Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

The New York Times reports that the House January 6 investigating committee heard testimony indicating that, while Capitol rioters were chanting "Hang Mike Pence," Donald Trump was complaining that the vice president was being whisked to safety, and Trump said something to the effect of, maybe Pence should be hanged. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/25/us/politics/trump-pence-jan-6.html

Trump's depravity knows no bounds.

[Kazinski]

Well, I hate to say this but I advocated pulling Fernando Rodney off the mound and shooting him in the middle of a meltdown (his, but probably mine too).

Yes, that was pretty depraved.

[Frank Drackman]

Golf Clap...... Fernando Rodney....always makes me smile....

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm out of free readings for the month; What was the name of the witness?

[not guilty]

One witness is unidentified but attributes Trump's comment to Mark Meadows, Trump's chief of staff. The article states:

The account of Mr. Trump’s comment was initially provided to the House committee by at least one witness, according to two people briefed on their work, as the panel develops a timeline of what the president was doing during the riot.

Another witness, Cassidy Hutchinson, a former aide to Mr. Meadows who was present in his office when he recounted Mr. Trump’s remarks, was asked by the committee about the account and confirmed it, according to the people familiar with the panel’s work. It was not immediately clear how much detailed information Ms. Hutchinson provided. She has cooperated with the committee in three separate interviews after receiving a subpoena.

[Brett Bellmore]

Let me be clear that I'm not reading this wrong: According to unnamed people familiar with the goings on in the committee, they had two witnesses testifying as to what they heard Mark Meadows say Trump had said?

Has Mark Meadows confirmed this, publicly? Because this sure does sound like hearsay to me.

[not guilty]

To my knowledge, Meadows has not spoken publicly on the matter.

Hearsay, though, is routinely considered by grand juries.

[Brett Bellmore]

Right, I just wanted it clear that this was hearsay, literally
1) somebody (Unnamed 'familiar with the panel's work' sources) said 2) that somebody (Cassidy and somebody unnamed) said
3) that Mr. Meadows said
4) that Trump said something.

I'm not saying it's impossible, Trump is hardly the most temperate guy around, he certainly could have blurted something of the sort out in a heated moment.

I'm just not seeing this as very firmly established as true, at this point. And we've seen a lot of "Trump said" stories that fell apart.

[Michael P]

If you're not going to believe third- or fourth hand hearsay from the newspaper of Walter Duranty, Jayson Blair, and a Pulitzer Prize for falling for the Russia collision hoax, who are you going to believe?

[Yatusabes]

Rachel Madcow? She does have a debilitating mental illness so that clearly qualifies her for something

[David Nieporent]

The only "hoax" is that Russian collusion was a "hoax."

[Gandydancer]

Gone off your meds again?

[StellaLink_the dog]

Truth: Russian collusion was no "hoax." You could assuage your ignorance by briefly perusing the Mueller report. Or, just get somebody with better reading skills than yours to give you a summary. Or just consider the actions of that treasonous confessed felon Flynn. There was plenty of collusion and it's well documented. Whether the collusion amounted to criminal behavior is a question left unanswered.

[David Nieporent]

And if he refuses to believe the Mueller report for laughable partisan reasons, he could read the bipartisan Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report.

Of course, the story of Russia collusion was covered for years by many many different people, and involved many many separate claims. So out of those, of course some reports were mistaken. So the trick that MAGA people use is to find individual errors (or even lies) by any person about claims, no matter how small, and pretend that any one of those discredits the entire story.

[Armchair Lawyer]

An "unidentified source" from the NY Times.

These days, it sounds like a lie. Intentional or not.

[Brett Bellmore]

The saddest thing about this whole January 6th business from my perspective is that it's basically killed Pence's chances of ever being President, which actually looked pretty good during most of Trump's administration.

Pence, love him or hate him, has more integrity in his little finger than a whole room full of Congressmen, on either side of the aisle, and would have made a very refreshing change as President.

[Sarcastr0]

Not really the saddest thing about Jan 6th.

[Yatusabes]

Ironically as a gay man, I would have voted for Pence precisely because of his integrity. He likely would have been treated far worse than Trump by the DOJ, FBI, CIA, MSM, DNC, et al for his Christian views.

Jan 6 was a sad, low turning point in US history. Only thing worse was the "summer of love" across America by BLM ANTIFA, DOJ, FBI, CIA, MSM, DNC, et al

[Moderation4ever]

Perhaps sadder is the fact that Republicans did not give Mike Pence that chance. The Republicans could have booted Trump during the first impeachment. There was enough evidence for a conviction. Mike Pence would be President, he could have restored normality, and could very likely have won in 2020.

[Brett Bellmore]

There was only enough evidence for a conviction in the sense that if they'd wanted to they could have convicted with none at all.

A reminder, the first impeachment was over 'Russian collusion', which has now been amply proven to have been a political fabrication Hillary bought and paid for, not that that wasn't fairly obvious from the start.

[SRG]

It wasn't. The first impeachment was over the failure to release funds to Ukraine without a quid pro quo.

[Moderation4ever]

How sad that the past is so quickly forgotten. The first impeachment was on his attempt to extort the Ukrainian government.

[Joe_dallas]

Moderation4ever
May.26.2022 at 11:06 am
Flag Comment Mute User
How sad that the past is so quickly forgotten. The first impeachment was on his attempt to extort the Ukrainian government."

Better explanation is that Trump was impeached for trying to stop the extortion and continuing corruption started during the obama administration

[Brett Bellmore]

Alleged attempt. Acquitted, remember?

Yes, I misremembered, I thought the first impeachment was over a different fraud.

[DWB]

The BEST thing about the 6th is that Pence will never be president.

As Indiana governor he sold out religious freedom -- he is not to be trusted.

[Bob from Ohio]

I like Pence but his rolling over to media pressure then was not good.

[David Nieporent]

Of course, his chances never ever looked good, and if he had integrity he wouldn't have agreed to be Trump's Vice President. That he did the bare minimum — refuse to steal an election after desperately trying to find a way to do so and being told by everyone that he couldn't — is not "integrity."

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, if you define "integrity" as "being a Democrat", no Republican will have it.

[Sarcastr0]

It's pretty wild to declare your party is defined by loyalty to one guy.

[David Nieporent]

I define integrity as not supporting Donald Trump.

[StellaLink_the dog]

Would someone with integrity follow Donald Trump around for four years sticking his cold, wet nose where it doesn't belong?

[Sebastian Cremmington]

Plus Pence loves slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent Muslims…so he’s got that going for him!

[DWB]

Rev Atry has issued a desist order -- he claims dumbest dumbass on this site-- stop trying!

[Gandydancer]

From my perspective flushing Pence was the best thing that happened. "Integrity" in the service of asininity is no virtue.

[David Nieporent]

And to think that Republicans used to talk about character and values. And now they're like, "Fuck all that; Heil Donald."

[StellaLink_the dog]

That is a strange post you are responding to.

"in the service of asininity is no virtue."

What asininity is being suggested that Pence was in service to? The rule of law? Accepting the results of an obviously free and fair election for which no reasonable challenge has been made? I'll never understand the Kraken heads.

[not guilty]

I misspoke. This is not a grand jury proceeding. But hearsay is routinely considered by Congressional investigating committees, as well.

Mark Meadows has disregarded a subpoena from the January 6 committee and has been referred to the Department of Justice for criminal contempt proceedings.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I understood that you weren't asserting that the committee was a grand jury, just using grand juries as an example.

[Kazinski]

Of course hearsay is admissible in congressional testimony, they even thought the Steele Dossier met their standards, and that didn't even rise to the level of hearsay.

[Brett Bellmore]

Magic 8 balls and Ouija boards are admissible in Congressional testimony, that's not saying much.

[Yatusabes]

But having a Christian prayer said aloud is not. Connect the dots

[Moderation4ever]

Don't they have chaplains in Congress for prayers. By the way do the prayers have to be Christian?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

His fairy tale can beat up your fairy tale.

His fairy tale can beat up all other fairy tales.

Ostensible adults falling for childish superstition.

Pathetic.

And a pillar of what is left of the Republican Party and conservatism.

Carry on, clingers

[Randal]

Uh, they read Christian prayers aloud constantly in Congress. But you can pretend to be a victim your whole life if you want to.

[SKofNJ]

Well, we all know from the Russiagate hearings that leaks by Democrats on committees are always highly accurate. Just ask Adam Schiff.

[Bob from Ohio]

"to the effect of, maybe"

Conclusive double hearsay!

Maybe Meadows said that Trump maybe said something to "the effect of".

Pathetic.

[Estragon]

Apparently someone also observed Meadows burning documents in the fireplace in his office… oh but sandy berger once stole something from the national archives in the early 90s so no biggie, right guys?!

[Michael P]

Sandy Berger stole multiple copies of classified documents from the National Archives in 2003, yes. And then he lied about it.

He faced no consequences for lying to investigators, and only got community service for the theft, because it was a more innocent, get-along-to-go-along time. And because he was a Democrat.

[AmosArch]

"DO SOMETHING" and "We need gun control" is the leftist version of "thoughts and prayers" when it comes to obvious effectiveness in mass shootings.

[Brett Bellmore]

If thoughts and prayers were a threat to attack somebody's civil liberties, sure.

[bernard11]

Civil liberties!!

Oh fuck off with that. This guy bought himself two AR-15's and a bunch of ammunition for his birthday. And nobody even noticed.

No difference between that and writing a letter to the editor.

[Ed Grinberg]

I suspect that, if given their druthers, leftists (you!) would make writing a "politically-incorrect" letter to the editor a crime. My understanding is that oven in England this is already the case.
I think it's important that we hold on tight to our 2nd Amendment civil liberties in order to keep leftists (like bernard11) from taking away the rest of our civil liberties.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You will continue to do as your betters prefer, Ed Grinberg.

You can whimper about it as much as you like, of course.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, fuck off with your saying fuck off. Yes, it's a civil liberty, I get that you don't like it, and I don't care one bit.

"This guy bought himself two AR-15's and a bunch of ammunition for his birthday. And nobody even noticed."

Yeah, because practically everybody who buys themselves a couple of AR-15s and a much of ammo for their birthday never does anything wrong with it. So, why SHOULD anybody have noticed?

[bernard11]

I get that you don't like it, and I don't care one bit.

And I get that you don't give a shit about shootings like this as long as you can have your toys and fantasies.

[Brett Bellmore]

I do give a shit, but I'm not the one trying to leverage it to attack a basic civil liberty.

[StellaLink_the dog]

The only changes to current federal law that have any chance of being enacted are:

Universal background checks/elimination of the gun show/private sale loophole. Probably require that every transfer of ownership/possession go through a FFL. There are knots with this that would need to be ironed out.

And limitation of magazine capacity, probably to ten.

Neither of these changes in the law would "attack a basic civil liberty," even considering pending SC action.

[Gandydancer]

There is no "gun show loophole".

Would Salvador Ramos have failed an FBI background check?

[StellaLink_the dog]

"There is no "gun show loophole"."

Of course there is. You may not like the terminology, but even a shovel should know this.

"Would Salvador Ramos have failed an FBI background check?"

That's a stupid question. The proper question is, going forward, what can the feds do to make gun deaths less likely -- even marginally. Universal background checks, that is, elimination of the gun show loophole, is a reasonable step. As is limitation of magazine capacity.

[Armchair Lawyer]

You understand that Ramos passed the background check required by the gun store, right?

[StellaLink_the dog]

"You understand that Ramos passed the background check required by the gun store, right?"

I believe so.

But, I don't find your implied argument to be persuasive. It goes like this:

A school shooter passed a background check therefore we should not have background checks.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Oh fuck off with that. This guy bought himself two AR-15's and a bunch of ammunition for his birthday. And nobody even noticed.

What do you think should have happened?

[StellaLink_the dog]

My understanding is that in CT one must apply for a permit to purchase a long gun. The process, as explained to me, is not onerous but does require that the applicant go through a personal interview by law enforcement. No special need for a firearm is required. My understanding is that the vast majority of applications are approved. This seems reasonable to me and would, in my opinion, not burden any reasonable claim to 2d amendment rights.

Also in CT, I am told, in order to purchase a hand gun one must have a concealed carry permit. This permit is a bit more difficult but seems to be about as tough as getting a permit in Texas which is not hard. CT is, as I understand it, shall issue. Seems reasonable to me.

Also in CT, weapons owners are held responsible for safe storage and disposition. No unrecorded private sales, etc. Seems reasonable.

CT also has some sort of "assault" weapons ban and a ban on magazines with more than ten round capacity. Gun nuts really don't like this one.

[Noscitur a sociis]

So what do you think would have shown up to stop this killer from getting a permit or license?

[Gandydancer]

An AR-15 is not an "assault weapon" by any reasonable definition.

[StellaLink_the dog]

"An AR-15 is not an "assault weapon" "

Of course it is, dummy. That's why the AR-15 exists. You may not like the term -- other gun fondlers may not like the term -- but you don't get to define anything.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Please define why exactly an "AR-15" is an "assault weapon"

What attributes make it an "assault weapon"? Contrast it with a Ruger 1022 carbine.... Unless you consider that an "assault weapon" as well...

https://www.basspro.com/shop/en/Ruger-1022-Carbine-Semi-Auto-Rimfire-Rifle

[StellaLink_the dog]

Do you not understand the advantage one holding an AR15 would have over someone with a Ruger 10-22 in a fire fight? Do you not understand the reasons for the design of the M16? Do you not understand the difference between about 160 J and about 1700 J?

There are some weapons which might not classify as "assault weapons" under some definitions that would serve the mass shooter's mission as well as the AR15. The Ruger Mini 14 may be one.

Just to be clear, I'm not advocating either for or against banning semi-auto "assault weapons" no matter how defined. I also understand the classification difficulties including features that seemingly have no relationship to anything about anything. Bayonet studs, for example. All that being said, current 2d Amendment constitutional law would seem to allow for banning those weapons that fit the legal "assault weapon" definitions of various states and banning them, in my opinion, would not unduly infringe on anybody's 2d Amendment rights.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

No, it is not.

People who actually understand firearms will tell you that there is no such thing in the first place. If they're willing to allow you to use the term anyway, it will be only be in regards to weapons with a selectable-fire mode involving at least one choice of either burst or automatic fire.

Like all "AR-style" (that's the new 'assault weapon/rifle' label) rifles that non-FFL holders purchase, the AR-15 is just a semi-automatic rifle. It does not have burst or automatic fire.

[Sarcastr0]

Sure - we've seen this dance before. Dems won't get what they want. Again.
Way too many times.

Republicans are also in 'do something' mode. For them it appears to be blaming school architecture for not being secure, and wanting more armed guards across all of our schools.

Which is...oy.

[Martinned]

It's clearly the children's parents' fault for not sending their kids to school in kevlar.

[Sanctimonica]

Yeah but Kevlar's far away, and these families can't afford to board their kids.

