399 replies to this topic

[Sci-2]

Just seems like a pretty desperate gamble - rally your base by driving away women and independents. Unless Romney plans to repudiate all this stuff post nomination.

[Shryke]

I was gonna say something, but fuck, Tormund (not being an idiot) actually knows the score:

Tormund Midgetsbane, on 08 March 2012 - 04:32 PM, said:

I am not a member of, and do not support the agenda of, the NRA, and I believe their paranoia and deception is turning off more gun owners than not.

Seriously Kouran, you are full of shit. The NRA is run by idiots and madmen. Google "Wayne LaPierre" and have some fun confronting pure tin-foil-hat stupidity.

When Tormund thinks a gun advocate is crazy and you don't, you are on the wrong side.

Edited by Shryke, 08 March 2012 - 09:46 PM.

[Triskele]

http://www.nejm.org/...=featured_home

More evidence that Medicare spending is slowing:

Quote

Moreover, the DRA and MIPPA were only pale previews of the payment-rate cuts in the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The ACA permanently slows the growth in Medicare payment rates for almost every category of provider other than physicians and makes additional targeted cuts to home health agencies and some other providers. As a result, the CBO projects that over the next decade Medicare spending per enrollee will grow substantially more slowly than the overall economy, even if there is a permanent SGR “fix.” Negative excess growth in Medicare is not as implausible as it might first sound — such a trend occurred in the late 1990s and early 2000s in the wake of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.

The Medicare actuary and others have raised questions about the sustainability of the ACA reductions. As the frequent SGR fixes have demonstrated, when sustaining past budget decisions seems like a bad idea, they are not sustained. Similarly, the scheduled ACA cuts could be overridden if there were a broadly held view that continued cuts would either damage the delivery system or pose major barriers to Medicare beneficiaries' access to care. But merely undoing the ACA cuts would mean reverting to the “old normal” of unsustainably high growth in Medicare outlays.

The framers of the ACA perceived broad provider-payment reform as the best prospect for slowing the long-term spending trend. But they needed scoreable savings, and they could ill afford to alienate backers by forcing through major payment reforms at the same time. The ACA planted the seeds for accountable care organizations (ACOs), bundled payment for episodes of care, patient-centered medical homes, and incentives for reducing readmissions. Now those seeds offer a way forward.

[Ser Greguh]

Arthmail, on 08 March 2012 - 08:53 PM, said:

Between 2004-2006, there were less gun related deaths in Nicaragua. In 2010, the last data set that i can find on a quick search, there were 8,775 firearm murders, out of 12,996 murders total in the US. The Brits have about 600 a year. So yea, you do keep fucking shooting each other. That you are not doing it as much anymore means fuck all, its still high enough to warrant criticism. Especially of those types that think they need guns in the first place for anything other than hunting.

Every scrap of empirical evidence suggests that harder gun control laws do fuck-all in the States to prevent gun-related violence.  That's just how it is.  As much as I'd like to be able to transition us to Britain levels of gun violence by flipping a magic switch, there is absolutely zero evidence whatsoever that that magic switch exists.

Seriously, do we learn nothing from the drug war?  All these people with all these very simple and accurate observations about how the prohibition of things that people want tends to do little to nothing to prevent their acquisition and use.  Case in point, the vast majority of violent crimes in the States are committed by people with previous criminal histories for whom it is already illegal to own a gun.

Yeah, whouda thunk it?  If you're willing to murder someone you probably don't give much of a fuck about violating a gun statute.

This isn't about recycling some Fox News talking point to verify my bias.  I'm siding with goddamn NRA members, even when my own personal view is that if I ever make the slightest peep of noise regarding joining the fucking NRA, I can only hope that my loved ones cut the cord because it would be the surest possible sign of brain death.

