that glass of red wine now...
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
True.

Maybe we should start talking about criminal control.
They're only criminals after they commit the crime so that doesn't help much, since the entire point is prevention.
 
Mar 17, 2009
2,295
0
0
Glenn_Wilson said:
I don't remember and probably will not go back and read the article again but did it say if the home owner bothered to call 911 before he began blasting away?

Something that has not been said but I think needs to be said. Has anyone on here considered the actual use of deadly force before? If you haven't then I suggest spending a few minutes of time to contemplate this. For me many things have to be answered when the use of deadly force is actually used. For example....the intruder we are discussing was armed with a spade/shovel. Was there no way to talk said intruder out of your house and detain him until the "law" shows up that you called previously on 911.

Oh well never mind. Just thinking is all. I was poking fun at you Rhubroma about the red wine, so just in case someone gets the willies up.
i haven't ever taken the concealed license course but a couple of people i've talked to said that was a large part of the class. i don't know that it's an official part of the class or up to individual instructors.
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,634
0
0
VeloCity said:
Or going to a movie. Or school. Or work.
Funny. I've done all those things for a long time and never been shot. Of course that could not possibly be because the odds of being killed by a gunman with mental issues are so low that worrying about it is like worrying about winning the Powerball lottery..
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,634
0
0
Looks like King Obama will rely mostly on executive orders to handle the "gun problem" because getting stuff through Congress will be difficult. Most of the nineteen orders look okay.

Meanwhile states legislators are considering firearms rights protection acts to protect the people's rights against encroachment by the feds.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
VeloCity said:
They're only criminals after they commit the crime so that doesn't help much, since the entire point is prevention.
First time offenders are the only one's using firearms? Good to know.

Lessee... I wonder what the violent felon recidivism rates are?


During 2007, a total of 1,180,469 persons on parole were at-risk of reincarceration. This includes persons under parole supervision on January 1 or those entering parole during the year. Of these parolees, about 16% were returned to incarceration in 2007.
Among nearly 300,000 prisoners released in 15 states in 1994, 67.5% were rearrested within 3 years. A study of prisoners released in 1983 estimated 62.5%.
Of the 272,111 persons released from prisons in 15 states in 1994, an estimated 67.5% were rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years, 46.9% were reconvicted, and 25.4% resentenced to prison for a new crime.
These offenders had accumulated 4.1 million arrest charges before their most recent imprisonment and another 744,000 charges within 3 years of release.
Released prisoners with the highest rearrest rates were robbers (70.2%), burglars (74.0%), larcenists (74.6%), motor vehicle thieves (78.8%), those in prison for possessing or selling stolen property (77.4%), and those in prison for possessing, using, or selling illegal weapons (70.2%).
Within 3 years, 2.5% of released rapists were arrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for homicide.
I would think a thoughtful guy such as yourself might be interested in actually addressing the real problems. But, no.

You have little interest in anything other political gamesmanship.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=17
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
BroDeal said:
Funny. I've done all those things for a long time and never been shot. Of course that could not possibly be because the odds of being killed by a gunman with mental issues are so low that worrying about it is like worrying about winning the Powerball lottery..
Facts are problematic here.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
BroDeal said:
Looks like King Obama will rely mostly on executive orders to handle the "gun problem" because getting stuff through Congress will be difficult. Most of the nineteen orders look okay.

Meanwhile states legislators are considering firearms rights protection acts to protect the people's rights against encroachment by the feds.
Texas should be a hoot.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
Mar 17, 2009
2,295
0
0
BroDeal said:
Looks like King Obama will rely mostly on executive orders to handle the "gun problem" because getting stuff through Congress will be difficult. Most of the nineteen orders look okay.

Meanwhile states legislators are considering firearms rights protection acts to protect the people's rights against encroachment by the feds.
7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

weren't we discussing responsible ownership earlier?
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
patricknd said:
that's been a problem for years. one of my cousins went gyno only a few years ago because malpractice insurance premium prices for obstectrics made it a loser, despite the fact he'd had no claims against him.
Velocity will tell you tort reform would have no impact to cost of care. ACA didn't even try and address Med/Mal.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Velocity will tell you tort reform would have no impact to cost of care. ACA didn't even try and address Med/Mal.
Velocity will tell you that we shouldn't even be bothering with Obamacare which while a step in the right direction is really just like using a band-aid to heal a broken leg and we should be scrapping our entire health care "system" and adopt wholesale universal health care but the problem there is that, as with guns, climate change, and well just about everything really, it triggers the conservative knee-jerk paranoia about how it's REALLY about government control, socialism, uh what were some of the others, Scott? Help me out here. Oh statism, that was a good one.

Hey death panels.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
I would think a thoughtful guy such as yourself might be interested in actually addressing the real problems. But, no.
Thought we covered this already? Here's a nice, easy-to-understand chart of the real problems that might make it clearer:

Left:
Improve mental illness system - yes.
Reduce crime - yes.
Stricter gun control - yes.

Right:
Improve mental illness system - yes.
Reduce crime - yes.
Stricter gun control - no.

Yep, we're on board for addressing the real problems. When are you guys coming on?
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,634
0
0
patricknd said:
7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

weren't we discussing responsible ownership earlier?
Yup. That sounds suspiciously like hersey to the liberal cause. If that was not bad enough, check out this one.

13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

Looks like dat Obama may have turned into a durned conservative.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/277537-poll-obama-approval-rises-with-public-support-for-gun-restrictions

According to a Time-CNN survey released Wednesday, 55 percent said they approve of the job the president is doing, against 43 who said they disapprove. Obama’s job approval was at 52 percent in the same poll conducted in late December, a marked increase from his first term, when he generally tracked in the 40 percent range.

The public’s support for tighter gun laws nearly matches Obama’s approval rating, with 55 percent saying they support stricter measures, against 44 who said they oppose, according to the poll.
Best part of all:

Vice President Biden, who spearheaded the president’s gun task force initiative, enjoys the best rating of all at 59 percent approval, up from 54 in December.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
VeloCity said:
Thought we covered this already? Here's a nice, easy-to-understand chart of the real problems that might make it clearer:

Left:
Improve mental illness system - yes.
Reduce crime - yes.
Stricter gun control - yes, for now
Gun confiscation/repeal 2nd amendment - yes, eventually

Right:
Improve mental illness system - yes.
Reduce crime - yes.
Stricter gun control - probably, depends on how 'control' is defined.

Yep, we're on board for addressing the real problems. When are you guys coming on?
Fixed it fer ya.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
BroDeal said:
Funny. I've done all those things for a long time and never been shot.
Well that's good. I haven't either. Course, lots of other people have been. Be nice to cut that down a bit in the future, eh?

Of course that could not possibly be because the odds of being killed by a gunman with mental issues
Keep hearing this "mental illness" "mental issues" thing you and Scott throw around as if it's common knowledge what constitutes "mental illness". How about simple depression? 1 in 5 American adults are on psychiatric drugs - where do they fall? How about people on mood- or behavior-altering prescription drugs?

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/07/24/mass-shootings-why-it-so-hard-to-predict-who-will-snap/

So if it's next to impossible to predict who's going to snap and who isn't, then it's a bit tough to control violence from the standpoint of the individual. But where we can exert some degree of control is over the inanimate objects - they're the weakest link in the chain.

are so low that worrying about it is like worrying about winning the Powerball lottery..
Having your plane blown up by terrorists is about the same odds as winning Powerball so why do we bother with all of that security? Why are guns banned from planes anyway?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
MarieDGarzai Non-Cycling Discussions 2
Similar threads
The Politics of Sport

ASK THE COMMUNITY