[bevis the lumberjack]

There’s nothing to do. Note that every time this happens the same politicians and media scream the same things, but nobody ever actually does anything. Because they really can’t. Because the second amendment exists. The “fix” is to repeal it, but also note that nobody ever proposes that. Because it’s so popular that proposing to get rid of it is political death.

And fuck Beto for that stunt he pulled yesterday. Truth is he’s got no plan, either, or else we’d certainly have heard about it. And no, his ridiculous Confiscate All the AR-15s doesn’t count as a plan because it’s absurdly unconstitutional. And unworkable. He either knows that, in which case he’s a dishonest sack of shit, or doesn’t, in which case he’s not fit for office. And pulling crap like that when he’s got nothing himself is just shilling for votes while slipping in the fresh blood of dead children. It’s fucking repulsive.

[Martinned]

his ridiculous Confiscate All the AR-15s doesn’t count as a plan because it’s absurdly unconstitutional.

When has that ever stopped Texans before? (At least when it comes to other rights than the 2nd amendment.) When the Constitution becomes a suicide pact, the least a responsible politician should do is push back against some of the more crazy outskirts of the jurisprudence.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Yeah Martin I live here and I hate it when my betters pass stuff that circumvents the constitution. Just one example is the recent abortion law with its garbage enforcement mechanism.

And the constant passing of laws to expand gun rights is stupid. You can carry on college campuses, you can carry in church, you can carry in the hospital, babies can carry in the nursery and you can carry in your friggin casket. Note though that Texas has yet to allow carrying weapons into government buildings. Safety for them is different that safety for the rest of us.

[bernard11]

Note though that Texas has yet to allow carrying weapons into government buildings. Safety for them is different that safety for the rest of us.

Exactly. And the Supreme Court too. No guns allowed at Trump's speech to the NRA either.

[Bob from Ohio]

"No guns allowed at Trump's speech to the NRA either."

Because the Secret Service insists on it, not an NRA policy.

You can't take backpacks and other items in either.

[Sarcastr0]

Why does the Secret Service hate freedom?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Why does the Secret Service hate freedom?

Why are you trying to pretend that bernard11's claim wasn't the bullshit that it clearly was...you dishonest piece of shit?

[Sarcastr0]

'sup Wuz.

His point is not contradicted by it being a Secret Service requirement.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

His point is not contradicted by it being a Secret Service requirement.

LOL! Of course it was...his (lame attempt) at a "point" being the insinuation that it was Trump and/or the NRA that were responsible for the restriction....you dishonest sack of shit.

[Sarcastr0]

I saw the point as more 'Safety for them is different that safety for the rest of us.'

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I saw the point as...

...something that was completely different from what was actually said...because you're a lying sack of shit.

[Nelson]

Wuz, Bevis said this:

"Safety for them is different that safety for the rest of us."

Bernard agreed and made his comment about Trump's NRA speech.

For a reasonable person, that's clearly the exact opposite of "something that was completely different from what was actually said". But not to you.

[Krychek_2]

Nelson, I'll be surprised if anyone has ever mistaken Wuz for a reasonable person.

[bevis the lumberjack]

"Because the Secret Service insists on it, not an NRA policy."

That doesn't change my point that my freedom lovin' gun rights lovin' overseers in Texas draw the freedom gun lovin' line at their own workplaces. Freedom only goes so far, and not so far as they'll be exposed to whatever the rest of us are.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

That doesn't change my point that my freedom lovin' gun rights lovin' overseers in Texas draw the freedom gun lovin' line at their own workplaces.

It certainly changes the bullshit claim he was responding to, which wasn't yours.

[Nelson]

Actually, it was a direct response to Bevis.

[Krychek_2]

I don't think the Second Amendment, as it's interpreted by its absolutist supporters, is as popular as you think, though I also doubt the votes are there to repeal it. Last night ABC News reported that 56% of Americans support banning assault weapons, for example. And while there is no such thing as a legal fix that will work 100% -- there rarely is for any issue -- there are laws that would reduce the carnage.

But the bottom line, once again, is this: Republicans love guns more than they love schoolchildren. Period, full stop.

[Michael P]

Democrats love schoolchildren dying more than ensuring that violently mentally ill people get the help they need. Period, full stop.

[Sarcastr0]

Truly, you've cracked the case. Dems love dead kids and hate treating mental health.

It is amazing how inhuman folks can convince themselves the others side is.

[Michael P]

Sarcasm flies right over the head of Sarcastr0. What a day. Read the end of Krychek's comment and contemplate.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, people often say ' Period, full stop.' to indicate their sarcasm.

If you want to walk it back, do so. 'I was only joking' is super lame when you pretty clearly were not.

[Michael P]

Krychek walking back what he claimed "Period. Full stop." is necessary and sufficient to walk back what I wrote.

[Krychek_2]

But Republicans do love guns more than children; there's nothing to walk back.

[Sarcastr0]

Whattaboutism will not save you from your lame attempt to walk back your comment.

[bevis the lumberjack]

“Republicans love guns more than children” is political horseshit. It doesn’t do anything constructive to improve this.

I guess you’d also say that Democrats live abortions more than children? I don’t think that’s the case but if your not a hypocrite you must.

[Michael P]

What happened to your preachiness about assuming someone else's inhumanity, dude?

Your lame attempt to claim whataboutism will not rescue your inability to read or recognize sarcasm.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, I'm partisan in who I ding for stuff. This is well known.

I'm looking at you right now.

If the best you can do to excuse your poor behavior is point wildly elsewhere, you should consider why you say awful stuff you can't justify when called on it.

[Michael P]

Don't be such a blatantly partisan dick, S_0. You didn't recognize my comment as largely mocking Krychek. (And yes, there's a kernel of truth in what I said, just as there was a kernel of truth in the "Republicans love guns" claim.) That's a reflection on you, not me.

[Krychek_2]

Bevis, Democrats don't agree that fetuses are children. Michael P, I accept your concession that I'm right, since if I'm wrong you presumably would have had something to say on the merits rather than resorting to what aboutism.

[Michael P]

Krychek, I accept your concession that you are a troll who epitomizes what Sarcastr0 said about assuming one's opponents are inhuman.

It should not be necessary to point out that a choice between guns and children is a false dichotomy, but people like you need to be told the obvious.

[Krychek_2]

MichaelP, your resort to whataboutism is a concession that you don't have any valid arguments on the merits.

[Michael P]

Krychek, I just told you why you are blatantly wrong on the merits.

[Sarcastr0]

OK, chief. It was all a joke. It just wasn't phrased like one and entirely aligned with your usual positions.

Just keep being angry I'm calling you on your nonsense.

Bevis seems to be taking Krychek_2 to task, so your anger seems more performative than practical.

[Michael P]

You have gotten really tedious, Sarcastr0. You used to actually make good points in ways that stung. Now you're a broken record, crying whatabout to defend horrible comments from imitative lambasting of them.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't believe for a second someone like you ever thought my comments were good points.

You're just trying to make me feel bad. Because that is what you have left after 'it was a joke' and 'what about that other guy' failed.

[Life of Brian]

I don't believe for a second someone like you ever thought my comments were good points.

Feel free to bucket me as someone else you don't believe for a second, but as I've mentioned before I too truly used to enjoy your clever (and judicious!) ripostes.

Those witty nuggets did infinitely more to advance the conversation than your present-day raft of unimaginative, snippy posts.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Yeah, people often say ' Period, full stop.' to indicate their sarcasm.

If you want to walk it back, do so. 'I was only joking' is super lame when you pretty clearly were not.

This is Krychek's quote that Micheal P was responding to:

But the bottom line, once again, is this: Republicans love guns more than they love schoolchildren. Period, full stop.

Again, that was from Krychek...you fucking moron.

[Sarcastr0]

A rejoinder is not a joke.

Think I'll put you back on mute for a bit; I'm full up with your compulsion for over the top personal insults.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Think I'll put you back on mute for a bit; I'm full up with your compulsion for over the top personal insults.

Wouldn't it be easier to just stop being such a lying sack of shit all of the time?

[Krychek_2]

Well, Wuz, once you've stopped being a lying sack of shit you can tell us if it's easy or hard.

[Martinned]

Have you considered that maybe you're just not very good at sarcasm? It's basically Poe's law in action. If you come across as a lunatic on the best of days, it's hardly anyone else's fault if they don't appreciate your "sarcasm".

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Have you considered that maybe you're just not very good at sarcasm?

When the response almost exactly mirrors what is being responded to, save for a reversal of the subject the sarcasm is so obvious you'd have to be a complete moron to miss it.

[Don Nico]

S_0,
The treatment of mental health matters is a disgrace, especially in CA.
Yet of all the ways for spending an $80 B surplus that come out of Sacramento, mental health is not one of them.
So yea, that is inhumane.

[shawn_dude]

Meanwhile, that same legislature is moving forward with undoing Reagan's destruction of the state mental health system along with some pretty aggressive measures to strong-arm cities into building more housing.

[Don Nico]

If you mean more housing like Brooklyn Basin in Oakland I am very far from impressed. We have Soviet era high density housing on the Oakland estuary.
But where is the program to spend the surplus to increase treatment facilities for the mentally ill?
Housing has different ideological motivations. It is dishonest to claim that those efforts to pressure cuties is driven by mental health concerns

[bernard11]

Fuck you.

What are the Republicans doing about mental illness? They refused Medicaid expansion. They fought the ACA.

Don't sling a lot of BS about how concerned they are about the mentally ill.

Oh. And fuck you.

[Don Nico]

bernard,
What makes you think that "Fuck you." is a useful rhetorical style?

[bernard11]

It's not useful. But with Michael P nothing else is either.

What it is is venting. In the wake of Uvalde, he claims Democrats love schoolchildren dying. Do you think that deserves a sensible, well-reasoned, response?

And then he accuses Democrats of not caring about mental health.

The entire conservative response is an absurdity.

[Bob from Ohio]

"he claims Democrats love schoolchildren dying."

I missed your similar response to Krychck's comment that Michael was responding to. Can you point it out?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

In the wake of Uvalde, he claims Democrats love schoolchildren dying. Do you think that deserves a sensible, well-reasoned, response?

What is it with you morons who are so mind-numbingly stupid that you're incapable of reading what it was he was responding to? I guess I should be impressed that you're able to take showers without drowning...assuming, of course, that you take showers.

[Krychek_2]

When have Democrats stood in the way of getting violently mental ill people health care?

[Michael P]

Deinstitutionalization. Releasing violent offenders onto the street rather than setting bail. They're so afraid of offending some person's right to avoid treatment that they vacate laws left and right.

[Sarcastr0]

Check out Abbot's budget when it comes to mental health.

And it was the courts that said you couldn't institutionalize the non-dangerous mentally ill without their consent, IIRC.

And bail policy is kinda orthogonal to the whole issue of mental health. And it's pre-conviction, so maybe think about what you're asking for there.

[Michael P]

I did specify the violently mentally ill in my first comment -- the left has long conflated them with the non-dangerous. There are many who are not dangerous as long as they are being treated, but who become violent when they chose to stop treatment. The left treats their liberty as superior to everyone else's safety.

At least we know where to look for a defender of the right to drive through a parade just days after trying to drive over someone else -- simply because it's pre-conviction for the earlier offense.

[Sarcastr0]

the left has long conflated them with the non-dangerous

OK, this is getting awful. The vast majority of the mentally ill are not dangerous, even when untreated. They're just miserable.

Your stigmatization is really screwed up. You have no idea what you're talking about, and in service of your narrative you're willing to throw a lot of people under the bus.

[Michael P]

I appropriately qualified my original statement -- it was more nuanced and fair than what Krychek wrote. Now you insist that making that distinction is somehow "stigmatization".

You're just doubling down on exactly the bad rhetoric that I just called out, conflating the small subset with all other people who suffer from mental illness

[Sarcastr0]

You seem to be arguing for locking up a lot more mentally ill people. I haven't seen you really moderate from that, other than to claim Democrats aren't sufficiently separating out the potentially dangerous mentally ill for more institutionalization.

Which doesn't seem like it's Democrats' job?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

The vast majority of the mentally ill are not dangerous, even when untreated.

What what being discussed that he was referring to...

violently mental ill people

...you dishonest sack of shit.

[Nelson]

I would be intersted to see if you could find someone who was identified as violently mentally ill that a Democratic policy set free, as opposed to an error by the authorities.

Bail reform and criminal justice reform very specifically differentiates between violent and non-violent offenders.

That doesn't prevent fringe partisans (and some mainstream partisans) from distorting their position, but unfortunately that's the times we live in.

Fringe conservatives assume Democrats are evil, fringe liberals assume Republicans are evil, and those of us in the middle have to suffer their irrationality.

[Michael P]

Classified as violently mentally ill by whom, under what process? https://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2022/04/27/investigating-psychiatric-illnesses-of-mass-shooters/ describes a study of whether mass shooters disproportionately have mental illness, and find that yes, most of them do -- and they were not getting treated.

[Nelson]

And which Democratic policy caused this?

The fact that there are untreated mentally ill people who become mass shooters should surprise no one.

Saying that all mass shooters are mentally ill is illogical and indefensible.

Basically the narrative is that legal gun owners are law-abiding citizens, so if a legal gun owner kills a lot of people they have to be mentally ill.

There can be no admission that legal gun owners can kill a lot of people and not be mentally ill. Because legal gun owners ate the good guys and that can never be questioned.

Legal gun owners are just as likely to be angry and violent as anyone else. They are just as likely to want to hurt someone who pisses them off. They are no different than any other group of people. They aren't angels. They aren't heroes. They aren't naturally special or unusual in any way. They are just like anyone else.

[Don Nico]

Check out Newsom's budget while you are at it.

[Sarcastr0]

I hadn't, but I'm unsurprised. It's an easy risk to take - those with mental health issues don't have the loudest voice in our politics, after all.

:-/

[shawn_dude]

Free Clue: Reagan wasn't a Democratic governor of California when he infamously emptied California's state mental health hospitals into the streets.

The whole tax-cutting cult in the Republican party is gung-ho about shutting down publicly funded health resources. But sure, blame Republican attacks on the public health system on Democrats. Whatever works in the moment, amirite?! Damn the facts; nobody pays attention to those anyway.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Free Clue: Reagan wasn't a Democratic governor of California when he infamously emptied California's state mental health hospitals into the streets.

It's free because it's worthless. Reagan didn't empty anything.

[AmosArch]

leftoids spearheaded deinstitutionalisation ie tossing the mentally ill out into the streets which is usually blamed on Reagan when its brought up negatively and credited to them when its brought up positively. Leftoids continue the policy of having the mentally ill and drug addled to wander the streets without help or treatment as starkly demonstrated on typical leftwing city streets.

[Randal]

? Really confused about this. The left loves nothing more than to help and treat the mentally ill and drug addled. Are you referring to something in particular or just making shit up?

[bevis the lumberjack]

Or conversely, when have they tried?

And Bernard apparently loves political demagoguery while standing astride the bodies of dead children. Way to overreact.