But such is the price of intellectual honesty; refusing to dip into the ad hominem of "Idiot troglodyte conservatives support the position therefore it must be wrong" and instead actually study the true effects of gun control in my society and understand that this is an issue - one of the very few - where the Far Left has groupthunk itself into a position that is catastrophically misguided, counterproductive, and sustained entirely on the idiotic assertion of a causal link with absolutely no evidence to support the claim.

[Shryke]

Gun laws in the US are too local to draw any sort of conclusion about their effectiveness on removing guns from the system. Especially the criminal system.

Part of the issue is there's no reasonable way you COULD restrict guns the way a place like the UK does. There's too many guns out there and too many places to get them and too much cultural baggage around them.

It's a non-starter on the policy and the political level.

[Shryke]

Also, hilarious Rush news:

Quote

The exodus of advertisers fleeing from Rush Limbaugh may finally be taking a toll on his radio show.

Liberal watchdog group Media Matters noticed that on at least two occasions on Thursday, Limbaugh’s flagship station in New York, WABC, broadcast several minutes of dead air during commercial breaks.

http://www.rawstory....mercial-breaks/

Quote

At least 50 advertisers have reportedly dropped their ads from Rush Limbaugh's radio show in the wake of his misogynistic attacks on Sandra Fluke.

Here are his March 8 advertisers, in the order they appeared on WABC, the flagship station for Limbaugh's show. Audio clips of the ads have been provided to help make advertisers aware of the placement of their ads on the program. According to our coverage:

• A total of 86 ads aired during WABC's broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show today
  
• 77 of those ads were public service announcements donated free of charge by the Ad Council
  
• Of the nine paid spots that ran, seven were from companies that have said they have taken steps to ensure their ads no longer air during the program
  
• WABC's online feed included about 5:33 of dead air when ads would normally have run.

Advertisers with links on their names have already stated that they have asked to have their ads excluded from Limbaugh's show.

http://mediamatters....og/201203080010

[Paladin of Ice]

Question: would gun owners approve of guns being treated like cars, where people are generally allowed and expected to own a gun unless they choose otherwise, but have to pass a basic gun owner's test, (with the possibility of one's license being taken away for misuse) or would you prefer no limits, nothing except walk into a store, lay down your money, walk out with a gun?

If you prefer the latter, why should a gun be treated with less formality and less restrictions than a car? Or do you also favor someone being to get a car despite being blind, or without any driving training?

Please understand, I have no interest in owning a gun and no knowledge of the process. What do you think the process should be, if any?

Edited by Paladin of Ice, 08 March 2012 - 11:21 PM.

[Ser Greguh]

The former, no doubt.  I don't have any problem whatsoever with requiring a gun owner to get licensed up the wazoo, particularly for things like conceal/carry etc.  Though those laws still aren't going to be particularly effective at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, their primary purpose is the reduction of accidents and the requirement is hardly in conflict with the 2nd Amendment.

[Lightning Lord]

So.  Kouran's either a raving lunatic or gibbering idiot.  Way to support responsible gun ownership!  Threaten to shoot people who disagree!  I've only been shooting firearms since I was 10, so I guess you can just chalk one up for "Ignorant gun-hating librul that durn't get what for guns is used boy howdy."  Yup, no idea what I'm talking about.  I've never seen a gun used except to murder the suffering fuck out of innocent babies.

I'm against violence and I will tiger-maul anyone who thinks violence is a good solution to problems.

[Triskele]

Lightning Lord, on 09 March 2012 - 12:08 AM, said:

I'm against violence and I will tiger-maul anyone who thinks violence is a good solution to problems.

[kalbear]

Quote

Seriously, do we learn nothing from the drug war? All these people with all these very simple and accurate observations about how the prohibition of things that people want tends to do little to nothing to prevent their acquisition and use. Case in point, the vast majority of violent crimes in the States are committed by people with previous criminal histories for whom it is already illegal to own a gun.

