U.S. Politics

Page 351 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jun 22, 2009
4,991
0
0
Glenn_Wilson said:
Uh, thanks for the link, Glenn. Nobody here blames you for your unfortunate namesake.:p

Strange, I thought that terror suspects are either taken to court, disappeared to the Middle East for torture, or shipped straight to Gitmo, rather than being deported. It's all so confusing, but clearly Beck has now totally taken leave of whatever 'senses' he had left.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
The Boston Terror suspects had no registered guns.

Massachusetts has some of the most strict gun laws in the nation.
Odd, wasn't aware that MA existed in a vacuum sealed off from the rest of the planet. Still, if you really want to go there:

Specifically, Fleeger pointed to states with many gun laws like Massachusetts, which had 3.4 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people, and New Jersey, which had 4.9 gun-deaths per 100,000 people. Conversely, he focused on states with less laws like Louisiana, which had 18 deaths per 100,000 individuals and Alaska, which had 17.5 deaths per 100,000 individuals.

The study also found that laws requiring universal background checks and permits to purchase firearms were most clearly associated with decreasing rates of gun-related homicides and suicides.
The more strict gun control laws, the less gun-related violence. Odd how that works.

Isn't it odd how those bent on mass killing don't follow existing laws?
So let's give them easy access to vast amounts of weapons, eh? And perhaps that means that existing laws ain't cutting it and need to be replaced, eh?

You will only get what you want with the confiscation of all firearms.
Yep, I have no problem with that. I also fully support the confiscation of all other types of arms, like bombs, nerve gas, sarin, SAMs - oh wait we already do that.

Best of luck with that.
So long as the Rs (and some Ds) remain in the pocket of the NRA, little will happen for a very long time.

The FBI said Tuesday that gunpowder, along with pieces of metal and ball bearings, were packed into at least one pressure cooker and another device to make the crude bombs that killed three people—including an 8-year-old boy—and wounded more than 170 more during the Boston Marathon Monday.

But a crucial piece of evidence called a taggant that could be used to trace the gunpowder used in the bombs to a buyer at a point of sale is not available to investigators.

“If you had a good taggant this would be a good thing for this kind of crime. It could help identify the point of manufacturer, and chain of custody,” Bob Morhard, an explosives consultant and chief executive officer of Zukovich, Morhard & Wade, LLC., in Pennsylvania, who has traced explosives and detonators in use in the United States and Saudi Arabia, told MSNBC.com. “The problem is nobody wants to know what the material is.”

Explosives manufacturers are required to place tracing elements known as identification taggants only in plastic explosives but not in gunpowder, thanks to lobbying efforts by the NRA and large gun manufacturing groups.
Yep, that NRA, just looking out for the safety of all Americans.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
VeloCity said:
So no one's ever died in a hurricane? Or from drought? Or tidal surges? Earthquakes? huh.

I dunno. You're the only one who ever brings up Al Gore. I suspect it's because "Al Gore" is the extent of your knowledge about climate change. Al Gore and the sun, which is hot.

Dude, we've been over this before, though I'm not surprised that you keep linking to the same old crap. Pick any arbitrary timespan and it'll show a distinct pattern - it's why the cons (esp George Will) like to say that global warming ended in 1998. Well no, it really didn't, but if you pick the highest as your starting point, no surprise that everything from that point on appears to be lower, eh? On the other hand, if you arbitrarily pick the period 1971-2000, well, it was the warmest period in 1400 years. Really odd how the deniers never pick that span.

Or how that Reuters article suggests a "pause" in warming without mentioning that 12 of the 14 warmest years have been since the "pause" began, just that the variation among those years hasn't been as high as previous decades so it's "slowed"? Arbitrary time spans of a few years or decades are meaningless whether they show ups or downs - surface temps oscillate for any number of reasons, PDOs, El Nino etc, but the overall long-term trend is the same: hotter. Some periods it'll get hotter faster, some periods it'll get hotter slower, but in either case, it's still getting hotter.

Still, you're making progress: acknowledging that something has "slowed" is at least acknowledging that something is real in the first place. And btw if you're so keen on mocking Al Gore, maybe try to avoid linking to an article quoting Bjorn Lomborg, 'k?