So, Bernard, please describe for us Beto’s serious, realistic plan to make this better. Or fuck off yourself.

[Krychek_2]

Michael, Amos and Bevis, you do understand that not forcing people to be institutionalized is not the same as preventing them from getting treatment, right? Michael's original statement implied that Democrats were actively preventing them from getting treatment. And adequate funding for treatment has always been a Democratic priority.

Bail reform does not apply to violent criminals, so that's a red herring.

But this entire line of conversation is just another big what aboutism. You know your position on guns is morally indefensible so you change the subject.

[bevis the lumberjack]

My comment was more to the fact that mental health policies are awful in this country. We quit institutionalizing the mentally ill long ago because frequently “institutionalized” meant “tortured”. But ignoring it isn’t an answer either. I wasn’t defending Republicans, but pointing out that nobody is trying to fix it.

Apparently (as always) there were signs with this kid that he had issues, although I don’t know whether they reached the level of treatable mental illness. And I have no idea where the line you’d have to cross to be forced into treatment would be and I’m glad I don’t have to decide that.

[bevis the lumberjack]

And how do you know my position on guns? My position on the 2nd amendment is the same as my position on the rest of the Bill of Rights, which amounts to leave our liberties alone. That’s not both sidesism because it applies to everyone.

I’m certainly not a gun nut. I’m 64 years old and have never owned one.

[Krychek_2]

Mental health policies in this country *are* awful, but they are hardly the fault of Democrats who can't get mental health funding through the GOP controlled Senate. And if you want to look at signs, how about the last ten school shootings? That's a pretty good sign if you ask me.

And it's possible to do something about both problems, rather than using one to detract from the other.

[Michael P]

There's more than enough funding for mental health care. Getting people into treatment, and keeping them there, is the problem.

[Sarcastr0]

There's more than enough funding for mental health care.

Says you. Got any evidence of that, or are you making shit up that's convenient for you?

Because I'm pretty sure mental health treatment has been underfunded for decades.
https://www.aha.org/2022-02-03-aha-house-statement-americas-mental-health-crisis-february-2-2022

[Don Nico]

"I'm pretty sure mental health treatment has been underfunded for decades."

That was just my point above.

[Michael P]

Did you even read that, Sarcastr0? The hospital lobby claims they are generally underfunded (shocking that they'd say that to Congress, I tell you!) and they complain about specific federal restrictions on care for behavioral conditions (including things like eating disorders and geriatrics), particularly where comparable restrictions are not applied for medical or other health conditions. They don't specifically say mental health funding is short.

[Sarcastr0]

Ad hominem, plus focusing on other than the main thesis of the piece.

You'll convince yourself of anything, won't you?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Mental health policies in this country *are* awful, but they are hardly the fault of Democrats who can't get mental health funding through the GOP controlled Senate.

I'm guessing you slept through all of your Civics classes, or at least the parts where they covered federalism and the fact that the U.S. Fed Gov is not "the" government.

[Krychek_2]

And I'm guessing you slept through the last hundred years (or at least that part of it that you were alive) and completely missed that federalism is largely a dead letter when it comes to social services. You may not like it, but that's the way it is.

Though if you want to talk about federalism, blue states generally do have better services for the mentally ill than red states.

[Michael P]

S_0, the main thesis of the piece was that the federal government should give hospitals more money with fewer restrictions.

The details they cite undercut your claim.

[Sarcastr0]

You said mental health has more than enough funding. With no support.

I provide a source saying otherwise, and you say you think they're lying.

It sure looks like you made something up that you cannot support and now you're grasping at straws.

[bernard11]

Bevis,

I never said Beto had a great plan.

But when Michael P says,

"Democrats love schoolchildren dying more than ensuring that violently mentally ill people get the help they need,"

I'm fully entitled to tell him to fuck off. I'm also entitled to point out that judging by their actions Republicans don't care squat about treating the mentally ill.

And I'll add that the "mentally ill" business is a red herring. The Uvalde shooter, like lots of them, had no known history of mental illness. It's a convenient copout for the gun-besotted.

So why don't you fuck off also.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I thought the fuck off was for me. Sorry.

What Michael P said was stupid. As was Krychek said about Republicans loving guns more than children was equally stupid. People saying crap like that are just using children as props. The vast majority of people regardless of political lean live their child more than anything else, and are empathetic to other people when those people’s children are harmed.

[Krychek_2]

Bevis, most Republicans know that it is statistically unlikely that *their* children will be the ones killed in the next school shooting. So the dynamic is that *other people's* children are expendable, whether anyone consciously thinks about it or not.

I would not wish losing a child on anyone, but I have often wondered if a couple dozen Republican senators were the ones to lose their children in the next school shooting, if maybe at that point the politics of it would shift.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Bullshit. Nobody thinks that their children are statistically likely to be killed in the next school shooting, and they are overwhelmingly correct to think so. That's true of Republicans and Democrats. Your partisan blinders seem to have you thinking that Democrats love children and Republicans don't. If you think Beto's stunt yesterday was intended to do anything for anybody's children you're hopelessly gullible.

And your second paragraph shows you to be a terrible person and earns you a spot on my very short igonre list. On this board you're only the fourth. On the other board it's chock full of nasty Trumpistas. Goodbye.

[Krychek_2]

My "partisan blinder" stem from the fact that there is only one party that's standing in the way of effective gun control, which happens to be what we are talking about.

What my second paragraph shows is that I am capable of evaluating political realities, which is not the same thing as saying I want it to happen.

[bernard11]

Bevis,

OK.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I have often wondered if a couple dozen Republican senators were the ones to lose their children in the next school shooting"

I'm not wishing it, I just think about it often.

JFC, with this and the GOP wants dead kids comments you are being a complete shit today.

[Krychek_2]

Bob, there are a great many things that I don't wish to happen that nevertheless make interesting thought experiments.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

But when Michael P says,

"Democrats love schoolchildren dying more than ensuring that violently mentally ill people get the help they need,"

I'm fully entitled to tell him to fuck off.

JFC...were you born braindead, or is it something you had to really work at?

[Nelson]

"violently mentally ill people get the help they need"

This shooter (like most of them) was not mentally ill. There was literally nothing in his history that would indicate mental illness.

Talking about mental illness is a transparent ploy to avoid the central issues of the gun debate. It is a bait-and-switch tactic that shows how weak the absolutist position is.

[AmosArch]

Whats a assault weapon? What sort of laws do you think would be more effective at 'reducing the carnage' and if you admit its not feasible how is it any better than what Republicans/conservatives want to do? Why do you seem to draw the line at outright eliminating the 2nd Amendment when it seems thats what you really want?

If a few thousand kids per year, the vast majority who would have died in some other fashion if guns didn't exist means Republicans care more about guns. Do 600k kids dying per year mean Dems care more about abortions?

[Krychek_2]

A ban on large magazines, comprehensive background checks, limits on how many guns can be purchased within a certain time frame, limits on certain types of ammunition. Second Amendment absolutist fanatics notwithstanding, those would no more violate the Second Amendment than laws against child pornography violate the First Amendment.

Would that reduce gun deaths to zero? Of course not, but it would reduce them.

[bevis the lumberjack]

And a lot of that is in place and it wouldn’t have had any impact on Uvalde.

[AmosArch]

Those all have been passed in various jurisdictions over the years but the amount of mass shootings have quadrupled in the past few decades despite an overall vastly more restrictive legal landscape for guns. So maybe the increase is being driven by something other than the guns that have been with us for centuries?

[Krychek_2]

Um, because no matter how much a local jurisdiction legislates, people can drive across a state line -- say, to Texas -- where those restrictions aren't in place?

Gun control actually has worked well in Hawaii because bringing in guns from other jurisdictions isn't as easy. Some things only work at the national level for that reason.

[Nelson]

Over 2/3 of guns used in shootings in Chicago are purchased in Indiana. It is less than 30 minutes away and has the sort of gun laws that allow for easy straw purchses, immunity for gun store owners, and political cover if one of the stores gets connected to too many (or particularly gruesome, like a school shooting) killings.

Gun control measures only work if there aren't permissive states nearby.

[Brett Bellmore]

"A ban on large magazines." What's "a large magazine"? By the standards of most people advocating it, your average magazine counts as "large".

"comprehensive background checks" I can't think of any other civil liberty you have to undergo a background check to exercise.

"limits on how many guns can be purchased within a certain time frame," Because you can only kill someone if you have multiple guns?

"limits on certain types of ammunition." The last time I recall Democrats attempting this, they wrote the bill in such a way that it would have banned anything more powerful than .22 rimfire. This was pointed out to them, and they didn't change the bill.

"those would no more violate the Second Amendment than laws against child pornography violate the First Amendment."

The justification for laws against child pornography is that the creation of such necessarily involves crimes against children. (Never mind that these laws are wildly overinclusive on that basis, that's the claimed basis.)

So, remind me of how murdering people is necessary to manufacture firearms.

The problem here is that you, yourself, are a 2nd amendment extremist, and don't recognize it. You have an extremely minimized view of the 2nd amendment, you've essentially replaced "shall not be infringed" with "shall not be utterly abolished", and would permit anything short of that.

[shawn_dude]

So you don't have a driver's license? You haven't applied for a job that required background checks? Weren't in the military? Not employed at a school? Also, the Second Amendment right to bear arms is attached to a "well regulated militia." Whatever you think that might mean, "well regulated" sounds like it covers regulating ownership. It's in the Constitution, after all.

"So, remind me of how murdering people is necessary to manufacture firearms."

This is silly. Remind me how transporting people is necessary to manufacture automobiles. Killing people is the function of military-style, semi and fully automatic weapons. I might use my car to pull a stump out of the ground but that's not its designed function. A hunting rifle is designed for hunting animals and protecting livestock. A military rifle is designed to kill people as efficiently and effectively as possible.

The problem here is that you've elided the first half of the second amendment in order to falsely emphasize "shall not be infringed." Further, you ignore the fact that we already "infringe" on even your expansive definition of the amendment by prohibiting the ownership of weapons with high destructive capabilities like howitzers, bombs, chemical munitions, etc. We aren't arguing about whether a line should be drawn but whether the existing line is sufficient. How many mass murders are sufficient before conservatives accept common sense gun safety and responsibility requirements?

[Stephen Lathrop]

In founder-speak, "well regulated militia," means under military discipline. That's pretty clear, by the way.

Of course gun enthusiasts reject that, because it fences them into a militia purpose. Which is why you hear constantly from them about how the militia is everybody. That knocks down the fence, they think. But they have the context wrong.

"The militia is everybody" has its own context in the historical record. It is specifically about political philosophy, and does not touch on or limit the operational military question of using militia under military discipline, for either national or state purposes.

Make it a point to notice, founding era references to the militia being the entire population show up in discussions about the distribution of political power, and the relative powers of the states and the federal government. That broad formulation of the militia role was about reassuring states that they retained power to preserve their own governments under the Constitution.

The thought at the time was that the federal government would always have but limited military capability, and thus not enough to defeat the less-limited resources of a state or states determined to defend with the entire population—hence an answer to a question about the political balance of power under the Constitution, and a reassuring one for the states—but not an answer to any question about how to govern militia activity.

Operationally, well-regulated militia meant under military discipline—pretty much in the model of New England militias which kept arms (and especially gun powder) at common storage sites, and met periodically for drills.

Those militia members would typically keep their own muskets at home, but sometimes kept other arms at common sites. Some of those sites are still memorialized with names on community maps in New England, such as Powerhouse Square in Somerville, MA.

When they used muskets at home, the musket owners relied on state protections for their personal rights to hunt or defend themselves. You can read those protections, formulated variously, in early state constitutions.

There was no confusion about the difference between that kind of private activity, and the activity of meeting for a militia drill in support of national military capability. The two classes of purpose functioned separately, alongside each other, under different legal authorities.

[Nelson]

"By the standards of most people advocating it, your average magazine counts as "large""

I agree. The "large magazine" idea seems too vague to be reasonable. Plus I think (although I don't know, personally) that switching magazines is so easy that limiting them to 10 bullets (or whatever) isn't going to change the capacity for carnage. Modern weapons are just very easy to use to kill a lot of people, regardless of magazine size, and that isn't going to change.

"I can't think of any other civil liberty you have to undergo a background check to exercise."

There also isn't another civil liberty that involves something that is designed and intended to be lethal. Becayse guns are so dangerous, there should be more limitations on them. Some types of mental illness, people with a history of violence, those who engage in speech that are First Amendment exceptions (like terroristic threats), etc. are all people who any but the most rabid Second Amendment absolutist would agree shouldn't have a gun. That would require some form of background check to determine if the person should be prevented from having a gun. That is the same logic behind requiring background checks for private sales.

"Because you can only kill someone if you have multiple guns?"

Agreed. I don't see what this would do to prevent anything. Ultimately once you have one rifle (or two pistols) you are out of hands. More guns are irrelevant.

"they wrote the bill in such a way that it would have banned anything more powerful than .22 rimfire"

I'm not sure about this. It seems like there is a certain level of lethality (which I believe is connected to muzzle speed, correct?) that could be addressed, but I have no idea how (or if) it could be done. I also don't know if it is a weapon thing or an ammunition thing. I'd need a lot more details than this vaguely-worded idea to see it as jusifying retricting the Second Amendment.

"The justification for laws against child pornography is that the creation of such necessarily involves crimes against children. (Never mind that these laws are wildly overinclusive on that basis, that's the claimed basis.)"

I agree. Any time someone uses child pornography, slavery, Nazis, or Communists in an analogy, the underlying comparison is usually faulty.

"The problem here is that you, yourself, are a 2nd amendment extremist"

As are you. I agree that, like most Culture War issues, the absolutists and extremists are the problem. If the First Amendment (the most important one, in my mind) can have reasonable exceptions without being destroyed, the Second Amendment can as well.

"shall not be infringed"

This phrase has empowered extremists who want no restrictions (or almost no restrictions) on the Second Amendment. Even if this wasn't one of the Culture Warriors pet issues, it would still be a challenging Amendment to attach reasonable regulation to.

The Second Amendment isn't absolute, nor should it be. But a lot of the gun-control "solutions" don't seem like they would be effective.

I think that stronger accountability would be the most effective means of decreasing gun violence, although it wouldn't make a difference in mass shootings where the gunman assumes (or desires) that he will die.

Here's the basic idea: you are responsible for your gun and everything done with it. There would be exceptions for theft (with a short window for reporting the theft) and I'm sure there would be other reasonable situational exemptions.

But the core would prevent everyone from straw purchasers, intentionally sloppy private sellers, irresponsible gun owners, and other careless people from avoiding responsibility for what is done with their gun.

Responsibility matters. If you won't accept it, you shouldn't have a gun.

[Noscitur a sociis]

A ban on large magazines, ... limits on how many guns can be purchased within a certain time frame, limits on certain types of ammunition.

Do you really think magazine size, number of guns, or ammunition type played a meaningful role in this incident?

comprehensive background checks

What additional aspects of the killer's background do you think should have been checked?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Do you really think magazine size, number of guns, or ammunition type played a meaningful role in this incident?

