Watching the Democrats - it's Fun and Macabre!

[IamSam]

It IS difficult to get Adak to stay on topic, isn't it? I'm following BigV over to the other thread with my reply as well.

[Adak]

I'm following the subjects given in the latest press conference of Obama. It's about gun control and the debt limit.

And we've covered the debt limit, last month:

Obama can't stay within the debt limit, because he's spending like a drunken sailor in port, and on leave. No limit on spending, is what he wants.

Too bad that the Constitution doesn't allow him to skirt around the House of Representatives, and spend MORE, MORE, MORE!

So we're back to gun control.

These are both Bill of Rights issues - they are not privileges that we have to plead with the government, in order to attain.

[IamSam]

Last month was the cliff. Now all the cool kids in the House are talking about the ceiling. Gov't shutdown is scheduled for March 27th.
Get with the program.

[BigV]

I listened to the press conference today. The main topic was the debt ceiling. If you also listened to it, you learned that it has NOTHING AT ALL to do with "Obama's" out control spending. You ignorance of civics is the major obstacle to a real understanding of the issue, and why you're incapable of participating in a meaningful dialog on the subject. When you can demonstrate a better grasp of how our government works, come back here and we will try again to reason together.

[Pete Zicato]

Originally Posted by Adak

And do you sir, have ANY evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, showing that unarmed, defenseless people, are safe from violence?

Why yes. As a matter of fact, I do.

On April 28, 1996, a gunman opened fire on tourists in a seaside resort in Port Arthur, Tasmania. By the time he was finished, he had killed 35 people and wounded 23 more. It was the worst mass murder in Australia's history.

Twelve days later, Australia's government did something remarkable. Led by newly elected conservative Prime Minister John Howard, it announced a bipartisan deal with state and local governments to enact sweeping gun-control measures. A decade and a half hence, the results of these policy changes are clear: They worked really, really well.

But here's the most stunning statistic. In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn't been a single one in Australia since.

The above quotes are from here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/12/18/506...-provides.html

A Times magazine article on the UK and Australia bans: http://world.time.com/2012/12/17/whe...and-australia/

So there you have it - hard statistical data.

Go peddle your NRA talking points elsewhere.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by BigV

I listened to the press conference today. The main topic was the debt ceiling. If you also listened to it, you learned that it has NOTHING AT ALL to do with "Obama's" out control spending. You ignorance of civics is the major obstacle to a real understanding of the issue, and why you're incapable of participating in a meaningful dialog on the subject. When you can demonstrate a better grasp of how our government works, come back here and we will try again to reason together.

Your disconnect denying the obvious connection between spending and the debt limit, in the face of our HUGE increase in spending under Obama, borders on a mental defect.

Consult any 10 year old - when you have only 90 cents, you don't keep buying the one dollar candy, and have to keep borrowing from your friends, to do so.

Because you will run out of THEIR money, and then you'll be broke and probably friendless for a spell, as well.

I know it's safe for a country to run up a national debt, and we don't need to panic every time the debt increases -- but come on! We can't just run our currency into the realm of being worthless and cause a monetary crisis!

As with most things, there are reasonable limits, and we have far exceeded ours.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Pete Zicato

Why yes. As a matter of fact, I do.
The above quotes are from here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/12/18/506...-provides.html

A Times magazine article on the UK and Australia bans: http://world.time.com/2012/12/17/whe...and-australia/

So there you have it - hard statistical data.

Go peddle your NRA talking points elsewhere.

Read it and weep, and get your facts right:
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847

AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN

April 13, 2009

It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer. In 2002 -- five years after enacting its gun ban -- the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.

Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

Moreover, Australia and the United States -- where no gun-ban exists -- both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:

Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America's rate dropped 31.7 percent.
During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.

While this doesn't prove that more guns would impact crime rates, it does prove that gun control is a flawed policy. Furthermore, this highlights the most important point: gun banners promote failed policy regardless of the consequences to the people who must live with them, says the Examiner.

Source: Howard Nemerov, "Australia experiencing more violent crime despite gun ban," D.C. Examiner, April 8, 2009.

