Re: POTUS Elect Trump I: Get in pu$$y - we're gonna make American great again
So we should do less instead of more since what we have is ineffective?
So we should do less instead of more since what we have is ineffective?
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
POTUS Elect Trump I: Get in pu$$y - we're gonna make American great again
- Thread starter Slap Shot
- Start date
- Status
Re: POTUS Elect Trump I: Get in pu$$y - we're gonna make American great again
Whether the proposed laws are wise or not, anecdotal evidence is of no use in this discussion. Everyone has an example to illustrate their viewpoint.
As to your comments that people aren't charged for the right to vote or exercise free speech; fees are imposed on people exercising fundamental rights all the time, including speech. The question is how burdensome the fee is.
Whether the proposed laws are wise or not, anecdotal evidence is of no use in this discussion. Everyone has an example to illustrate their viewpoint.
As to your comments that people aren't charged for the right to vote or exercise free speech; fees are imposed on people exercising fundamental rights all the time, including speech. The question is how burdensome the fee is.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: POTUS Elect Trump I: Get in pu$$y - we're gonna make American great again
Suckers or morons?
Suckers or morons?
Is there any evidence they do make a difference? I'm sure there is a better way than how we do things now, no question about it, but what Bloomberg and the rest of the anti-gun crowd has proposed isn't it. It would be incredibly burdensome and expensive. I guess a big question for me would be what happens when someone accidentally runs afoul of the law but nothing happens? Do you throw the book at them anyway?
The biggest problem I see is the people proposing the laws don't understand guns and strongly despise them.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: POTUS Elect Trump I: Get in pu$$y - we're gonna make American great again
From the septic tank.
From the septic tank.
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: POTUS Elect Trump I: Get in pu$$y - we're gonna make American great again
Not entirely true. You can charge people to use a public space for rallies and whatnot as long as you charge everyone the same for that permit. I'm guessing it has to be a reasonable amount as well.
Not entirely true. You can charge people to use a public space for rallies and whatnot as long as you charge everyone the same for that permit. I'm guessing it has to be a reasonable amount as well.
As long as you are present with the gun, something like on the premises of a gun range, that should be allowed. However, if you turn over the gun for something like a hunting trip that you aren't attending, then you should have to run a background check. That just seems reasonable.
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: POTUS Elect Trump I: Get in pu$$y - we're gonna make American great again
Well, to be fair, this isn't anecdotal anymore. Most (all?) of the recent mass shootings have obtained their guns legally. I know this isn't helping my case for mandatory universal background checks, but it's a point that needs to be addressed in this case instead of brushed off.
Well, to be fair, this isn't anecdotal anymore. Most (all?) of the recent mass shootings have obtained their guns legally. I know this isn't helping my case for mandatory universal background checks, but it's a point that needs to be addressed in this case instead of brushed off.
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: POTUS Elect Trump I: Get in pu$$y - we're gonna make American great again
Do you get a ticket for speeding if you aren't caught? What happens if you lend someone your car and they rob a bank with it? Are you responsible? Well, it depends on how the law is written. In the case of guns, I'm guessing right now it's very similar to what would happen in the car scenario*. If you knew they were going to commit a robbery, you'd be held accountable. Now, if we pass a law that requires 100% background checks, if you don't run one and the person commits a crime, you should be held accountable. Regardless of whether they would have passed the background check.
If you don't run a check and they don't commit a crime, well, that's a risk you'll have to determine if you want to take.
*ETA: Actually, I'm kind of curious. What happens if you lend someone your car and they aren't licensed? If they're caught speeding, can you be charged? I'm guessing not, but I have no idea.
Do you get a ticket for speeding if you aren't caught? What happens if you lend someone your car and they rob a bank with it? Are you responsible? Well, it depends on how the law is written. In the case of guns, I'm guessing right now it's very similar to what would happen in the car scenario*. If you knew they were going to commit a robbery, you'd be held accountable. Now, if we pass a law that requires 100% background checks, if you don't run one and the person commits a crime, you should be held accountable. Regardless of whether they would have passed the background check.