Nope, it is pretty exact, which is why most people with a brain and who aren't ideologically blinkered understand why it's a problem.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20110113/509983main_adjusted_annual_temperature_anomalies_final.gif

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/mar/27/climate-change-model-global-warming
but if you pick the highest as your starting point, no surprise that everything from that point on appears to be lower, eh?
Oh, I understand. You mean like Obama starting with a $700 billion dollar larger federal budget, not increasing it much and you guys run around saying it's the slowest growth in spending of any modern president. Is that the logic you have a problem with??

Or how that Reuters article suggests a "pause" in warming without mentioning that 12 of the 14 warmest years have been since the "pause" began, just that the variation among those years hasn't been as high as previous decades so it's "slowed"?
Soooo annyyyywayyyys, your contention is Reuters just made it up? Why are scientists developing theories (deep ocean) to explain the pause if it's not occurring? Enquiring minds want to know.

it's still getting hotter
Just not as hot as predicted, but;

it is pretty exact, which is why most people with a brain and who aren't ideologically blinkered understand why it's a problem
"pretty" exact indeed.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
VeloCity said:
Odd, wasn't aware that MA existed in a vacuum sealed off from the rest of the planet. Still, if you really want to go there:

The more strict gun control laws, the less gun-related violence. Odd how that works.

So let's give them easy access to vast amounts of weapons, eh? And perhaps that means that existing laws ain't cutting it and need to be replaced, eh?

Yep, I have no problem with that. I also fully support the confiscation of all other types of arms, like bombs, nerve gas, sarin, SAMs - oh wait we already do that.

So long as the Rs (and some Ds) remain in the pocket of the NRA, little will happen for a very long time.

Yep, that NRA, just looking out for the safety of all Americans.

The more strict gun control laws, the less gun-related violence. Odd how that works.
You mean like Chicago, errr DC. Errr Atlanta?:rolleyes:

Yep, I have no problem with that
You gonna do that yourself? Let me know when you wander up the Freeman's way. I'll get the popcorn ready.

So long as the Rs (and some Ds) remain in the pocket of the NRA, little will happen for a very long time.
Astonishing what you guys will do to create the boogeyman from hell. A little 4 million member club has the country by the short hairs:rolleyes:
 
Jul 9, 2009
7,026
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
<Dumbest arguments snipped for brevity>

Astonishing what you guys will do to create the boogeyman from hell. A little 4 million member club has the country by the short hairs:rolleyes:
You are not really trying to claim that the rabid resistance to any sort of tightening of gun control laws doesn't flow directly from the gun industry money in the NRA coffers.
 
May 5, 2011
7,490
0
0
I think America must take a look in the mirror and see how their society looks at weaponry. I do agree with those here that says that people that wants to get weapons to kill people will get it no matter how many laws get through, but then again it is my personal belief that restrictions on weapons is a very important step for a society to take if they want to get a real change in how to handle social situasions where people get so desperate that they start killing others either for religious or idelogical reasons.

A goal for every society today must be to make their residents as sceptical to the use of violence and especially potesially lethal firearms as possible.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
Hugh Januss said:
You are not really trying to claim that the rabid resistance to any sort of tightening of gun control laws doesn't flow directly from the gun industry money in the NRA coffers.
What's you point? NRA shouldn't be able to play the game as it's played?

Tell me, NRA better or worse than OFA? PCCC? DFA?

"Today, the Senate voted against the 91% of Americans who support background checks to stop gun violence. We'll be holding accountable Democrats who voted against their constituents by running ads in their states, featuring some of the 23,000 gun owners who have joined our campaign for common sense gun reform," said Stephanie Taylor, PCCC co-founder, in a statement.
My, that sounds threatening.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
Vino attacks everyone said:
I think America must take a look in the mirror and see how their society looks at weaponry. I do agree with those here that says that people that wants to get weapons to kill people will get it no matter how many laws get through, but then again it is my personal belief that restrictions on weapons is a very important step for a society to take if they want to get a real change in how to handle social situasions where people get so desperate that they start killing others either for religious or idelogical reasons.

A goal for every society today must be to make their residents as sceptical to the use of violence and especially potesially lethal firearms as possible.
I don't think most rational people would disagree too much with this.

Part of our problem in the US is; we have thousands of gun laws already on the books and; most of these laws are not enforced.

So the cynic in me wonders what the point of whipping up all this fervor over even more gun laws (that won't be enforced and/or don't address the problems)?

The answer is, of course, more restrictive gun laws is a political wedge issue used by the Diane Feinstein's of the world to further weaken a political opponent they perceive to already be "on the ropes."