This isn't entirely a fair comparison; the biggest problem in the US is the ease of acquiring guns. There's a huge huge supply of them, they're not particularly well-regulated, background checks are poor or sometimes nonexistent depending on the venue and waiting  periods sometimes don't matter at all. And again - there are so very, very many. Yes, a lot of gun violence would not disappear entirely - but it's not as if 1 in 3 Americans are recreational users of guns (compared to the estimates about recreational drug use).

I think a lot of the issues in general would go away if people were allowed to have guns but only certain kinds. For instance, handguns disappear. Anyone that wants can have a rifle or a shotgun, but no handguns. Shotguns are more effective for home defense anyway (even without any  rounds) and you don't need to worry about a concealment privilege or anything like that. Nor are you taking people's rights to bear arms;  they can, there are just certain kinds of arms they can bear.

[WrathOfTinyKittens]

That's already the case, though. AFAIK all automatic weapons are already illegal, but gangs and such are still able to get ahold of them.

More importantly, would Kouran prefer that the liberals and/or Canadians take his shotguns away from one shell at a time or one solid slug at a time? My money's on slugs.

(null)

[kalbear]

All automatic weapons are decidedly not illegal. Many are completely legal. Others are forced to be 'semiauto only' but it's very easy to switch them to auto if you so choose.

It's a step in the right direction. It's sort of like bans on smoking in all bars. No, it doesn't ban smoke outright, but it does go towards that one step at a time and wean people off of guns.

[WrathOfTinyKittens]

Ah, I thought it was illegal. I mean I do know people who own military weapons that are supposedly locked in semi-auto, but on the other hand I also knew a guy who at least tried to modify his AR-15 to fire fully auto. Dunno if he succeeded, but he was a redneck, not a criminal.

(null)

[Arthmail]

Ser Greguh, on 08 March 2012 - 10:21 PM, said:

Every scrap of empirical evidence suggests that harder gun control laws do fuck-all in the States to prevent gun-related violence.  That's just how it is.  As much as I'd like to be able to transition us to Britain levels of gun violence by flipping a magic switch, there is absolutely zero evidence whatsoever that that magic switch exists.
Seriously, do we learn nothing from the drug war?  All these people with all these very simple and accurate observations about how the prohibition of things that people want tends to do little to nothing to prevent their acquisition and use.  Case in point, the vast majority of violent crimes in the States are committed by people with previous criminal histories for whom it is already illegal to own a gun.
Yeah, whouda thunk it?  If you're willing to murder someone you probably don't give much of a fuck about violating a gun statute.
This isn't about recycling some Fox News talking point to verify my bias.  I'm siding with goddamn NRA members, even when my own personal view is that if I ever make the slightest peep of noise regarding joining the fucking NRA, I can only hope that my loved ones cut the cord because it would be the surest possible sign of brain death.
But such is the price of intellectual honesty; refusing to dip into the ad hominem of "Idiot troglodyte conservatives support the position therefore it must be wrong" and instead actually study the true effects of gun control in my society and understand that this is an issue - one of the very few - where the Far Left has groupthunk itself into a position that is catastrophically misguided, counterproductive, and sustained entirely on the idiotic assertion of a causal link with absolutely no evidence to support the claim.

You should read what i was responding to, it helps usually. I made mention of the fact that Americans are shotting each other all over the place, he said the rates were going down, and i agreed. Only that they were ridiculously high compared to other first world nations. So by my statement, i was saying that this infatuation with guns and god is fucking up the US. That it is part of a larger problem, especially as evidenced by the reaction of Kouran.

You're fucking problem though, is clearly in not accepting that it is a problem. It's a broad issue, which for what its worth, that can't ever be fixed. There is too much vested interest in it. You claim groupthink for the left, but until you start actually showing some numbers or, you know, facts, you're talking out of your ass. Casual link to what, by the way? That guns kill people?That if you didn't have so fucking many just lying around (didn't that kid in Ohio just find some laying around?), there might be less gun violence.

But thats, again, part of a bigger issue. Read my post. It's gods and guns and damn everything else.