If you don't run a check and they don't commit a crime, well, that's a risk you'll have to determine if you want to take.
*ETA: Actually, I'm kind of curious. What happens if you lend someone your car and they aren't licensed? If they're caught speeding, can you be charged? I'm guessing not, but I have no idea.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: POTUS Elect Trump I: Get in pu$$y - we're gonna make American great again
Thank you.
My intuition is that the expected value of a gun with respect to personal safety is negative in most places -- i.e., the likelihood of injuring yourself or a loved one is far higher than the likelihood that you will sustain less injury from an attack because of your gun. The only circumstances I can imagine a gun being a net safety positive are in an actual war zone where there's a high likelihood of multiple incidents of personal danger or in a very rural area (as in Alaska, not Tennessee) where bear etc. attacks are sufficiently likely to overwhelm the odds of an accident.
Guns make a certain personality type feel safer, just like TSA checks at airports make a certain personality type feel safer. Marketing is about perception, not reality, so it is easy to sell guns (or push through TSA programs).
Now add the cultural totem status of a gun and it becomes impossible to have a rational policy discussion about them. So I suggest we "debase" the cultural currency of guns by breaking their association with redneck rites of passage, not to get rid of guns, but just so we can have a sane national debate. In effect, we should try to grow Group 1 until it is larger than Group 2. Then an alliance of Group 1 and Group 0 (the gun-neutral / anti-gun electorate) will be successful. Group 1 has earned a seat at the table. That won't make absolutist gun banners (call them Group -1) happy, but like Group 2, they aren't helping anyone anyway.
Thank you.
My intuition is that the expected value of a gun with respect to personal safety is negative in most places -- i.e., the likelihood of injuring yourself or a loved one is far higher than the likelihood that you will sustain less injury from an attack because of your gun. The only circumstances I can imagine a gun being a net safety positive are in an actual war zone where there's a high likelihood of multiple incidents of personal danger or in a very rural area (as in Alaska, not Tennessee) where bear etc. attacks are sufficiently likely to overwhelm the odds of an accident.
Guns make a certain personality type feel safer, just like TSA checks at airports make a certain personality type feel safer. Marketing is about perception, not reality, so it is easy to sell guns (or push through TSA programs).
Now add the cultural totem status of a gun and it becomes impossible to have a rational policy discussion about them. So I suggest we "debase" the cultural currency of guns by breaking their association with redneck rites of passage, not to get rid of guns, but just so we can have a sane national debate. In effect, we should try to grow Group 1 until it is larger than Group 2. Then an alliance of Group 1 and Group 0 (the gun-neutral / anti-gun electorate) will be successful. Group 1 has earned a seat at the table. That won't make absolutist gun banners (call them Group -1) happy, but like Group 2, they aren't helping anyone anyway.
Last edited:
Re: POTUS Elect Trump I: Get in pu$$y - we're gonna make American great again
Trump voters understand something that we just don't get, and they're teaching us a lesson.
Trump voters understand something that we just don't get, and they're teaching us a lesson.
Re: POTUS Elect Trump I: Get in pu$$y - we're gonna make American great again
How about propose some, then? Instead of saying "no" to everything, is it that hard to see that there is an issue that can be dealt with?
Then again, the morons that listen to the NRA did a great service to the gun industry. I wish I bought arms stock when Obama got elected. Would have made a fortune on the backs of irrational morons.
How about propose some, then? Instead of saying "no" to everything, is it that hard to see that there is an issue that can be dealt with?
Then again, the morons that listen to the NRA did a great service to the gun industry. I wish I bought arms stock when Obama got elected. Would have made a fortune on the backs of irrational morons.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: POTUS Elect Trump I: Get in pu$$y - we're gonna make American great again
Buy gun stocks when a D is in office (the NRA's 2-minute hates). Buy precious metals when an R is in office (they tank the economy).
Buy defense stocks no matter who is in office.
Buy gun stocks when a D is in office (the NRA's 2-minute hates). Buy precious metals when an R is in office (they tank the economy).