Yes, but not in a simplistic way. I will go so far as to suggest that without the AR-15 style weapon, and the way it combines certain features you mention, the incident would have been far less likely to happen at all.

A problem is that most gun critics actually are ignorant about guns, which for gun enthusiasts makes the critics too easy to dismiss, and for the enthusiasts provides unwarranted self-assurance.

To really understand the role of magazines, actions, and ammunition types, it helps to think of it more as a software problem than as a hardware issue. What makes an AR-style weapon the public menace it has become, has to do with its military pedigree. The design arrived after decades-long development—not really development in quest of more powerful features, but instead in quest of a more efficiently lethal combination of features.

In hindsight, with that development complete, we see the key elements of the features combination chosen and proved by experience to deliver lethality greater than ever before available:

1. Automatic or semi-automatic operation;

2. Interchangeable magazines, of whatever size;

3. High velocity, light-recoil ammunition;

4. Inexpensive, less bulky, light-weight ammunition.

It is those design elements used combined which deliver a weapon featuring merely sufficient power—but with optimized lethal efficiency—that a deranged or merely foolish assailant can mistake emotionally for invulnerability—or more reasonably for a realistic prospect of a dramatic mass murder score.

It is not hard to think of ways to alter such a gun design to change that perception, and likely convince many would-be assailants that they lack capacity to carry out ruinous violent fantasies. To cite an obvious counter example, change out the AR for an old-fashioned bolt action hunting rifle, with an internal box magazine holding 3 rounds, and chambered for .338 Winchester Magnum—ballistically a far more powerful weapon, as most readers here probably know. I suggest if you had a button you could push to turn every AR-15 style .223 caliber semi-automatic in the nation into that bolt-action powerhouse, you would instantly restrict mass shooters to use of pistols (or maybe some lesser semi-auto rifles), and probably deter many of them from trying mass murder at all.

Powerful though it is, the bolt-action Winchester is unsuited for mass murder. The bolt action makes it slow to use. Reloading the internal magazine would be frequent, laborious, and time consuming, and create opportunities for victims to rush the shooter. Punishing recoil daunts shooters, disrupts aiming, and makes even practice expensive and unpleasant. The ammunition is not only expensive, but heavy and bulky, making it impossible to carry as much to a crime scene.

A would-be mass killer armed with that would worry he stood a high probability of being stopped before his most deadly ambitions could be achieved. Is there any example of a mass killing in this nation which used a gun like the one described above? I doubt it.

Does that suggest that if only such guns were available, mass killings would not occur? Maybe not. But until AR-15 style weapons showed up, mass killings were far less frequent than at present. And of course, design principles which disfavor mass murder using long guns may also have applications for pistols, with similar potential to reduce public harm from them.

Putting the powerhouse Winchester aside, I suggest some means could be found to disconnect some of the features in numbers 1–4 above, and deliver to the market new, more-versatile, but still inefficient-for-mass-killing weapons, which would reduce public danger considerably. For instance, it might be acceptable to keep semi-automatic operation and light recoil as features, but reduce the harm they can do by getting rid of interchangeable magazines, and restricting internal magazines to small capacity.

Obviously, to have much effect, policy to get out of circulation the AR-style .223 caliber, interchangeble-magazine weapons already commonplace would have to be part of the solution.

This comment does not pretend to urge policy fully developed. It is only an attempt to answer the common assertion that there is nothing that can be done to alter weapons design which would meaningfully reduce the mass murder phenomenon. Policy to implement a solution would be a larger debate, to follow acknowledgment that there could be changes in weapons design to meaningfully lower public risk.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Last night ABC News reported that 56% of Americans support banning assault weapons, for example."

The term "assault rifle" has an objective technical definition.

The term "assault weapon" was literally invented to confuse people into thinking that what was being banned was machine guns.

"The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."

[Krayt]

56% want assault weapons banned...right after an incident.

That hardly translates to a wave to repeal something in the Bill of Rights, especially givrn the laborious and supermajority process deliberaty drags things out until heads are cooler.

Pols taking advantage of the blowing winds of passion is not a long term friend to freedom and democracy.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Exactly.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I also doubt the votes are there to repeal i"

No 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of states? Hard to believe.

You are a a regular Nostradamus.

[Joe_dallas]

Always need to be careful on interpreting surveys - leading questions will get misleading results.

case in point - survey showed 90+% of conservatives were in favor of "banning the pollution causing global warming". No details in the survey of what pollution was causing global warming

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

But the bottom line, once again, is this: Republicans love guns more than they love schoolchildren. Period, full stop.

I have no trouble accepting that you're so mind-numbingly stupid that you actually believe that.

[Krychek_2]

I have no trouble accepting that when God created geese, he took an ounce of brain, divided it into 16 parts, gave 15 of them to 15 geese, and you got the last one.

[Gandydancer]

It's the most stupid 56% (that responded to that no-doubt ignorantly and idiotically formulated and posed question) that imagine that there is even such a thing in the hands of any significant number of people as actual "assault weapons".

[StellaLink_the dog]

Everybody who is not an ignorant fool knows what is meant by the term "assault weapon." In common usage (and in legal terms), an "assault weapon" does not need to be select fire or automatic.

[Sarcastr0]

Nobody does anything due to partisan gridlock. I don't accept that these are just inevitable events.

[bevis the lumberjack]

These are just inevitable events. Those kids might as well have been struck by lightning.

If gun violence demonstrates that guns should be outlawed then very rare school shootings aren't the evidence that proves the need to do so. The daily carnage in our inner cities kills more people by an order of magnitude than school shootings does. Where's the uproar? Is it because most of those victims are poor black folk? Or is it because there's no apparent political gain to bring it up and because the oversight of most of those areas is done by the Good Team?

Hell, drunk drivers kill more people in one year than school shootings do in a decade. Where's the screaming to ban cars? If a tiny minority of people misuse a tool then the overwhelming majority of people who use them lawfully must be punished, right?

[Martinned]

I think many Americans would happily sign up for regulating guns the same as cars. That would certainly be an improvement over the current situation.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Agreed.

https://volokh.com/2012/12/13/why-not-regulate-guns-like-cars-2/

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I think many Americans would happily sign up for regulating guns the same as cars.

Well, at least the ones who are as fundamentally ignorant about the situation as you are.

[StellaLink_the dog]

Ok, let's consider regulation similar to auto regulation.

Every gun must have a registered owner.

Transfer of ownership is regulated and recorded.

Rudimentary licensing requirements including trivial education and testing.

Maybe some other minor inconveniences.

How, exactly, would someone need to be "fundamentally ignorant about the situation" to happily agree with these regulations?

[Gandydancer]

It seems that you are fundamentally ignorant of all the ways in which guns are unlike cars. Their effective use, for example, doesn't require a public infrastructure.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Gandydancer — Emergency rooms and cemeteries for shooting victims are public infrastructure. Prisons for shooters are public infrastructure. Ambulance rides for shooting victims are public infrastructure. Concealed carry permit record keeping is public infrastructure. Crime gun record keeping is public infrastructure. Police staffing, arms, and equipment sufficient to cope with shooters is public infrastructure. Prosecutors offices are public infrastructure. Lifetime public support for gravely injured shooting victims requires public infrastructure, plus other expense.

[StellaLink_the dog]

"It seems that you are fundamentally ignorant "

From a shovel who wears his ignorance proudly.

The question is not how cars and guns are different. The question is whether gun regulations similar to automobile regulations would be reasonable. Note that you crazies don't offer any argument about why that would not be a good and reasonable regimen. All you can do is whine about imagined ignorance on the part of those who disagree with you. Ignorance indeed.

[FivebySixThree]

Repealing the Second Amendment would not make schools safer but instead make society even more dangerous and worse it would encourage some in government to new levels of abuses.

It is already illegal to use a gun in commission of a crime, it is already illegal to bring them on school campuses, and it is already illegal to kill people.

Repealing an Amendment is not going to fix anything. All it will do is boost the power of government and once they get one of the big rights out of the way there is no limit to them changing or eliminating the other rights left.

[Martinned]

That's a lot of articles of faith piled into a single comment.

[Krayt]

It's worked for over 200 years, while many countries pointed to glowingly have lost freedom and democracy in living memory. Some of them may have tipped back had the US not had a brotherly hand on their shoulder.

[Martinned]

Yes, that's definitely what happened in recent decades. Nothing to do with having an ocean on either side of the US, and the US has definitely been a champion for liberty the world over!

[Bob from Ohio]

"US has definitely been a champion for liberty the world over!"

Your liberty is in large part due to the US beating the Germans, so maybe hold your contempt for us in check.

[Martinned]

American liberty is in large part due to French and Dutch weapons supplies to the American revolutionaries, so maybe hold your contempt for us in check.

O, wait, we were talking about "in living memory".

[Bob from Ohio]

"O, wait, we were talking about "in living memory"."

Millions of people alive who were alive in WWII are still alive. President of the US and Queen of England for starters.

US also helped force the Dutch to give some liberty to your slaves in Indonesia. In living memory.

[Sarcastr0]

Jesus - 'World War 2 means you can't complain about America' is dumb as hell.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Jesus - 'World War 2 means you can't complain about America' is dumb as hell.

Well, it certainly makes a guy from the Netherlands mocking the idea that "the US has definitely been a champion for liberty the world over" seem pretty fucking dumb.

[Sarcastr0]

Come one, noscitur - it was in reaction to 'while many countries pointed to glowingly have lost freedom and democracy in living memory. Some of them may have tipped back had the US not had a brotherly hand on their shoulder.'

World War 2 is not on topic, it's just a distractiong.

Fact is the US has not covered itself in glory in *living memory* when it comes to freedom and democracy. We went way overboard during the Cold War, and did some awful stuff in Latin America, Indonesia, etc.

No country has clean hands, but patriotism does not require deflection from your nation's bad behavior.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Come one, noscitur - it was in reaction to 'while many countries pointed to glowingly have lost freedom and democracy in living memory. Some of them may have tipped back had the US not had a brotherly hand on their shoulder.'

No, it was in reaction to the text that he explicitly quoted in his response...

"US has definitely been a champion for liberty the world over!"

...you lying sack of shit.

[Bob from Ohio]

*living memory* apparently starts in 1950 or 1960 conveniently.

Our record is better than nearly anyone, certainly any great power. Better than the Dutch in Indonesia or Srebrenica that's for sure.

[bevis the lumberjack]

What, was Venezuela invaded by a foreign entity? Hong Kong? Hungary and the Phillippines? Having an ocean on either side of them (and the last one is surrounded by ocean) wouldn't have help preserve their liberties even a little. Sometimes the threat comes from within.

And no, that's not a comment specific to the current United States. But don't think it can't happen here. People are people everywhere and the type of person who seeks elective office typically are people that like to tell everyone else what to do. They aren't running for office so they can leave people alone.

[Gandydancer]

The articles of faith in your implicit denials are no less numerous.

[StellaLink_the dog]

Thank you for your well considered and cogent argument.

[Nelson]

"Repealing the Second Amendment would not make schools safer but instead make society even more dangerous"

If you want to make a pro-Second-Amendment argument, don't do it by making easily-refuted points. Countries with strong gun control laws are much, much safer than America. We have more mass shootings in an average month than the rest of the developed world, combined, has in a year. Guns don't make us safer, objectively.

But the Second Amendment is a vital and important part of the Constitution. Until it is repealed (which, as several people have pointed out, will never happen), the strongest Second Amendment arguments lie in differentiating those who are legitamate, enthusiastic, and responsible gun owners (who are no threat to anyone else) from those that are willfully or carelessly dangerous.

Gun control advocates focus on banning things (types of guns, types of ammo, number of guns, etc.) but that doesn't separate the good gun owners from the bad. Legal accountability would accomplish it in a much simpler, easier, and non-rights-restricting way. And it wouldn't impact good sun owners at all.

Gun control advocates are ineffective because they focus on the "control" part. If they instead focused on the goal, they would be much more effective. And a lot less authoritarian.

[Gandydancer]

"Countries with strong gun control laws are much, much safer than America."

Countries with "weak" gun control laws are ALSO much, much safer than America.

The implied causation is nonsense.

[Martinned]

Yes, downtown Mogadishu is famously peachy safe.

[Nelson]

Yes, they are. Literally. Compare the violent crime rate, the murder rate, the number of mass shootings, the number of mass murders ... in every measurable category, America is less safe than other developed countries. There are even undeveloped countries fighting low-level wars that have fewer gun deaths than America.

I believe that the Second Amendment is important, but saying crazy, stupid, or inaccurate things to try to pretend that we don't live in a very dangerous country relative to our peers is the sort of easily-disproved narrative that alienates the people we need to convince.

There are a lot of ways to support the Second Amendment that are convincing, speak to the love Americans have for the Constitution, and support and validate law-abiding gun owners being able to own (and carry) a wide range of firearms. Slavish devotion to the nonsense put out by the NRA (because, like every other industry lobbying group in America, they use paid studies, distorted facts, and tenuous narratives) will just make more and more people move away from supporting the Second Amendment.

It needs to be supported by as many Americans as possible. It is, as Brett and others here have said, a Constitutional right and/or a civil right (I think Brett used that term and he's a lawyer, so it may have a specific legal meaning). It is a cornerstone of our country.

But nothing lasts forever if those who are charged with protecting it lose sight of the goal and start fighting anyone who isn't an absolutist. If you pick fights with anyone who disagrees with you, you start looking like the asshole at the bar who gets in a fight every weekend. And no one takes that guy seriously.

[Randal]

The 2A isn't as powerful as you think it is. There are a lot of constitutional gun control laws that would help. Texas's pro-gun regime is nowhere near the boundary of the 2A.

But no, as Krychek said, Republicans love guns more than schoolchildren. We've known this for a long time. It's pretty much an explicit plank of the Republican platform: never compromise on gun control, no matter how many kids die.

[Gandydancer]

You are full of shit.

More gun control doesn't mean fewer dead schoolchildren.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Gandydancer — Only if the nation continues to let the likes of you define the limits of gun control.

[Randal]

"More gun control doesn't mean fewer dead schoolchildren."

Uh... there's a whole world out there. Check it out, and you'll find that yeah, more gun control absolutely does mean fewer dead schoolchildren.

https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1848971668

[Armchair Lawyer]

Would an armed guard have stopped this tragedy?

[Sarcastr0]

Based on the police response, this is far from a clear question.

Do counterfactuals ever prove anything?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Asking a question about a proposed change or law, in order to fix a situation, and asking if that law or proposed change would've actually worked is a proper use of logic.

There are some proposed changes that wouldn't have changed things during this tragedy. Red Flag laws wouldn't have helped in this case, for example (according to everything I've read).

Other proposed changes may have helped prevent this tragedy. Having an armed guard may have prevented this tragedy, so it is something that should be considered.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't think evaluating policies based on seat-of-the-pants counterfactuals is actually good logic. Too anecdotal, and too many variables. A forward-looking statistical approach is better.