Edit: A serious problem is also in regulation of measures taken to prevent unlawful access to guns "In the United States, over 1.69 million kids age 18 and under are living in households with loaded and unlocked firearms"

Edited by Arthmail, 09 March 2012 - 02:03 AM.

[lupis42]

Paladin of Ice, on 08 March 2012 - 11:20 PM, said:

If you prefer the latter, why should a gun be treated with less formality and less restrictions than a car? Or do you also favor someone being to get a car despite being blind, or without any driving training?

Please understand, I have no interest in owning a gun and no knowledge of the process. What do you think the process should be, if any?

Personally, I'd prefer the tools of the second amendment be licensed as restrictively as those of the first.

But if we're talking licensing guns like cars, that would be a huge improvement over what MA, MD, CA, NY, NJ, and DC offer to say the least - nominal fees, license granted to anyone who can pass a competency test, and restrictions all based around operation on a public way (roughly equivalent to carry) rather than ownership.

If we were trying to build a compromise based system, I'd much rather see it built around required safety training than limiting this or that type of gun, action, magazine size, barrel length, and similar mechanical BS.  It should also recognize that 'keep and bear' is a right, which should not be predicated on asking for permission or extensive paperwork/waiting periods.  Punish irresponsible use of that right, (as with the first amendment), rather than hindering responsible exercise.

ĶӓḷƁҿӑȑ, on 09 March 2012 - 01:34 AM, said:

I think a lot of the issues in general would go away if people were allowed to have guns but only certain kinds. For instance, handguns disappear. Anyone that wants can have a rifle or a shotgun, but no handguns. Shotguns are more effective for home defense anyway (even without any  rounds) and you don't need to worry about a concealment privilege or anything like that. Nor are you taking people's rights to bear arms;  they can, there are just certain kinds of arms they can bear.

This is the most ass-backwards way conceivable to go about it.

[Jon Sprunk]

lupis42, on 09 March 2012 - 08:37 AM, said:

Punish irresponsible use of that right, (as with the first amendment), rather than hindering responsible exercise.

This is pretty much where I come down on the issue (I'm a crazy librul, I know). I'm not a gun-owner (although I have small collection of bladed weapons), but I have nothing against responsible ownership.

Yet, when someone abuses their right to bear arms--through a negligent death/injury, use in a crime, etc...--then the penalties should be severe.

Now, I do think we need to do something about all the guns that flood the black market. Illegal sales should also be punished heavily with a lot of law enforcement manpower devoted to cracking that market. We could start by transferring all drug enforcement personnel to gun law enforcement.

[Ser Greguh]

ĶӓḷƁҿӑȑ, on 09 March 2012 - 01:34 AM, said:

This isn't entirely a fair comparison; the biggest problem in the US is the ease of acquiring guns.

Um, okay, so where does the "not a fair comparison" part enter the equation?  Yes, acquiring guns in the US is easy, whether via legal means that you can regulate or via black market means that you can't.  So?  How does that exact same argument not apply to drugs (or for that matter, for alcohol, back in the day)?  It's the exact same goddamn market dynamics at work.

Quote

but it's not as if 1 in 3 Americans are recreational users of guns (compared to the estimates about recreational drug use).

Forgive me for a moment as I have to measure my words so as to not get this post deleted.  Suffice to say this statement shows you don't have even the slightest hint of an idea what the fuck you are talking about and need to educate yourself a great deal on the subject before you can make anything resembling an informed statement about it.

These are old numbers but in 2001 the number of households that had a gun in their home was 39%.  The number of men who have ever fired a gun (which to me would qualify them as a "recreational gun user", given comparable drug use statistics) is 86%.

You just plain old don't get out much do you?  Where I went to college, High School kids got the first day of deer season off as a school holiday.