Buy defense stocks no matter who is in office.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: POTUS Elect Trump I: Get in pu$$y - we're gonna make American great again
That is a problem. It's pretty small compared to the stranglehold the NRA has on Congress, which reflects the fact that for every anti-gun person who rates the issue as vitally important there are a thousand (maybe ten thousand) gun fondlers who rate it as such.
I say we slice off both ends and have the sane people in the middle craft policy.
That is a problem. It's pretty small compared to the stranglehold the NRA has on Congress, which reflects the fact that for every anti-gun person who rates the issue as vitally important there are a thousand (maybe ten thousand) gun fondlers who rate it as such.
I say we slice off both ends and have the sane people in the middle craft policy.
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: POTUS Elect Trump I: Get in pu$$y - we're gonna make American great again
You would have been better off in the S&P 500 index funds. And that's assuming you waited until the bottom of the market for gun manufacturers. There are four publicly held firearms manufacturers and only two are worth looking at. Smith & Wesson and Ruger.
If you had bought $100 in each on day one of Obama, you'd have somewhere in the range of:
$520 - S&P
$360 - Smith & Wesson
$280 - Ruger
You would have been better off in the S&P 500 index funds. And that's assuming you waited until the bottom of the market for gun manufacturers. There are four publicly held firearms manufacturers and only two are worth looking at. Smith & Wesson and Ruger.
If you had bought $100 in each on day one of Obama, you'd have somewhere in the range of:
$520 - S&P
$360 - Smith & Wesson
$280 - Ruger
Re: POTUS Elect Trump I: Get in pu$$y - we're gonna make American great again
Plenty. More than 2/3 of all homicides are gun related.
From Factcheck.org:
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention publishes statistics on firearm deaths and the death rate, which would be a fairer measure in comparing states of various populations. For 2013, the 10 states with the highest firearm age-adjusted death rates were: Alaska (19.8), Louisiana (19.3), Mississippi (17.8), Alabama (17.6), Arkansas (16.8), Wyoming (16.7), Montana (16.7), Oklahoma (16.5), New Mexico (15.5) and Tennessee (15.4). The 10 states with the highest homicide rates were: Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Maryland, Oklahoma, South Carolina, New Mexico, Missouri and Michigan. That lists includes six states that also have the highest firearm death rates.
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, both groups that advocate for strong gun laws, published a scorecard on state gun laws in 2013, giving higher letter grades to states with stronger gun laws. Nine of the 10 states with the highest firearm death rates, according to the CDC, got an “F” for their gun laws, and one of them got a “D-.” Seven of the states with the lowest firearm death rates got a “B” or higher.
Plenty. More than 2/3 of all homicides are gun related.
From Factcheck.org:
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention publishes statistics on firearm deaths and the death rate, which would be a fairer measure in comparing states of various populations. For 2013, the 10 states with the highest firearm age-adjusted death rates were: Alaska (19.8), Louisiana (19.3), Mississippi (17.8), Alabama (17.6), Arkansas (16.8), Wyoming (16.7), Montana (16.7), Oklahoma (16.5), New Mexico (15.5) and Tennessee (15.4). The 10 states with the highest homicide rates were: Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Maryland, Oklahoma, South Carolina, New Mexico, Missouri and Michigan. That lists includes six states that also have the highest firearm death rates.
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, both groups that advocate for strong gun laws, published a scorecard on state gun laws in 2013, giving higher letter grades to states with stronger gun laws. Nine of the 10 states with the highest firearm death rates, according to the CDC, got an “F” for their gun laws, and one of them got a “D-.” Seven of the states with the lowest firearm death rates got a “B” or higher.
Read my earlier posts, I did propose one.
Don't believe everything you read on the NRA.
Completely misleading this. You say 2/3 of homicides involve guns then cite a bunch of statistics which include suicides which are roughly double homicides.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: POTUS Elect Trump I: Get in pu$$y - we're gonna make American great again
Somebody here taught me how to finally stop worrying and love that Trump is going to screw over his own rural white voters. That person said those people -- the people we call "deluded" in What's the Matter with Kansas? -- simply have different values.