Red Flag laws wouldn't have helped in this case, for example
Good luck getting Republicans to agree to those!

Having an armed guard may have prevented this tragedy, so it is something that should be considered.
Arming the hell out of out schools is the current GOP go-to. Well, that and designing schools like fortresses. Because active shooter drills didn't really manage to do anything.

The police sat by for like 40 minutes. Maybe more guys with guns isn't the cost-free silver bullet you think it is.

[Armchair Lawyer]

I'm troubled by the fact that potential solutions to the current issue are proposed, but you so callously disregard them...

[Sarcastr0]

I explained why your solutions aren't.

You resort to emotionalism.

Your demagoguery solves nothing except make you feel better.

[Armchair Lawyer]

You've mocked the very suggestion of trying to find solutions.

[Sarcastr0]

Quote that please.

[Brett Bellmore]

You want a proposal? Fine.

Most such incidents are copycat crimes, and in general they're committed in the hope of notoriety.

Stop reporting them nation-wide, and in local reports only refer to the perp as "that asshole", and they'll become much less common.

[Sarcastr0]

Agreed, Brett, that's a good idea. But also a hard one to enforce given the demand for details and the First Amendment.

I also think calling it a solution is rather wishcasting.

[Brett Bellmore]

I called it a proposal, not a solution, because basically NOTHING is going to drive that rate to zero. But there's nothing stopping the same media screaming for gun control from doing it voluntarily, is there? Nobody is forcing them to offer anybody who picks up a gun and shoots up a school their name in the headlines.

Nice that you at least think the responses have to take one of our enumerated rights into account.

I personally, in my cold, unfeeling way, think that this is a problem we should not be making much of an effort to solve, because school shootings are a very rare cause of death, and the resources we might spend trying to reduce them still further would save more lives if expended against something more common.

[Sarcastr0]

If you look, you'll see I'm not really advocating for gun bans here either, so don't assume my position.
The media can advocate for whatever solutions they want, that's also part of the First Amendment.

My counter to your utilitarian argument is the sociological concept I sometimes refer to of 'dread'. Different ways to die are differently horrible to people, and to society as a whole. A society that doles out death-prevention resources on a purely utilitarian basis will actually make a lot of people really scared/angry. That's just how people are; some deaths we can accept, others we cannot.

School shootings tick a lot of unacceptable boxes. For me as well, irrational human that I am.

[Brett Bellmore]

Such dread as there is concerning this very rare cause of death is due to a calculated effort to generate that fear, in order to use it to attack gun ownership.

I guess you'd compare that to pedophilia in schools, perhaps; A real but rare problem blown out of proportion in order to create widespread concern for political effect.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't think you need a big media push for people to react strongly to multiple kids being murdered.

I actually think pedophiles in school is an issue, I just think it's ridiculous to say that sex ed is making it more likely.

[bernard11]

Such dread as there is concerning this very rare cause of death is due to a calculated effort to generate that fear, in order to use it to attack gun ownership.

I guess you'd compare that to pedophilia in schools, perhaps; A real but rare problem blown out of proportion in order to create widespread concern for political effect.

"Calculated effort to generate that fear." What paranoia. Next you'll be claiming the shooter was just trying to provoke the country into passing anti-gun legislation. What an amazing way to think.

Do you really think that this sort of thing isn't news, and shouldn't be covered? I get that you don't like hearing about someone using one of your precious guns to kill a lot of schoolchildren, but it is news, much as you'd like to suppress the story.

[Brett Bellmore]

Why should Republicans agree to them? Red flag laws amount to formalizing the practice of Swatting gun owners. Infringing somebody's civil liberties on the basis of an ex parte hearing? Why would anybody object to that?

Gee, why don't we come up with a formal process for throwing somebody in jail on the basis of a mere accusation and ex parte hearing? After all, if somebody's a threat with a gun, they could always switch to a knife, arson, run you over with a car... You're only pretending to deal with them by taking their guns.

Look, almost all these proposals only look like they make sense if you start from the position that gun ownership isn't really a civil right, and so should be subject to being routinely infringed with minimal justification.

But we refuse to humor you on that. It's a real civil right, literally enumerated in the Bill of Rights, and we refuse to go along with proposals that don't treat it as such.

[Sarcastr0]

Take it up with AL, Brett. He thinks you're callous.

[Armchair Lawyer]

No, Brett actually discusses things logically. You don't, you just poke fun at actually attempting to discuss solutions to violence.

[Martinned]

Swatting gun owners

As opposed to Swatting everybody, because you don't know who is a gun owner? Again, US police behave as if they're an occupying army and everyone thinks this is perfectly normal. Either tell them to put up with more risks to the safety of law enforcement or help them tailor their violence to people who are actually a threat. You pick.

[rsteinmetz]

How about a backward looking statistical approach? How many situations would any given additional restriction avoided?

In this case, for example, the shooter bought 2 guns legally at different times, was as far as I can tell never considered mentally suspect.

[David Nieporent]

Red Flag laws wouldn't have helped in this case, for example

Good luck getting Republicans to agree to those!

Call me a wild-eyed optimist, but I think that a bipartisanly drafted red flag law could get GOP support. (Not Ted Cruz's, who wouldn't agree to fix a pothole if Democrats suggested it. But enough to overcome any filibuster.) If Dems draft it unilaterally, then it will end up larded down with every Democratic "common sense gun control" idea on their decades long wishlist, and it will garner no GOP support. But if they find GOP cosponsors (and listen to them, rather than treating them as fig leaves), then I think they can get it done.

[bernard11]

You're a wild-eyed optimist.

Name ten Republican Senators who would vote for such a bill.

[Noscitur a sociis]

CNN reports that John Cornyn (with Mitch McConnell's blessing) has already met with Chris Murphy to discuss a bill. So if the democrats are willing to be serious about finding a solution, I do think there's a good possibility of something happening.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Pat Toomey tried. Republicans seem unlikely to act responsibly in this context. When improvement occurs, Democrats likely will arrange it without Republican help.

[Armchair Lawyer]

I don't think Democrats actually want a solution though. They'd rather use this issue as a stick to beat the GOP with than have actual solutions.

[Sarcastr0]

I think you should fuck off with that demonization.

Republicans and Democrats are both pretty into solutions. They may have different means they think are legit/useful, but it's nuts to say that Dems are all, as one, lying about how much they want this to end.

You're like broken as a person if you think this.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Whatever you may think....

When Chucky is blocking school safety bills in the Senate, it's pretty clear what's going on.

https://legalinsurrection.com/2022/05/chuck-schumer-blocks-senate-republicans-school-safety-bill-named-after-parkland-victims/

[StellaLink_the dog]

" Having an armed guard may have prevented this tragedy, so it is something that should be considered."

The shooter was confronted by an armed police officer before he entered the school so it's difficult to understand how an armed guard would have helped.

[Bob from Ohio]

The guard did not shoot him, just "confronted".

Maybe we need better guards.

[Sarcastr0]

Ah yes, the problem is that we hire cowards!

Jesus, this is getting dumb.

[Bob from Ohio]

You side wants to pass more background checks laws even though both the Buffalo and Texas killers [and almost all other mass shooters] passed one, speaking of dumb.

[rsteinmetz]

Universal Background Checks are really about making it hard to privately transfer guns and making criminals out of ordinary citizens.

I again ask of the many "mass shootings" how many would have been prevented by 'Universal" background checks?
Now do the same with each of the generally proposed restrictions.
The only fairly recent mass shooting I can think of that might have been prevented is the Marjory Stoneman Douglas shooting where authorities had knowledge of the shooters past behavior. There may be others I am unaware of.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, but "a" problem is that current police doctrine in such incidents basically amounts to containing the situation until the perp runs out of ammo or shoots themselves, in order to assure officer safety. They don't publicly justify it that way, but that's what it amounts to.

Time after time after time, they lock the school down, and wait until the shooting stops. It's not an accident the guy who actually did go in wasn't one of the police. HE didn't have to follow their doctrine.

[OtisAH]

Yeah, “getting.”

[Sarcastr0]

Bob, not really arguing sides here. I don't know enough to understand the nuances of background checks and how they can be effective/not.

Brett - I'm not sure if I think requiring police to make heroic sacrifices is a workable doctrine. We don't even require that of our military.
It sucks they didn't step up, but I don't think braver dudes with riskier doctrines is realistic. I know they're the reflexive go-to, but the police are not the solution here.

[Brett Bellmore]

There's a difference between requiring heroic sacrifice, and having a police of actively forbidding it, which is what we've got now.

Oh, and yeah, we actually do require it of our military.

[Sarcastr0]

There's plenty of culture of sacrifice, but I don't believe DoD doctrine requires sacrificing your life if it can at all be helped. Risk mitigation is the name of the game, not risk acceptance.

Though maybe it is for special forces; I don't know about them.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, and we're not talking about the police obstructing the killer by piling up their own dead bodies to block his path. We're talking about them confronting him, just as the border patrol guy did.

Not a suicide mission, just not staying out of harms way until he ran out of ammo.

[David Nieporent]

Ah yes, the problem is that we hire cowards!

I wouldn't say that it's "the" problem. But it's a problem. (Or perhaps it's that we train them to be cowards.) We saw that in Columbine, we saw it in Parkland.

We see it in many of these QI cases: cops usually don't use excessive force (including shooting) suspects because they're evil; they do it because they're scared, and the laws incentivize them to act on that fear.

[David Nieporent]

The shooter was confronted by an armed police officer before he entered the school

Or was he?

Officials first said a school officer and the gunman exchanged fire. On Wednesday night, they said they could no longer confirm that initial report. We will stay with this to fully understand what happened.

[StellaLink_the dog]

Earlier today the common story was that the school police officer confronted the shooter prior to entry to the school. Right wingers were claiming that the shooter left much of his ammunition outside the school as a result of the encounter with the school cop and therefore many lives were saved. Latest information from the Texas Ranger two star general is that nobody knows anything about anything except that the shooter was not confronted outside the school by anyone and that he entered unimpeded through an unlocked door. Maybe we will get more information some time in the indefinite future.

[Sarcastr0]

- There was not a school officer on scene, despite initial reports
- Gunman shot at witnesses in the street before entering
- The backdoor gunman used was unlocked
- It took an hour to take the gunman out after he entered

[Bob from Ohio]

"The backdoor gunman used was unlocked"

Anyone going to apologize for all the scorn on the "one entry door" idea?

An unlocked undefended door, FFS.

[David Nieporent]

I'd add that the latest timeline of events has him futzing around outside the school for twelve minutes before finally going in. And when I say "futzing around," I mean, "shooting." In all that time, no law enforcement officer confronted him. Nobody locked down the school. Cops did not arrive en masse. WTF?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Seems we need more funding for proper training.

[not guilty]

"Having an armed guard may have prevented this tragedy, so it is something that should be considered."

There was an armed guard at the Buffalo supermarket. He was shot to death. There was an armed guard at Parkland. He ran away from engaging the shooter. Municipal police officers unsuccessfully engaged the Uvalde gunman before Border Patrol officers fatally shot him.

[Armchair Lawyer]

No solution is 100% effective. But often, armed guards can help. For example....

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/20/us/great-mills-high-school-shooting/index.html

[bernard11]

No.

There was an armed guard.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Apparently the police waited outside for a while before going in. Stories are that some of them got their own children out then waited outside but who knows if that’s true. Finally the brave Border Patrol guy, who apparently had a granddaughter killed in the school, went in and ended it. Got himself shot twice for his trouble, one a minor head wound.

So the effectiveness of the guard in stopping one of these depends in the courage of the guard.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Much appreciated.

There was a single school resource officer. He initially confronted the criminal and was shot and injured, but not before forcing the criminal to drop his bag full of ammunition.

I think we need to consider that this tragedy could have been even worse if the criminal had full access to all of the ammunition he brought.

There's a reason police officers often work with partners. Given a one on one situation...sometimes a police officer will lose. Perhaps going forward having a pair of officers would be required.

[Sarcastr0]

I think we need to consider that this tragedy could have been even worse if the criminal had full access to all of the ammunition he brought.

Holy fuck quit digging.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I think we need to consider that this tragedy could have been even worse if the criminal had full access to all of the ammunition he brought.

Holy fuck quit digging.

You afraid he'll gain ground on you and your race to the Earth's core? Have no fear, your lead is insurmountable.

[Sarcastr0]

We all know you have a real hate-on for me.

You have a brain - use it on substance sometimes, like you used to! Be a credit to this commentariat, not someone getting their jollies being a contentless ragey insult machine.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

We all know you have a real hate-on for me.

No, you're just the most consistently and compulsively lying sack of shit here.

And you can shove your hypocritical "do better" bullshit. You have absolutely zero integrity and are in no position to lecture anyone on anything.

[StellaLink_the dog]

Pot.

[Armchair Lawyer]

I know Sarcastro, you're opposed to the very concept looking at solutions to help save kids lives....

Let the adults talk.

[John F. Carr]

One article I read said there was an officer at the school and the shooter pushed past him to get in. I imagine most of the angry people trying to get in to schools are family members rather than shooters. An airlock type lobby is a better defense than shoot to kill orders.

My town's elementary school keeps the doors locked most of the time. The principal's office is next to the entrance and visitors will be let in if they seem harmless.

[Sarcastr0]

Seems like a fire hazard?

[Brett Bellmore]

School doors, even when locked, typically open from the inside.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Seems like a fire hazard?"

They have these things called "panic bars" to open doors from the inside. Perhaps you've seen one.

[Sarcastr0]

Glad to hear that. I didn't go to a school that was a hardened target.

A single entrance is still not a great security measure, considering the failure mode.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's one entrance, many exits. Believe me, they're up to fire code, they have doors all over the place. It's just that, except for special circumstances, visitors have to enter through one particular door, because all the others are exit only.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't love this hardening our schools thing, but I'm at least out of practical objections!

[Randal]

Definitely never let the kids play outside for recess or PE! What a security nightmare! The 2A says, we have to either have dead kids or pasty weaklings. So, pasty weaklings it is!

[Brett Bellmore]

I've never heard the school administration referred to as "2A" before.

They certainly do outside PE at my son's middle school.

[Gandydancer]

Not if Ramos shot him dead first.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Dems get what they want in places like NY and IL and MA.

Yet shootings still happen. Weird.

[Martinned]

Yes, I wonder where people in Illinois could possibly get guns from. O, wait, it turns out that bringing guns over state lines is really easy.

[Brett Bellmore]

And yet, the guns from neighboring states that cause crime in Illinois don't cause those crimes in the neighboring states.

Heck, they don't even cause the crime in Illinois near the border with those other states. They do it in particular big cities. Particular neighborhoods of big cities, even. Why, it's almost as though the actual problem were something in those cities, and gun laws in other states was just an excuse.