"Fixing" the gun violence issue is not the goal.
 
May 5, 2011
7,490
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
I don't think most rational people would disagree too much with this.

Part of our problem in the US is; we have thousands of gun laws already on the books and; most of these laws are not enforced.

So the cynic in me wonders what the point of whipping up all this fervor over even more gun laws (that won't be enforced and/or don't address the problems)?

The answer is, of course, more restrictive gun laws is a political wedge issue used by the Diane Feinstein's of the world to further weaken a political opponent they perceive to already be "on the ropes."

"Fixing" the gun violence issue is not the goal.
Nontheless, over time a harder restriction of gun ownership and better background checks can't lead to more gun violence now can it?
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Oh, I understand. You mean like Obama starting with a $700 billion dollar larger federal budget, not increasing it much and you guys run around saying it's the slowest growth in spending of any modern president. Is that the logic you have a problem with??
:rolleyes: Yes, dude. Rates of increase have slowed, both for surface temps and spending under Obama.

But what the deniers argue is that global warming either stopped or has been decreasing (not increasing more slowly) since 1998. In your analogy, as if Obama had stopped or even reversed spending completely.

Soooo annyyyywayyyys, your contention is Reuters just made it up?
Nope, that the author (you may want to look him up btw, he's a denier) cherry-picked an arbitrary and very short time span that reflects what he wants you to believe, just like George Will does by picking 1998 as the year global warming ended. If he'd chosen say 1971 as the starting point, he'd have come to the exact opposite conclusion, which is why he didn't pick 1971 as his starting point. If he'd looked at the trend over the past 3 centuries, he'd have come to a very different conclusion. But instead he chose 2000, so he'd get this:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47

Why are scientists developing theories (deep ocean) to explain the pause if it's not occurring? Enquiring minds want to know.
Because there's been no "pause", dude.

Just not as hot as predicted, but
...but still getting cumulatively hotter. Even with the slowdown, 2010 was the hottest year on record, followed by 2009, and those records won't last for long.

"pretty" exact indeed.
Yep, pretty exact. Although rarely in science do you see four independent sources matching so well, so let's make that "very exact".
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
Vino attacks everyone said:
Nontheless, over time a harder restriction of gun ownership and better background checks can't lead to more gun violence now can it?
Hard to know.

Gun violence statistics have plummeted in the US over the last couple of decades in the absence (and in some cases, less restrictive) of more restrictive gun laws.

Currently, the US DOJ rarely prosecutes those who lie on background checks. The Vice President recently declared "we don't have time" to prosecute these cases.

So I'm not prepared to say new laws "can't" lead to more gun violence. What is much more likely is new laws will change nothing.
 
Scott SoCal said:
Hard to know.

Gun violence statistics have plummeted in the US over the last couple of decades in the absence (and in some cases, less restrictive) of more restrictive gun laws.

Currently, the US DOJ rarely prosecutes those who lie on background checks. The Vice President recently declared "we don't have time" to prosecute these cases.

So I'm not prepared to say new laws "can't" lead to more gun violence. What is much more likely is new laws will change nothing.
The issue goes well beyond gun legislation and into the realm of kulturgeschichte by now.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Gun violence statistics have plummeted in the US over the last couple of decades i.
You keep repeating this. It really ain't true. Firearm death rates (per 100,000) did plummet in the late 80s and 90s, but they've been stable since 1999:

1999: 10.35
2010: 10.32

If you include non-fatal and fatal together, it's gone up over the past decade:

2001: 28.03
2010: 30.09

The US still has ~8x the rate of gun-related violence as other developed countries. Why is that? They have criminals. They have mentally ill. They have drugs. They have immigrants. We should be right in line with Canada or Germany. But what we have that they don't is guns.

You can see that discrepancy even within the US: states with the highest rates of gun ownership and the most lax gun laws have the highest rates of gun-related violence. To absolutely no one's surprise.

http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1661390
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/03/us/report-links-high-rates-of-gun-violence-to-weak-laws.html?_r=0
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Currently, the US DOJ rarely prosecutes those who lie on background checks. The Vice President recently declared "we don't have time" to prosecute these cases.
So...as far as I can figure it out, here's the conservative view: crack down on criminals and the mentally ill obtaining guns but vote no on a bill that would expand background checks specifically aimed at preventing criminals and the mentally ill from obtaining guns. Enforce existing laws but slash the budgets of enforcement agencies so that they don't have the necessary personnel and equipment to enforce existing laws. Demand improvements in mental health programs but don't spend any money on improving mental health programs (and repeatedly support Rs who voted "no" on bills that would've increased funding for mental health programs). Expanding background checks to close gun show and internet loopholes were a good thing until they became a bad thing.