Quote

I think a lot of the issues in general would go away if people were allowed to have guns but only certain kinds. For instance, handguns disappear. Anyone that wants can have a rifle or a shotgun, but no handguns. Shotguns are more effective for home defense anyway (even without any  rounds) and you don't need to worry about a concealment privilege or anything like that. Nor are you taking people's rights to bear arms;  they can, there are just certain kinds of arms they can bear.

Again with the "ban handguns" being conflated automatically, with no thought whatsoever as to the process involved, to handguns disappear.  Because drug prohibition has led to all drugs disappearing, right?  Right?  Right?

Prohibition: the fledgling half-witted argumentation of those that pay zero fucking attention whatsoever to empirical data.

Arthmail, on 09 March 2012 - 01:57 AM, said:

You're fucking problem though, is clearly in not accepting that it is a problem. It's a broad issue, which for what its worth, that can't ever be fixed. There is too much vested interest in it. You claim groupthink for the left, but until you start actually showing some numbers or, you know, facts, you're talking out of your ass. Casual link to what, by the way? That guns kill people?That if you didn't have so fucking many just lying around (didn't that kid in Ohio just find some laying around?), there might be less gun violence.

Gun violence is a huge problem in the States, obviously.  I'm sure someone more vigilant on the topic can provide links to numbers, but the fact that gun laws in the US have proven to be spectacularly ineffective at preventing gun-related violence is pretty much undisputed from an empirical standpoint.  The response by gun control advocates - in precise mirroring of other prohibition advocates - has been to suggest that they're not restrictive enough, as if doubling down on a zero is going to result in a bigger number.

Quote

But thats, again, part of a bigger issue. Read my post. It's gods and guns and damn everything else.

I did read your fucking post.  I agree that there are cultural problems in play, without a doubt.  That being said, the "cultural problems" - i.e. the neanderthal "You can take my guns from my cold dead fingers" logic-spouting crowd - are not, by and large, the demographic that's responsible for the majority of the gun violence in this country.

More importantly, you simply can't apply cultural fixes via legislation from Washington.  It isn't gonna work.  You're not going to get the rednecks to come to the revelation of "oh I guess guns are bad k thx".  Hell, you're not even going to get me to think it and I'm a liberal.

Would the country be better off if guns - for any purpose other than military - were immediately disinvented and disappeared all at once?  Sure.  While we're wishing for that I suggest a strategy of defeating global warming through the power of prayer.

Quote

Edit: A serious problem is also in regulation of measures taken to prevent unlawful access to guns "In the United States, over 1.69 million kids age 18 and under are living in households with loaded and unlocked firearms"

I don't dispute this, and have no problem with punishing irresponsible / dangerous usage.  Nor do the vast majority of anti-gun-control advocates, including most of the crazy ones.

Edited by Ser Greguh, 09 March 2012 - 09:48 AM.

[lupis42]

Ser Greguh, on 09 March 2012 - 09:45 AM, said:

Gun violence is a huge problem in the States, obviously.

Only issue I'd take with this is that generally, it makes much more sense to focus on the problem of violence than on the problem of gun violence.

[ljkeane]

Ser Greguh, on 09 March 2012 - 09:45 AM, said:

[/left]

Um, okay, so where does the "not a fair comparison" part enter the equation?  Yes, acquiring guns in the US is easy, whether via legal means that you can regulate or via black market means that you can't.  So?  How does that exact same argument not apply to drugs (or for that matter, for alcohol, back in the day)?  It's the exact same goddamn market dynamics at work.

It's really not the same market dynamics at all. Drugs are consumable goods that are easily produced in massive quantities in a low skilled and not particularly capital intensive process, on top of that during prohibition the US was surrounded by countries that had significantly laxer restrictions on the production of alcohol. None of these would apply to a black market for guns.

There are plenty of practical issues that would be presented in applying, for example, a complete ban on handguns in the US but simplistic comparisons to the market for illegal drugs aren't overly helpful.

Edited by ljkeane, 09 March 2012 - 09:56 AM.