[Martinned]

Well yes, either that, or there's a reason why interstate commerce is something that the Federal government/congress is empowered to regulate.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, there is a reason why the federal government was empowered to regulate interstate commerce: So that the states wouldn't. The US is supposed to be a big free trade zone.

But the interstate commerce power doesn't extend to violating civil liberties, as you'll find the first time they pass a law to restrict interstate commerce in Bibles.

[Nelson]

"Heck, they don't even cause the crime in Illinois near the border with those other states."

The other side of the border of Indiana and Illinois IS Chicago. So unless you are claiming that Chicago doesn't have a lot of crime, you are very, very wrong. From the Loop to Indiana is a 30 minute drive.

"Why, it's almost as though the actual problem were something in those cities, and gun laws in other states was just an excuse."

Yes, that's the statistically unsupported assertion from conservatives, based on their feelings and biases. Statistically, 2/3 of the guns used in crimes in Chicago are purchased in Indiana. That is because itbis really, really easy to buy a gun in Indiana, the dealers don't particularly care if they are selling to a straw purchaser as long as they get their money, the gun lobby and the Indiana politicians will give cover and immunize them for any crime that can be traced back to their store, and without consequences, there is no incentive for them to change.

Crime is higher in areas with denser populations. That is true across the country, irregardless of the politics of the city government or the size of the city. Republican cities are just as crime-ridden as Democrat cities. The size of the city and the density of the population is more connected to crime rate than the politics of the administration. It always has been.

And yes, crime is more prevalent in poorer neighborhoods than wealthier ones. That is true everywhere. Poverty is a driver of crime. Correlation, not causation, but a strong correlation.

The fact that such a large majority of guns used in Chicago crimes come from Indiana certainly says something, assuming you are willing to look. There is a reason, if you think really, really hard.

[Gandydancer]

Poverty and population density, but not race or culture, eh?

Ignoring the elephant in the room doesn't help your credibility at all.

[StellaLink_the dog]

Indeed, we should not ignore the elephant in the room.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

So Dem policies only work if there are no guns anywhere in the world?

[Sarcastr0]

So America has grenade control nationwide. How does that tend to work?

Pretty well, seems to me!

Not saying I want a gun ban or anything, but the idea that it's impossible or useless needs more support than just appeal to incredulity.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

His argument is that porous borders cause Democrat gun policies to fail. What's more porous than our national borders?

[Sarcastr0]

State borders.

Good lord, man.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

And if we implement Dem policies nationwide, what borders do nations have?

Or do Dem gun policies work with porous nation borders, but don't work with porous state borders?

This makes sense to you?

[Sarcastr0]

What's more porous than our national borders?
State borders are vastly more porous than our national border.

if we implement Dem policies nationwide, what borders do nations have?
Dems are not for open borders.

We have a nation-wide ban on hand grenades, and you don't see them very often, do you?

[not guilty]

A federal district court in New York has dismissed a gun industry lawsuit challenging a New York law enacted in 2021 to hold gun industry members civilly liable for public nuisances. The Act is enforceable by the State Attorney General, by a city corporation counsel on behalf of the locality, or by any person or entity that has been damaged as a result of a gun industry member's acts or omissions creating, maintaining or contributing to a public nuisance. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22038282-dismissal-order-shooting-v-james?responsive=1&title=1

[Martinned]

Makes sense. If you can sue Purdue for OxyContin deaths and cigarette manufacturers for smoking deaths, why not gun manufacturers?

[Brett Bellmore]

The NY law is an attempt to circumvent the lawful commerce act, and pretty grossly. But the 5th circuit isn't terribly fond of that act.

[Martinned]

And rightly so, because it's the most egregious example of rent seeking since the MLB got a freebie against antitrust enforcement.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, you think that if a bunch of state AGs get together and agree to infringe a civil liberty by threatening businesses with bankruptcy from the costs of defending against frivolous lawsuits if they don't knuckle under, that's just fine?

[Martinned]

Holy Assuming The Conclusion Batman!

[Brett Bellmore]

Holy Actually Remembering That Was What They Were Doing.

They literally bragged that they could lose every lawsuit and still win in the end, because they had deeper pockets. They held press conferences and discussed it!

It was an open conspiracy, not even secret, to commit extortion via court costs by bringing frivolous lawsuits.

[not guilty]

The PLCAA does not preempt civil suits against gun sellers who knowingly violate a state or federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of firearms.

[Brett Bellmore]

This law defines lawful sales as creating a public nuisance, precisely one of the legal theories that prompted the lawful commerce act in the first place.

[not guilty]

A federal grand jury in Washington has reportedly issued subpoenas seeking information about lawyers for Donald Trump, including Rudolph Giuliani, John Eastman, Jenna Ellis and Kenneth Chesebro, regarding efforts to create bogus slates of pro-Trump electors in several states. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/25/us/politics/trump-pence-jan-6.html

That is encouraging. The submission of phony electoral slates was the linchpin of the Trump/Eastman effort to corruptly influence the Congressional electoral certification on January 6, 2021. I hope the investigation bears fruit.

[John F. Carr]

I think you meant

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/25/us/politics/pro-trump-lawyers-elector-scheme.html

This is good. I don't count storming the Capitol or asking Pence to reject electors as obstruction or false statements, but knowingly providing false documents is the kind of thing traditionally punished as obstruction. Somebody must have advised the fake electors on how to make and submit the documents. Maybe it was one of the lawyers.

[Estragon]

Friend of the blog Dr. Eastman perhaps? Seems a little dull for the kraken

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Prof. Volokh endorsed John Eastman.

And Ted Cruz.

That must be his “often libertarian” nature talking.

[not guilty]

The unlawful scheme to submit false slates of electors is highly probative of Trump, Eastman and others acting "corruptly" for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1512(c)(2).

[AmosArch]

We are currently in the middle of a fascinating global experiment to answer the question "How far can you abstract the concept of money and value?". Obviously on an individual informal scale people value all sorts of things but what about in terms of a system a society would accept?

1. The ancients answered the question of whether a currency of exchange can replace an actual object of direct desire.

2. Nixon answered the question as to whether money itself needed to have any 'intrinsic value'.

3. Electronic banking answered the question as to whether money even needed to have any physical existence.

4. Now crypto and to an extent computer gaming tokens are answering the question as to whether 'intrinsic value' is such a meaningless concept, currency or at least speculative tokens can be magicked into existence on a whim without any historical connections or government mandates/backing. And the answer so far appears to be yes...at least in the short term.

[Sarcastr0]

Crypto...ain't doing so great.

But then it's a commodity just dressed up as a currency.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Crypto isn't even a commodity, it's just a grand Ponzi scheme.

[Martinned]

It may actually be dumber or more immoral than a Ponzi scheme. At least with a Ponzi scheme the organisers pretend that it's all legit.

[Sarcastr0]

The ponzi nonsense could work on any commodity. Standard pump-and-dump, but facilitated by Internet anonymity.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Most commodities have an end use. Be it grain or steel or even (at a far extreme) Beanie Babies.... People want and use it for items other than trading.

Crypto has no end use

[Sarcastr0]

A distinction without a difference in any speculator-driven market.

A small number of people want to read comic books; their demand is not setting the price.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Their demand is setting the price. Comic books on average cost ~$2-10...maybe...these days.

[Sarcastr0]

These days. When it's not a speculator driven market.

[Sarcastr0]

These days. When it's not a speculator driven market.

[bernard11]

Hey!!

We agree.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Happens on occasion. People are more alike than you would think

[Stephen Lathrop]

AmosArch — You might say the proposition being tested now is whether press agentry can do the job of reserve banking, backed by sovereign faith and credit.

[Brett Bellmore]

It strikes me that at each step of abstraction, the proof that the innovation actually works for an extended period declines.

1) Precious metals (Or other hard to replicate items.) have worked as a substitute for barter for thousands of years.

2) Fiat currencies basically always collapse after a while, and even before their collapse are subject to an enormous degree of inflation.

3) Electronic banking has such a short history of use that we can't really say how prone to failure it is.

4) We've seen such enormous swings in the value of all crypto-currencies as to throw into question whether they're actually useable as anything more than a niche application.

[Armchair Lawyer]

1) Precious metals are useful, not just for their value.

2) Fiat currency has one major use (beyond barter/currency). The payment of taxes.

3) Electric banking is just an extension of paper currency.

4) Crypto is a Ponzi scheme.

[Michael P]

Cryptocurrency is also an attempt to make payments untraceable and unblockable, which is mostly important for criminal schemes. The (incredibly naive) hope was that it would only be used for "good" crimes of civil disobedience. Instead, ransom payments became the -- almost literally -- killer app for cryptocurrency.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, yeah, that was supposed to be the real appeal of cryptocurrency. And I agree they were remarkably naïve to think that application would be limited to good crimes.

I see proposals now to come out with government sponsored crypto currencies that don't even have THAT use. That are pretty nakedly designed to enable fine grained tracking of every transaction without a hint of anonymity.

I mean, I do regret I didn't buy some of those primo tulip bulbs when they first hit the market, obviously I'd have unloaded them at the peak. In the same sense I regret not putting my whole 401-K into Apple stock when it was cheap.

But that's about the only use I'd have for the concept.

[bernard11]

Precious metals are useful today. For much of human history they were useful only for decorative purposes.

I kind of wonder whether for that reason they acquired their value because kings and nobles were the only people who could afford to devote a lot of resources to decoration, so the metals in effect paid taxes. Just conjecture.

Why did copper and tin and iron not become money? Because they were useful?

[Armchair Lawyer]

1. Decorative purposes are a useful purpose. Having something being pleasing to look at is useful. In addition, they were relatively easy to clean and could be made sanitary. There's a reason "Silverware" is a word.

2. The main reason they were used though is that they didn't degrade, were rare, and were relatively dense. Most common materials (grain, salt, etc.) while used in some fashion, didn't have these attributes.

3. Copper absolutely was used as currency. The biggest issue was the relative size to value ratio. A "high value" copper coin would be very heavy.

[bernard11]

Decorative purposes are a useful purpose.

Well, yes, but I was thinking about industrial use. And not many people could actually afford gold bracelets and the like. Motly it would have been monarchs, priests, and nobles. You're socking a lot of money into non-productive uses.

Money paying taxes and gold being paid to various overlords look similar to me.

[Armchair Lawyer]

In middle ages Europe, silver was more common, both as a currency, and as a decoration.

The time and the place you're talking about plays a major role in how much/little decoration people had.

[Don Nico]

bernard,
"For much of human history they were useful only for decorative purposes. "
You really need to study history. Precious metals as well as other supply controlled good were commonly used as tribute between states

[bernard11]

Don,

"You really need to study history. Precious metals as well as other supply controlled good were commonly used as tribute between states."

Of course they were. But that reflects their use as money. It's not a practical application.

[Don Nico]

"not a practical application"
That is a matter of mostly chemistry (low to very low chemical reactivity) and for the rest metallurgy (absent alloying the materials are not suitable for structures).
Both of these "negatives" are positives when it comes to jewelry

[bernard11]

1. Precious metals actually don't work all that well in expanding economies. Remember that for much of those thousands of years economic growth was paltry at best.

2. Fiat currencies do not inevitably collapse. Randist nonsense. Precious metals, on the other hand, do cause economic turmoil and economic downturns.

3. Correct.

4. The main niche application I see is crime.

[Kazinski]

I was reading a kindle unlimited Jack Reacher ripoff earlier this week, where the hero is foiling a corporation that has ordered a series of murders to cover-up some industrial.pollution. When I saw where the plot was going I just rolled my eyes, its one of the most used plot devices for series, movies, and lousy books, but is there ever an instance of a publicly traded corporation ordering a hit to cover up pollution, or a faulty product, or really anything like that in the US?

I realize it has happened in the third world, but shouldn't it be retired as a plot gimmick in the US?

[Brett Bellmore]

Does Scientology count as a corporation?

[Kazinski]

Well they are a for-profit entity, so that's probably a yes.

[Sarcastr0]

Same problem I had with Robocop!!

I demand only realistic villain in my action shows!!

[Brett Bellmore]

The most realistic thing in those movies were the advertisements...

[darkknight9]

Realistic or not, Kurtwood Smith was a helluva bad guy in that movie. 😉

[Sarcastr0]

Inspired casting choice.

[Krayt]

"Ladies, vamoose."

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinksi — No shortage of examples of the moral equivalent. A car company decided after a look at the balance sheet that a predictable number of deaths would be less expensive to pay off than to fix the problem.

Asbestos companies provide examples, including some really bad stuff, where certain workers were ordered to work unprotected in conditions which amounted to certain death, and the company knew it, and hid it, for fear of the expense that would follow to protect a larger workforce generally.

Cigarette companies, of course, basically murdered millions, while fooling them on purpose about safety.

Maybe more realistic book and film treatments would be better, but metaphoric hitmen are a compact way to summarize real conduct that has actually been commonplace. Deadly corner cutting on mine safety comes to mind. Real, deadly toxic dumping in Woburn, MA made it to the big screen. There was the Erin Brockovitch story.

On a personal note, before the movie, The China Syndrome got made, I was taught in a welding class to look out for the exact X-ray trickery the movie featured. The teaching example was an alleged real nuclear plant construction job. I was laughing in the theater before everyone else got shown where the movie plot was headed.

And of course, state and local governments did real hit jobs for mine owners in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Undoubted kangaroo court judicial murders followed. See the Molly Maguires story. That was but one instance where Pinkertons got paid to do the dirty work. Look up Charles Siringo for others.

And workers did real hit jobs in retaliation, including an assassination by dynamite of an ex-governor of Idaho. Which was followed by kidnapping and an attempted judicial murder of union boss Big Bill Haywood, and two other union execs. That was frustrated by acquittals, which might have been bought by jury fixing, maybe arranged by Clarence Darrow. There is a big history book about that one, entitled, Big Trouble. All true, to the best of a good historian's ability.

Stuff like that, when you see that it can happen, and did happen, why would anyone bet it is not happening? Look up the history of Chemical Control Company of New Jersey. What it shows is the extremes of corrupt conduct which open to view when utilitarian business thinking teams up with lax regulation, and forbearance on criminal charges. Why that would not extend to actual hit jobs would be a question hard to answer. But of course I am speculating.

[bernard11]

All this is more or less correct, of course. Remember Massey Energy, where safety measures were ignored because they reduced coal output? Hardly a one-off example.

Still, Kazinski was asking about a specific hit as part of a coverup. I'm not aware of one, but if there was one, and the coverup was successful, how would we know?

[Bwaaah]

"No shortage of examples of the *moral equivalent*."

But you offer no examples of what Kazinski described. And, no, your examples are not "morally equivalent." They present distinctly different moral issues from the one described by Kazinski.

One might conclude, for example, that American corporations are so unlikely to target an individual to be killed that people would be well advised to consider the risk to be near zero. (But that's just *my* opinion.)

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bwaaah — So you think a consortium of bankers, funding Pinkertons, to carry out an extra-judicial kidnapping in Colorado, of union leaders, and bring them to Idaho by chartered train, to put them on trial for their lives, for a crime in which they have not been implicated, and for which a confessed perpetrator is already in custody, is not morally equivalent to a hit job? I would say it is shockingly worse.