The insincerity of conservatives talking about mental health and illness is immediately apparent: If the Right were serious about solving extreme gun violence by taking the mental health road rather than the gun-control road, the effort involved, not to mention the cost, would make the War on Poverty and the Great Society look like a walk in the park and their cost mere chump change. It would involve the greatest expansion of government involvement in the lives of Americans in the history of the republic.
Odd, sounds like the very thing that would horrify you the most. But we all know that it's all just shifting goalposts and kabuki theater to avoid any reform at any cost.
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,991
0
0
VeloCity said:
You keep repeating this. It really ain't true. Firearm death rates (per 100,000) did plummet in the late 80s and 90s, but they've been stable since 1999:

1999: 10.35
2010: 10.32

If you include non-fatal and fatal together, it's gone up over the past decade:

2001: 28.03
2010: 30.09

The US still has ~8x the rate of gun-related violence as other developed countries. Why is that? They have criminals. They have mentally ill. They have drugs. They have immigrants. We should be right in line with Canada or Germany. But what we have that they don't is guns.

You can see that discrepancy even within the US: states with the highest rates of gun ownership and the most lax gun laws have the highest rates of gun-related violence. To absolutely no one's surprise.

http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1661390
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/03/us/report-links-high-rates-of-gun-violence-to-weak-laws.html?_r=0
Some comparisons using the same criteria -

Japan (#1) 0.07
UK (#5) 0.25
Netherlands (#11) 0.46
Australia (#17) 1.05
Italy (#27) 1.28
Canada (#43) 2.13
US (#57) 10.20
 
Jul 9, 2009
7,026
0
0
VeloCity said:
So...as far as I can figure it out, here's the conservative view: crack down on criminals and the mentally ill obtaining guns but vote no on a bill that would expand background checks specifically aimed at preventing criminals and the mentally ill from obtaining guns. Enforce existing laws but slash the budgets of enforcement agencies so that they don't have the necessary personnel and equipment to enforce existing laws. Demand improvements in mental health programs but don't spend any money on improving mental health programs (and repeatedly support Rs who voted "no" on bills that would've increased funding for mental health programs). Expanding background checks to close gun show and internet loopholes were a good thing until they became a bad thing.
Yup, sounds about right. That is "Compassionate Conservatism" right there.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
The Boston Terror suspects had no registered guns.

Massachusetts has some of the most strict gun laws in the nation.

Isn't it odd how those bent on mass killing don't follow existing laws?

You will only get what you want with the confiscation of all firearms.

Best of luck with that.
By that logic, we should have no laws if people break them.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
VeloCity said:
You keep repeating this. It really ain't true. Firearm death rates (per 100,000) did plummet in the late 80s and 90s, but they've been stable since 1999:

1999: 10.35
2010: 10.32

If you include non-fatal and fatal together, it's gone up over the past decade:

2001: 28.03
2010: 30.09

The US still has ~8x the rate of gun-related violence as other developed countries. Why is that? They have criminals. They have mentally ill. They have drugs. They have immigrants. We should be right in line with Canada or Germany. But what we have that they don't is guns.

You can see that discrepancy even within the US: states with the highest rates of gun ownership and the most lax gun laws have the highest rates of gun-related violence. To absolutely no one's surprise.

http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1661390
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/03/us/report-links-high-rates-of-gun-violence-to-weak-laws.html?_r=0
And 2/3rds of all US gun related deaths are suicides. But then you knew that already.

BTW, to what do you attribute the overall decline in gun violence?