For text:

http://www.examiner.com/x-2879-Austi...espite-gun-ban

Brevik killed over 65 children and 12 adults, in Norway, mostly with a gun (8 by a bomb he made). And Norway has VERY strict gun control laws - but Anders Brevik didn't CARE about obeying the gun control laws of his country.

What makes you believe that the next nut case that wants to kill people in the US, will in fact, obey the gun control laws we might pass?

There are reasonable improvements in our gun control laws, (like banning high capacity magazines). Like requiring a locking mechanism be sold (or shown he has one by the buyer), with every firearm sold. This would probably be a trigger lock, but could be a gun safe.

The thing we have to do now, is stop congress from passing knee-jerk stupid laws, that chip away at the second amendment, and give us no real added safety - CA has many such stupid laws on it's books regarding gun control - sheer nonsense.

Good legislation can be crafted, but not by people opposed to firearms. We will see whether the leaders in Washington are up to this task. Personally, I doubt it, but maybe something good will come out of the Sandy Hook massacre.

[Pete Zicato]

What part of "no mass shootings" are you having problems with?

I have no illusions that that gun control will make life perfect and we'll have double rainbows every day. There will still be guns of some sort and we'll continue to have gun crime.

But obviously, Australia has reduced mass shootings. That's worth a lot right there.

And don't think I didn't notice that you went from NRA talking points to quoting a right-wing mouthpiece. You really need to get out more.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Pete Zicato

What part of "no mass shootings" are you having problems with?

I have no illusions that that gun control will make life perfect and we'll have double rainbows every day. There will still be guns of some sort and we'll continue to have gun crime.

But obviously, Australia has reduced mass shootings. That's worth a lot right there.

And don't think I didn't notice that you went from NRA talking points to quoting a right-wing mouthpiece. You really need to get out more.

Brevik shot over 60 children, in a country that has a long history of gun control, (compared to say, Australia which has a very short history of it).

If you are saying that a very small sample (of time), from one country with gun control is enough to justify a change in our Constitutional Bill of Rights, then I can say the opposite, with years when the US did not have any mass shootings.

Who cares WHERE the stats came from? Stats are stats. Australia's violent crime did not decrease as a result of gun control, as much as the US did, without it.

[BigV]

Dammit.

Moved to here.

[Adak]

Quiz for you:

There is a call to you from the school your child attends. They have received a death threat from a note signed by a former student. Do you want a police or armed guard to be posted at the school, until the former student is found and arrested?

Yes, or No?

Let's see what others have done, in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre:

*several cities in the Northeast have increased police presence at their schools, including NYC, under the order of the VERY liberal Mayor Bloomberg.

*meanwhile, the VERY conservative Sheriff Joe Arpaio in AZ, has done the same, using his armed and trained volunteers, as well as his deputies.

*in LA, the very liberal Mayor has also requested additional police presence, at all their schools.

I believe we have a consensus here - both liberals and conservatives, both want armed police or guard presence, at their schools. Has this been used elsewhere? Yes it has!

In the 1970's, Israeli schools were being targeted by Palestinians, and in one case, by an Israeli who went unhinged.

The Israeli's put armed guards at their schools, to counter these threats. There have been no successful attacks at Israeli schools, since then.

That's 40 years+ !

When we had problems with hijacked airliners, we put air marshals (armed), onto the planes. We removed them before 9/11, but that's a subject for another thread.

I believe left and right - and everyone in the middle who's honest - will agree that when you have something valuable, you protect it. Surely, that includes our kids.

And we CAN do more to require guns be kept safely locked up, etc.

[glatt]

What about the school buses? The kids aren't protected on the buses. Should we have armed guards there?