When I was young and dinosaurs named Trottier and Potvin roamed the Earth, my graduate school research was in distributive justice: what people think of as "fair" and how they measure it. One of the key findings in that field is that not all people rank order outcomes the same way, even within a culture or even within tight knit communities. The poster who lit up my neurons said that Trump voters don't actually care that they're poor or even that they're highly likely to remain poor. They just don't want anybody "jumping the line" economically. For example, some people who are in the 80th percentile economically prefer to remain in the 80th percentile as long as their neighbors below them don't jump them in position, rather than to rise to the 79th percentile if their neighbors rise to the 75th. The former is "fairer" to them. The latter is an outrage. This gets worse as the people who jump them are less like them racially, religiously, etc.
If that is true then there is nothing irrational about poor Trump voters or poor Republican voters in general, but that's just an afterthought. The important point is then it is no service to those people to work for policies that improve their lives if those policies improve even poorer people's lives more -- that's not what they want. Liberals should re-calibrate policy with respect to those people to stop accommodating outcomes that benefit those people but that those people don't see as fair. It is better, both politically and arguably morally, to concentrate on other populations that share our distributive justice values. Stop trying to save the part of the world that hates you for trying to.
One of the biggest problems for liberal policy is because we are trying to help nearly everybody, the natural internal contradictions and rivalries between subgroups become our problem. This is an opportunity to disregard some of those conflicts by no longer considering rural white Republicans with (to us) perverse distributive justice values as a client. If they wind up benefiting from our programs, so be it, but don't make it a priority.
Stop holding the train for a guy who doesn't even want to board.
Somebody here taught me how to finally stop worrying and love that Trump is going to screw over his own rural white voters. That person said those people -- the people we call "deluded" in What's the Matter with Kansas? -- simply have different values.
When I was young and dinosaurs named Trottier and Potvin roamed the Earth, my graduate school research was in distributive justice: what people think of as "fair" and how they measure it. One of the key findings in that field is that not all people rank order outcomes the same way, even within a culture or even within tight knit communities. The poster who lit up my neurons said that Trump voters don't actually care that they're poor or even that they're highly likely to remain poor. They just don't want anybody "jumping the line" economically. For example, some people who are in the 80th percentile economically prefer to remain in the 80th percentile as long as their neighbors below them don't jump them in position, rather than to rise to the 79th percentile if their neighbors rise to the 75th. The former is "fairer" to them. The latter is an outrage. This gets worse as the people who jump them are less like them racially, religiously, etc.
If that is true then there is nothing irrational about poor Trump voters or poor Republican voters in general, but that's just an afterthought. The important point is then it is no service to those people to work for policies that improve their lives if those policies improve even poorer people's lives more -- that's not what they want. Liberals should re-calibrate policy with respect to those people to stop accommodating outcomes that benefit those people but that those people don't see as fair. It is better, both politically and arguably morally, to concentrate on other populations that share our distributive justice values. Stop trying to save the part of the world that hates you for trying to.
One of the biggest problems for liberal policy is because we are trying to help nearly everybody, the natural internal contradictions and rivalries between subgroups become our problem. This is an opportunity to disregard some of those conflicts by no longer considering rural white Republicans with (to us) perverse distributive justice values as a client. If they wind up benefiting from our programs, so be it, but don't make it a priority.
Stop holding the train for a guy who doesn't even want to board.
Last edited:
Re: POTUS Elect Trump I: Get in pu$$y - we're gonna make American great again
Firstly, are suicides not gun deaths?
Secondly, if I show there is a correlation between murders and gun ownership are you sold on the importance of guns laws?
Firstly, are suicides not gun deaths?
Secondly, if I show there is a correlation between murders and gun ownership are you sold on the importance of guns laws?
Re: POTUS Elect Trump I: Get in pu$$y - we're gonna make American great again
At least they'll get affordable home WiFi access in those rural areas out of the deal. Nope, check that, that was the candidate that "didn't address their needs" that proposed that, not the one who won. I'm sure Muslims losing the right to vote should help though.
At least they'll get affordable home WiFi access in those rural areas out of the deal. Nope, check that, that was the candidate that "didn't address their needs" that proposed that, not the one who won. I'm sure Muslims losing the right to vote should help though.
- Status