But what we have that they don't is guns.
We also have a constitutional amendment. So what's your plan?
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,634
0
0
VeloCity said:
You keep repeating this. It really ain't true. Firearm death rates (per 100,000) did plummet in the late 80s and 90s, but they've been stable since 1999:

1999: 10.35
2010: 10.32
Gosh. The United States' total homicide rate in all forms is less than 5 per 100K. Now my math education stopped at multivariable calculus and differential equations, and I admit that it has been some time, but I do believe that five is considerably less than ten. I may need to check my math on that. You would not be trying your usual tactic of including suicides, accidents, and anything else you can use to goose the stats, would you? Nah. Good ol' Velo would never engage in that sort of sophistry after being called on it multiple times in the past.
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,991
0
0
BroDeal said:
Gosh. The United States' total homicide rate in all forms is less than 5 per 100K. Now my math education stopped at multivariable calculus and differential equations, and I admit that it has been some time, but I do believe that five is considerably less than ten. I may need to check my math on that. You would not be trying your usual tactic of including suicides, accidents, and anything else you can use to goose the stats, would you? Nah. Good ol' Velo would never engage in that sort of sophistry after being called on it multiple times in the past.
Velo is quite correctly quoting the stats for overall "firearm related deaths" which, quite naturally, includes all deaths. You deliberately choose to ignore suicides and just talk about homicides. I guess suicides just don't count, since the would be suicides would use some other means if they had to, so it's nothing to do with guns.:rolleyes:

All currently available data (up to 2010) shows an overall rate above 10 for firearm related deaths.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/FIREARM_DEATHS_AND_DEATH_RATES.pdf - CDC rate 10.3

http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/usa/firearms-death-rate 10.1 This site shows stats by state, no surprise that red neck states lead the way in deaths.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate 10.3
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,634
0
0
Amsterhammer said:
Velo is quite correctly quoting the stats for overall "firearm related deaths" which, quite naturally, includes all deaths. You deliberately choose to ignore suicides and just talk about homicides. I guess suicides just don't count, since the would be suicides would use some other means if they had to, so it's nothing to do with guns.:rolleyes:
Imagine that. Suicidally depressed people will find a means to kill themselves. Who would have thought? Inconceivable!

The bottom line is Velo's position is so weak he has to resort to goosing his stats. You won't see him taking out homicides from criminals killing other criminals either because it would show that the risk to the average law abiding citizen is very low, and that does not match his witless hysteria.

American does not have a gun problem. It has a crime problem, and most of that problem is confined to urban sh!tholes. Funny how the left can get so upset with gun rights but has been so steadfast in its fight against crime prevention.

Joe Biden said it best. He cannot be bothered to enforce the existing background check laws, so what use are additional ones?
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
Amsterhammer said:
Velo is quite correctly quoting the stats for overall "firearm related deaths" which, quite naturally, includes all deaths. You deliberately choose to ignore suicides and just talk about homicides. I guess suicides just don't count, since the would be suicides would use some other means if they had to, so it's nothing to do with guns.:rolleyes:

All currently available data (up to 2010) shows an overall rate above 10 for firearm related deaths.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/FIREARM_DEATHS_AND_DEATH_RATES.pdf - CDC rate 10.3

http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/usa/firearms-death-rate 10.1 This site shows stats by state, no surprise that red neck states lead the way in deaths.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate 10.3
Velo is quite correctly quoting the stats for overall "firearm related deaths"
No, actually he's not.

Just as the recently voted down background checks would not have stopped the Newtown killings neither would they have stopped a suicide by registered or unregistered gun.

One may use stats anyway one wishes. A couple of weeks ago Velo was trying to tell us the lunatic that stabbed his fellow students in Texas would have shot and killed them all if he had a gun.

The only problem was this particular lunatic has had fantasies of stabbing people since the age of eight.
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,991
0
0
BroDeal said:
American does not have a gun problem. It has a crime problem, and most of that problem is confined to urban sh!tholes. Funny how the left can get so upset with gun rights but has been so steadfast in its fight against crime prevention.

Joe Biden said it best. He cannot be bothered to enforce the existing background check laws, so what use are additional ones?
You have the gall to accuse Velo of "witless hysteria" and "sophistry", and then post the above bolded utter, disingenuous, dishonest, bull ploppy? Anyone who attempts to deny that the US crime problem is inexorably interwoven with the gun problem is either dishonest, a fool, a conservative gun nut, a Teabagger, or all of the above.

You clearly didn't bother to even look at the second of the three links I posted above because hey, why let facts spoil such a compelling wingnut fantasy? Had you done so, you would have seen that you're also completely wrong about the "urban sh!tholes". Using the same per 100k criteria as were used above, here are the top 10 gun related deaths "urban sh!tholes" states.

La. 18.1
Wyo. 18.1
Ala. 17.4
Mi. 16.8
D.C. 16.6
Ar. 16.2
Mt. 16.0
Nev. 15.5
Tenn. 15.2
Ak. 14.7

Dang, lots of not so urban good ole boy states there.
 
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