There are 50 thousand public elementary schools in this country. There are another 40 thousand middle schools and high schools. That doesn't even begin to count private schools. All told, there are probably 120 thousand schools in this country. To hire one guard for each one at $35,000 per year would cost about $4 Billion. But really you need more than one guard. The school won't be protected when they go to the bathroom or eat lunch. You need at least 2 per school. So that's $8 Billion. And what about those buses? And the bus stops? Let's say you have an average of 2 buses per school, and 10 bus stops per school that means you need another 12 guards. So let's see, 12 time 4 is 48, plus the two you already had at the school. Now we're at $52 Billion (per year) just for guards. And all you've protected in the kids at school. What about the library? and the park? Oh jeez. And the playgrounds! What about walking to the bus stops? And walking to school? We'll need a guard on every corner. this is going to start getting expensive.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Adak

Your disconnect denying the obvious connection between spending and the debt limit, in the face of our HUGE increase in spending under Obama, borders on a mental defect.

First of all, I've denied nothing about any connection between spending and the debt limit. When you can cite a contrary example, your petty name-calling will be justified. Until then, you just keep your mental defect badge.

Originally Posted by Adak

Consult any 10 year old - when you have only 90 cents, you don't keep buying the one dollar candy, and have to keep borrowing from your friends, to do so.

Because you will run out of THEIR money, and then you'll be broke and probably friendless for a spell, as well.

Adak, our country's fiscal and monetary policy is not run like a ten-year-old's. You know that. When you make such a comparison, you insult me and you embarrass yourself. Please stop it.

Originally Posted by Adak

I know it's safe for a country to run up a national debt, and we don't need to panic every time the debt increases -- but come on! We can't just run our currency into the realm of being worthless and cause a monetary crisis!

As with most things, there are reasonable limits, and we have far exceeded ours.

Ok, now to the obvious connection between our spending the debt ceiling. I notice now you use rational, neutral terms like "our" and "a country". I am glad for the change of tone, thanks. If you think we've far exceeded the reasonable limit to our borrowing, what is that limit? How much debt do you think we can reasonably bear?

A more pressing question is how to deal with the debt limit now. We both listened to the President's press conference of the other day, I'll tell you now, I agree with his characterization of the debt ceiling and what to do about it and importantly, what not to do about it. Last first--dithering and arguing and fiddlefarting around while NOT immediately and decisively raising the debt ceiling is all by itself a very bad idea. Acting (Congressional acting) as though there might be any kind of suggestion whatsoever that the United States will not pay our debts is irresponsible and dangerous.

That is just the effect that trying to link debt ceiling increases, which must be done by Congress, with any other business. Anything besides "Yes, and here's the limit (which in my opinion should be high enough to make further such discussion moot for a year or more), generates more of that "uncertainty" that is anathema to the business community. It's a Bad. Idea.

What is your position?

[regular.joe]

Originally Posted by Adak

Most accidents with firearms are caused by kids or adults...

Isn't this the entire population?


Sent from an undisclosed location.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by glatt

What about the school buses? The kids aren't protected on the buses. Should we have armed guards there?

There are 50 thousand public elementary schools in this country. There are another 40 thousand middle schools and high schools. That doesn't even begin to count private schools. All told, there are probably 120 thousand schools in this country. To hire one guard for each one at $35,000 per year would cost about $4 Billion. But really you need more than one guard. The school won't be protected when they go to the bathroom or eat lunch. You need at least 2 per school. So that's $8 Billion. And what about those buses? And the bus stops? Let's say you have an average of 2 buses per school, and 10 bus stops per school that means you need another 12 guards. So let's see, 12 time 4 is 48, plus the two you already had at the school. Now we're at $52 Billion (per year) just for guards. And all you've protected in the kids at school. What about the library? and the park? Oh jeez. And the playgrounds! What about walking to the bus stops? And walking to school? We'll need a guard on every corner. this is going to start getting expensive.

Ridiculously expensive, but it is a solution that should be used in the short term, when needed. A little extra security, can go a long way.

And it's MUCH better than yanking the rug out from underneath our second amendment rights. Once the gov't has knocked those down, we'll never get them back.

And not to be a doomsayer, but once they can knock one part of the Bill of Rights down, then clearly they can see about knocking down other parts, as well. All they need is some kind of an emergency (real or imagined), and they'll be all over it.

There are practical steps that could be taken - but what I've heard proposed so far, is not good.