Or how about an asbestos company, knowing already what the world does not, that inhaled asbestos fibers routinely cause deadly illness, that tells a few guys, get down into that pit full of asbestos, and shovel it into bags? And when someone says, shouldn't we give them some protective equipment, the answer is, "That would just scare everyone else."

Or how about hiring an undercover provocateur, to infiltrate union-organizing miners, to provoke fights, and actually kill a labor organizer, so that other miners can be put on trial for the crime, convicted, and hanged?

That is before we get to more-recent, commonplace cases of deadly toxic dumping, and their cover-ups. Such as use of cut-outs to do the dumping, to get the waste creators off the hook for liability.

[John F. Carr]

The best I can think of is Karen Silkwood, and that's doubtful.

[not guilty]

The Archbishop of San Francisco has announced that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is not eligible to receive Holy Communion because of her support for abortion rights. The Archbishop of Washington, D.C. apparently takes a different approach. President Biden met with Pope Francis last year and said that the pope told him to "keep receiving Communion." https://www.ncronline.org/news/people/banned-cordileone-san-francisco-pelosi-receives-eucharist-washington

I don't have a dog in the fight as to who does or does not receive communion, but I can't help but wonder why any serious person would take advice on matters of sexual morality from the Roman Catholic Church Man Boy Love Association -- the world's most notorious enabler of child sexual abuse.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, "notorious" and "worst" aren't the same concepts, are they? "Notorious" just means you got a lot of press, not that you actually were guilty particularly often or recently. Certainly the Church had a problem at one time. The K-12 schools have a similar problem today. Less notorious, though, because the MSM don't like reporting it.

That aside, this isn't advice about sexual morality, the Archbishop wasn't advising Pelosi about what she could do in bed.

This was advice about [advocacy of murder as permissible under Catholic doctrine] morality.

She wasn't just saying abortion should be legal. She was literally telling people, publicly, that her Catholic faith dictated her support for abortion. Which is to say she was actively misinforming people about Catholic doctrine in advocacy of a mortal sin after being repeatedly corrected.

To say that the Church can't respond to THAT seems a bit crazy. Pelosi may have some kind of deep religious faith, but the Archbishop is perfectly entitled, (One might even say it's literally his job!) to make it clear that it's not a deep Catholic faith, and she is free to switch to a religion where that sort of thing passes for actual doctrine.

[AmosArch]

While we're on the topic of the RCC abuse scandal, the whole system we have now of essentially waving around thousands of dollars in front of someone's face to claim they were abused seems silly to me. Theres obviously tons of people who are going to take you up on that offer.

the payoffs have poisoned the process and now the church is in a catch 22 where they have to continue paying every flimsy claim or risk even bigger disaster and the cycle just feeds on itself. Perhaps the church brought this on themselves but still it really doesn't give justice to actual victims or perpetrators.

If it were up to me monetary settlements for sex abuse would be curtailed. If a crime was committed it deserves actual attention. No payoffs no jackpots. The accuser and accused face each other like in a rational society. If guilty the accused can perhaps can still pay dearly but the money sans a limited compensation goes into a general fund that will help society in general.

[not guilty]

Who is "waving around thousands of dollars in front of someone's face to claim they were abused"? Pursuing a claim in civil litigation is no picnic for anyone involved.

[Brett Bellmore]

The RCC is actually pretty obsessive about preventing abuse at this point, and has been for years. I literally had to undergo a background check just to pick my own son up from Catholic formation class.

They had a problem at one time, to be sure. Half the problem was their trying to deal internally with actual crimes, to avoid a PR disaster. Boy, did that ever backfire.

[Martinned]

Well, there's always Southern Baptists.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/6108172d83d55d3c9db4dd67/t/628a9326312a4216a3c0679d/1653248810253/Guidepost+Solutions+Independent+Investigation+Report.pdf

[not guilty]

Right. There was a decades long effort to marginalize child and adult female survivors of sexual abuse by Southern Baptist clergy. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22031737-final-guidepost-solutions-independent-investigation-report?responsive=1&title=1

Will those who glibly complain of LGBT folks and their allies "grooming" children take note of that, or does a class of perpetrators that is mostly white and Republican get a pass?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" I literally had to undergo a background check just to pick my own son up from Catholic formation class. "

Anyone who still sends a child to any Catholic Church activity is too stupid to live without assistance.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Why?

Your child is more likely to be sexually abused in a public K-12 school than in a Catholic Church activity.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

But those are government gays and not church gays so that’s different.

[Kazinski]

But sex abuse in schools is just as or more likely to be heterosexual than same sex, it runs the gamut from gay, lesbian, teacher's of both sexes seducing teens students, as well as child sex abuse.

I think the focus on the Catholic church is due to a combination of homophobic as well as anti religious bigotry.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" While we're on the topic of the RCC abuse scandal, the whole system we have now of essentially waving around thousands of dollars in front of someone's face to claim they were abused seems silly to me. "

That is your takeaway from an organization's systemic, widespread concealment and facilitation of sexual abuse of children by adults, undertaken to protect the organization's personnel, opulent assets, reputation, and business?

People who see the world in that manner can't be replaced fast enough.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Indeed. Statistics put the level of abuse in K-12 schools in the millions of victims.

So why are we encouraging them to "teach" about sexual matters at younger ages?

[Martinned]

I think you've just answered your own question.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Indeed, but not how you wanted it...

"Teaching" about sexual matters in an inappropriate manner and an inappropriate age desensitizes and normalizes children to sexual behavior....which helps encourages sexual abuse.

[Martinned]

Yes, declaring everything sexual, including hugging, taboo is definitely a great way to make sure children report abuse.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Armchair — What but statistics could put abuse in the millions?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Here's some reading for you.
https://www.city-journal.org/abuse-in-schools-no-conspiracy-theory

[bernard11]

I read a little of the report the City Journal links to. Their 4.5 million headline number is based on this question:

During your whole school life, how often, if at all, has anyone (this includes
students, teachers, other school employees, or anyone else) done the following
things to you when you did not want them to?
• Made sexual comments, jokes, gestures, or looks.
• Showed, gave or left you sexual pictures, photographs, illustrations,
messages, or notes.
• Wrote sexual messages/graffiti about you on bathroom walls, in locker
rooms, etc.
• Spread sexual rumors about you.
• Said you were gay or a lesbian.
• Spied on you as you dressed or showered at school.
• Flashed or “mooned” you.
• Touched, grabbed, or pinched you in a sexual way.
• Intentionally brushed up against you in a sexual way.
• Pulled at your clothing in a sexual way.
• Pulled off or down your clothing.
• Blocked your way or cornered you in a sexual way.
• Forced you to kiss him/her.
• Forced you to do something sexual, other than kissing.

Emphasis added. From this you conclude that there were 4.5 million incidents of abuse by educators? Really? When a student calls another one a queer that's sexual abuse? You're comparing this count with that for RC priests?

Come on. Get serious.

[santamonica811]

Bernard,
You're even being overly charitable. Note that JOKES are included. So, my own reporting would be that I experienced 15,001 such incidents. 15,000 times where my 8-16-year-old student peers were telling me dumb sex jokes over the years. Hell, "I see London/France/Suzy's underpants" would qualify, so maybe I need to up my number to 17,001. Plus one creepy coach who I felt watched me (and the 75 other boys who showered in on large square shower--the 70s being a less-enlightened time), where I genuinely felt uncomfortable being stared at.

Unless the above-mentioned study discriminated in separating out the most innocuous incidents from true abuse . . . I'm not sure those data are particularly helpful.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Here's some more reading, a GAO report..

https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-14-42.pdf

[Sarcastr0]

It's the idea that this is caused by sex ed that is the insane bit.

Wanting to shelter young children makes some sense.
Insisting that if they learn about sex too early, that's a gateway to sexual abuse? That's just right-wingers weaponizing fucking pedophilia to their latest culture war cause.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think it's caused by sex ed, but injecting sex into classrooms, even in subjects where it isn't relevant, and long before puberty, sure could provide cover for it.

[Sarcastr0]

Sure could?
Yeah, why not start invoking pedophilia based on empty speculation?!

Brett, this is not a good tactic. It's basically low-key evil to deploy.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure could, so why insist on that injection?

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, I really went too far when I called anti-vaxxers pedophiles.

Seems like you're eliding some easy lines to draw...

[Brett Bellmore]

There's a simple dynamic here.

It starts when somebody insists on doing something most people find objectionable. In this case teaching about sex, and working sex into other topics, for K-4, well before puberty.

They're told to knock it off, and instead of doing so, dig in their heels, maybe get sneaky.

The general public sees no good reason for doing it, and so imagines there must be bad reasons. The sneakiness reinforces that conclusion.

[Sarcastr0]

Now you're generalizing as a deflection.

This groomer thing. Right here. This thing is bad. Also there are other things that are bad. But this here? This is bad.

And you - yes you - should stop it.

[bernard11]

Statistics put the level of abuse in K-12 schools in the millions of victims.

Cite?

[Stephen Lathrop]

It works as a truism. I tried to make a joke of that, but he didn't get it.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" Certainly the Church had a problem at one time. "

Have you noticed that you have problems with interpersonal communication?

[Gandydancer]

Someone who rants here endlessly and pointlessly and stupidly and indefatigably about "bitter clingers" is entitled to no consideration on the subject of interpersonal communication

[bernard11]

Certainly the Church had a problem at one time. The K-12 schools have a similar problem today. Less notorious, though, because the MSM don't like reporting it.

Conspiracy lunacy from Brett.

[Ben_]

135+ School teachers and teacher’s aides have been charged with child sex crimes this year:

https://www.foxnews.com/us/135-teachers-charged-child

[Sarcastr0]

That's pretty low, considering the baseline.

Though as I've said below that doesn't mean it's not worth addressing.

[Ben_]

More than one per class day. It's a meaningful number.

Those are just the ones who have been charged with a specific subset of crimes this year.

Some additional safeguards may be worth considering.

[Sarcastr0]

I didn't say it wasn't meaningful, I noted what a low rate it is statistically.

Plenty of schools don't have the resources to do good background checks. That seems like it has a direct causal relationship, at least.

[Ben_]

One thing it isn’t: "conspiracy lunacy"

[Sarcastr0]

Way to strawman.

I've seen no one argue that across our nations zero school molestations have occurred.

The grooming bit is the bullshit conspiracy nonsense.

[Ben_]

It's a way to describe people using children for something sex-related. Even if they aren’t planning to rape the kids, using other peoples' children is not ok.

Someone who wants to use children for their personal cultural agenda-pushing might very well be intending to use the children for something else they find gratifying.

They should stop it. Children aren’t toys for them to play with.

Parents are very protective, so it would also be objectively wise for them to stop it.

[Nelson]

"Certainly the Church had a problem at one time. The K-12 schools have a similar problem today. Less notorious, though, because the MSM don't like reporting it."

The Catholic Church still has a problem. The ones who were doing it (and covering it up) are all still in the same places with the same authority and the same proclivities as before. They are still protecting every priest they can. They are still blocking criminal prosecutions. They are still refusing to disclose their records. They are still refusing to take responsibility in any way, shape, or form for running and enabling an international pedophile ring.

There is absolutely no reason to trust the Catholic Church on pedophilia. There is no reason to believe they are doing anything. They have done nothing to show that they are truthful or moral. They have done nothing to show they are concerned about the victims.

They have actively attempted to silence victims. They have attacked groups like SNAP in expensive, coordinated, and dishonest smear campaigns. Their efforts have been focused on protecting the Church and priests, attacking victims, avoiding accountability, and preventing prosecutions.

Pedophilia in K-12 schools is a match beside the bonfire of the Catholic Church. And when pedophilia happens in schools, there are prosecutions. The pedophiles in the Church don't get prosecuted. They don't go to jail. They don't have any accountability whatsoever.

Don't whatabout the Catholic Church's perfidity. Don't pretend that the problem is in the past. Don't pretend that it doesn't happen any more. And don"t pretend that, if it were still going on at the same, massive level as before, we would have any clue.

[AmosArch]

Why are atheists so consumed over who religious let into their clubhouses to the point where they often are are willing/(or in jurisdictions where that is not possible obviously wish they could) use legal force to control it? Isn't that kind of silly over something you claim is nonsensical? Like an adult getting bent out of shape over who insulted who in their daughter's tea party?

???????????????????? ???????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????? ???????????? ???????????? ???????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????????? -- ???????????? ????????????????????'???? ???????????????? ???????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????? ???????? ???????????????????? ???????????????????????? ????????????????????.

I think you mistyped and put Roman Catholic Church when you meant to type SJW lobby. Oh wait, you said notorious not largest/most prolific. Well I guess you got me there. My bad.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm no atheist, but come on. Communion is important merely because people believe it's important. Even an atheist will recognize that.

I do believe that this kind of political pettiness should be below such institutions in the modern era.
Or if it isn't, that it's a statement made by the Church as a whole, not local leaders.

[Commenter_XY]

Sarcastr0, I get what you're saying. The withholding of communion is a grave matter, and the question is whether Speaker Pelosi's professed beliefs about abortion warrant that action.

To me, it is a matter of Church law. What does the law say? I don't know. Is the 'law' Catholic catechism? Or something else. My understanding of Roman Catholic belief is that life begins at conception, and must be preserved because every life is holy. Maybe someone versed in Catholicism and canon can chime in.

In 2022, I don't think the Roman Catholic Church is as monolithic as it once was. Maybe 500 years ago in 1522 it was more monolithic. Not so much, anymore.

I am unclear on whether this archbishops actions are inconsistent with Roman Catholic 'law' (I use the term loosely, but there has to be something in writing somewhere that is the 'law'). I hesitate to slap the 'this is just politics label' on the archbishop.

[Martinned]

I don't think the Roman Catholic Church is as monolithic as it once was

Yes, the free market for religion will do that. I mean, create incentives to be more Catholic than the pope. Whatever gets asses in pews and money in collection plates...

[Sarcastr0]

To me, it's a question of institutional implementation. Both the SF archbishop and the DC one are well within church law.
Though I believe the DC one has more wisdom in not dipping their toe into the corrupting waters of partisan politics.

The question I have is should the church leave these questions to be fully federated, or does it push for a more harmonized policy? I think federation is good for most issues, but this is nationally incendiary.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Both the SF archbishop and the DC one are well within church law."

Sure, it's a balancing act; Maybe Pelosi can be redeemed, and this act makes that less likely. OTOH, she's affirmatively misleading other Catholics about a key matter of Church doctrine, to the peril of THEIR souls.

Remember, she wasn't just saying that abortion should be legal. You can say that without sin, because the Church has long accepted that the law doesn't have to prohibit everything the Church considers a sin, even a mortal sin.

What got her in trouble was claiming that supporting abortion was a matter of her Catholic faith. That's not politics, Sarcastr0, that's her opining on matters of faith, that's religion.

The two Archbishops disagree about where the balance lies. But they're both within the range Church doctrine permits.

A side issue is that, yes, there's a disagreement within the Church; Some in the Church take this anti-abortion doctrine more lightly than others. It's an interesting dynamic: The 1st world, Western clergy have a tendency to alter church doctrine in a secular liberal direction, but the Church has trouble recruiting new clergy in the West. (Some see a connection there.)

So the Church is getting a lot of clergy in the West from 3rd world and non-Western nations, my church's pastor is from South America, one of the priests from the Philippines. And THOSE clergy are NOT into letting secular progressive values displace Catholic doctrine! A lot of people think that's why the Church in those places has a surplus of clergy, actually: People don't join the Church to be secular...

So the older Western clergy are fighting a losing war, (With the current Pope in their corner, but reluctant to go all in.) against the restoration of long standing Church doctrine by the insurgent 3rd world clergy, who have the numbers on their side in the long run.

[Sarcastr0]

Nothing you said contradicts anything I've said.

I have no idea whether your prognostication is good or not.

[Brett Bellmore]

I wasn't trying to contradict you, I was just agreeing with you and explaining what's been going on behind the scenes to explain why there are two factions on this within the Church.

[Sarcastr0]

Gotcha. That was indeed well above my depth of understanding, and was pretty interesting.

[bernard11]

I met a Methodist minister last year who described a similar conflict in that church, where the third-world clergy were much more conservative on social issues than the westerners.

Part of that seemed to stem from the fact that their communities were quite conservative on these matters, and they might be in actual physical danger if they took a liberal stance.

Wonder if some of that, rather than just differing religious opinions, drives the division in the RCC.

[Martinned]

This is a big problem in the Anglican church too. HM the Queen and the Archbishop of Canterbury, who are meant to be in charge, can't exactly do what they please or 75% of the church is going to secede.

[Krayt]

I can't see this line being crossed any time soon. Ensoulment is the key of murder to religion, and that happens at conception.

Or does it?

[not guilty]

How does anyone claim to know when ensoulment occurs? Genesis 2:7 (KJV) indicates that God breathed into man's nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

In any event, it is not for politicians (including black robed politicians) to determine.

[Don Nico]

S_0,
" it's a statement made by the Church as a whole, not local leaders"
You grossly underestimate the primary position that governance, especially local governance, plays in many churches

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, it's an ought comment not an is comment - I did say 'The question I have is should the church leave these questions to be fully federated, or does it push for a more harmonized policy? I think federation is good for most issues, but this is nationally incendiary.'

[not guilty]

I am not an atheist, but who is talking about using legal force to control anything here?

[Krychek_2]

Who's using legal force? I've never heard of a lawsuit to force a church to admit someone into membership, and such a lawsuit would almost certainly be dismissed on First Amendment grounds if somebody did file it.

That said, when John F. Kennedy ran for president, he overcame Protestant suspicions about having a Catholic in the Oval Office by promising that the church would not control his acts as president, and by reaffirming his support for separation of church and state. Maybe someone needs to tell the bishop.

[AmosArch]

China for one. Europe isn't far behind for different reasons. Not quite there yet but then again 30 years ago people would think you were crazy for saying you'd be punished for believing in 2 genders yet here we are

[Krychek_2]

Well, I can think of many differences between the Chinese legal system and the American one.

But the biggest threat to the American church isn't government. The biggest threat to the American church is that people now spend Sunday mornings sleeping in, mowing the lawn, meeting up with friends for brunch, watching the talk shows -- in short, the church is dying because once it had to compete in the free market of ideas, most people stopped buying what it was selling.

[Krayt]

That is a limitation on the politicians seeking office.

Kennedy's promise was to counter a Protestant fear, that the Pope would command him to do something and he'd obey. The Pope could still have tried, of course. There can be no legal repercussions. But that was more Protestant disasterbation than reality.

Nancy's full-throated support for abortion, apparently up to and including saying it's OK with Catholic doctrine, isn't the same thing at all. She's free to sin, sin, sin to her heart's content, but she has to live with the religious consequences, just as Kennedy would have had to, had he declined the theoretical order from the Pope.

[Gandydancer]

Tell the bishop what? The bishop didn't get elected to his office on a promise to provide communion to schismatics.

[Krychek_2]

Tell the bishop that the deal up to this point had been that someone's Catholicism would not be an issue when he's running for public office so long as it was understood that the Catholic church would not attempt to dictate what he did once in office.

[Martinned]

Well, that and why the Catholic Church would deny communion to politicians who support the right to abortion, but not to politicians who support the death penalty.

For the record, this is what it says in the 2018 revision of the catechism:

Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.

Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.

Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that "the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person", and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.

[bevis the lumberjack]

That’s a very fair point because the Church (I’m not a member but my wife is) is adamantly opposed to both. All life is a gift from God and is sacred, even lives of those who have done horrible things.

It’s weird that on these two issues the Catholic Chirch is probably about the only consistent entity out there.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Consistent? Have right-wing priests denied communion to any death penalty-hugging clingers?

[Michael P]

There's a lot more process and oversight for any of the rare uses of the death penalty than there is for abortion. In terms of scale, there's no real comparison between the two.

[Martinned]

What does that have to do with the mortal sin of politicians who want to execute more prisoners?

[Michael P]

Which relevant authority says that supporting the death penalty is a mortal sin? For almost a millennium, popes -- even those personally opposed to the death penalty -- have recognized it as a legitimate secular power.

[Martinned]

If you just scroll up about 4 inches on your screen to my previous comment but one, you'll see the bit of the catechism that says exactly that.

[Michael P]

That's not a declaration that supporting the death penalty is a mortal sin. The catechism is not inherently infallible (under Catholic doctrine).

[Martinned]

Please go ahead and take your issues up with the Vatican. I'm sure they would love to hear from Michael P why their interpretation of the Catholic faith is wrong.

[Michael P]

Your the one putting words in their mouth. Back up your claim. Explain why that statement, which is a fallible departure from centuries of doctrine, defines a mortal sin.

[Sarcastr0]

His argument is that what's good for the goose is good for the gander, nothing about grave versus mortal sins.

[Michael P]

Yeah and when I pointed out what popes have recognized as the essential difference between the two cases -- see, for example, Thomas Aquinas's discussion, or any of the 20th century pronouncements by the Vatican -- his argument was that supporting the death penalty was a mortal sin. Then-Cardinal Ratzinger, as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, wrote: "Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on a decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion."

[Sarcastr0]

I was willing to give you more benefit of the doubt than Martinned, but you appear to have crossed the line to deeply rules lawyering a faith that is not your own.

And you appear to be doing so for partisan political purposes.

I'd maybe slow your roll.

[Michael P]

Your partisan double standards are especially blatant here, S_0.

Not that you will ever slow your roll.

[Sarcastr0]

I've explained why I don't think a church - any church - should get involved in partisan politics.

You seem to be the one straining to make a church you don't belong to agree with your politics.

[Sarcastr0]

Doesn't that same argument apply to supporting pro-choice policies?

[Michael P]

Yes. I don't know that supporting abortion is considered a mortal sin, either. In contrast, procuring or participating in an abortion is clearly a mortal sin.

The apparent threshold for not receiving communion, though, is "grave sin" (without subsequent confession) rather than mortal sin.

[Brett Bellmore]

As a Catholic you can, without any problem, say, "As a matter of law, abortion ought to be legal." A lot of things ought to be legal, but remain sins. Legal and moral aren't the same thing.

Pelosi's problem is that she's publicly claiming that being Catholic dictates being pro-choice.

[Sarcastr0]

I get she's on thin ice, but as you said it's discretionary.

I've seen that once churches start getting into American party politics, the politics seems to easily start to dictate conclusions that faith used to.
Issues are fine, but lets not be so blinkered as to pretend this is so limited.

[Michael P]

Claiming that a religion compels support for something that the religion teaches is among the worst sins would usually be considered outright heresy, not "thin ice".

[Sarcastr0]

Keep explaining what the Catholic Church should think, Michael.

[Michael P]

If you had an actual argument on the merits, you would make it. You don't.

[Sarcastr0]

No, I just have the humility not to tell the Catholic Church who they should call heritics.

[Michael P]

Right. Instead, you tell people here that they said something they didn't.

Brett didn't say that what Pelosi said is up to discretion. He explicitly drew a distinction between what is legal and what is moral, after saying that a Catholic could argue that something that is immoral should still be legal, and then he further distinguished the objection to Pelosi's behavior.

[Sarcastr0]

I agree with Brett.

I don't agree with you.

[Brett Bellmore]

She's not skating on thin ice, she's scuba diving under the North Pole. The only thing that delayed her 'air hose' being snipped was the possibility that she might be persuaded to climb out of that water.

[Don Nico]

S_0,
"once churches start getting into American party politics"
It is the business of any church to define the arena of moral action. That that arena overlaps politics (and even partisan politics) is inevitable neither surprising nor undesirable.
The only alternative would be for a church to back out of its teachings every time the political arena conflicted with it.
That becomes just the charter of a social club

[Sarcastr0]

Issues are not parties, Don.

In fact, we assume as much, hence the tax exempt status.

I'm have no problem commenting on the wisdom of a church's decisions; their morals are not solely their own.

[Sarcastr0]

That was badly put - their morals are open to criticism by the public. Their internal laws and interpretation of scripture are less so.

[Bob from Ohio]

"you'll see the bit of the catechism that says exactly that."

Where are the words "mortal sin" in that "bit"?

[Martinned]

Yes, sure, nitpicking, that's definitely going to show me wrong!

[Bob from Ohio]

You asserted your "bit" proved it was a mortal sin, even though it doesn't say it.

Why don't you post the "bit" about abortion in the Catechism.

Here's an excerpt:

"Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life."

Do you see this, or anything similar in the death penalty one?

[bevis the lumberjack]

"In terms of scale, there's no real comparison between the two."

In terms of the sacredness of life, they're precisely the same.

[Michael P]

Pope Innocent I, 405 AD: "It must be remembered that power was granted by God, and to avenge crime the sword was permitted; he who carries out this vengeance is God's minister (Romans 13:1–4)."

Pope Pius XII, 1952: "When it is a question of the execution of a condemned man, the State does not dispose of the individual's right to life. In this case it is reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned person of the enjoyment of life in expiation of his crime when, by his crime, he has already disposed himself of his right to live."

One might also put more emphasis on stopping millions of deaths than dozens.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Or one might be logically consistent and say that all deaths are wrong. Apparently you’re not capable of that.

[Michael P]

One can be logically consistent and think what you say. Another might view that position as childishly simplistic, because it doesn't recognize any right of lethal defense -- at either an individual or national level.

[MoreCurious]

Great point: why don't Church officials deny communion to Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, all of whom appear to be death penalty enthusiasts.

[Krayt]

Ok, official church position has gone off the rails. "Dignity of the person" has nothing to do with it, except, perhaps, tangentially as you want to put a friendly face to your efforts at salvation, not drive other observers away, causing them an eternity in Hell. I assume they have a detailed discussion of this point?

So there's an eye for an eye, mitigated by turn the other cheek. There's Thou Shall Not Kill, not traditionally arrayed against the death penalty.

However, a Christian should be against the death penalty because it forecloses a chance at redemption for the soul. Ending someone's life can condemn them to Hell by removing future possibilities.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Wow look how anti-gay the Left can be.

[Ed Grinberg]

https://reason.com/2022/05/19/thomas-massie-has-a-point-when-he-says-congress-antisemitism-resolution-has-a-free-speech-problem/
closing paragraph:

It goes without saying that antisemitism, like any sort of racial or religious bigotry, is horrible. But the House's resolution does more than merely condemn it. Rather, it calls on social media companies to suppress otherwise protected speech... That's reason enough to oppose it.

Well said.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Aligning with Thomas Massie is the "modern" version of siding with Ron Paul.

Enjoy the wilderness.

[Krayt]

Enjoy wistling past the graveyard of freedom and democracy by pretending the tyrant's greatest tool can be safely wielded.

Next step after outlawing harrassment is outlawing offending sensibil...oh god, Rev. Off to jail you go.

First they came for the harrassers, but I was not...wait a minute.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If Massie is your guidestar, you are lost.

Thank goodness better Americans are available to arrange our nation's trajectory.

[Commenter_XY]

Professor Volokh, this will be odd, but that sicko Johnny Depp and that crazy lady Amber Heard are on my mind. Am I watching the trial? No, not actively. But of course, my beloved wife is watching on YouTube. I swear, she is listening to this like the damned OJ trial back in the 90's. I hear bits and pieces passively through my home office door. Hell, there are ladies on my staff who are listening all day with the trial in the background. Whoa....Those are two people in need of extensive therapy. Truly, I hope they get professional help.

Are defamation trials usually like this? Meaning, this trial sounds like a brawl, not a legal proceeding. Lots of back and forth. The lawyers act extremely annoyed (the non responsive answer objection is what I heard through my closed office door about 1 millions times).

VC Conspirators, what's it like, litigating a defamation case? Are they brawls like this, or more sedate affairs? I am talking about what the experience is like, litigating in the courtroom.

[Martinned]

No, they're not usually like that. Johnny Depp filed the case in Virginia intentionally to take advantage of that state's laws about camera's in the court room, in order to shame and embarrass his ex-wife in front of the largest possible audience.

[not guilty]

I find myself hoping that the jury awards neither party any relief. This trial well illustrates the Streisand effect.

[Martinned]

Yes, and intentionally so. It's a consequence of the ridiculously flexible personal jurisdiction rules in the US.

[John F. Carr]

I have been trying to avoid trial coverage. What little I have read makes me agree.

[Archibald Tuttle]

OK, so Facebook, Twitter and others are private and can not be forced to be the public square for free speech purposes. We really need a public square as a free speech outlet.

If private companies can’t be forced to provide it, government could. We could create publicsquare.gov where people could post anything they wish to say. Only things that a court would find illegal would be disallowed, and instead of a civilian panel deciding that, we could have an actual court dedicated to the moderation.

People could be racist. They could express the urge to stage insurrections. They could and would express all sorts of hate. Why would that be a good thing? Because repressing speech doesn’t cause the underlying feelings to go away, it exacerbates them. A public tirade is preferable to a mass shooting.

However, there are things that could be done that don’t violate free speech. 1) Posts may be text only, no pictures, no links. 2) Comments are not threaded to the original post, instead every post is free-standing with no links to other posts. Ditto for comments on the comments. 3) The site would ban search engine web crawlers, and perhaps not even provide a URL to find the post at a late date.

The cathartic effect of writing a tirade post does not mean that it is read by anyone. Indeed, most of the posts would never be read by anyone, and therefore don’t offend anyone. We see a bit of that today in live chats. Once a chat post scrolls off the top of the screen, it is never seen again.

Likewise, the ancient public square does not guarantee a right to an audience, only the right to speak.

Unfortunately, there is little or no hope of seeing my suggestion implemented. Most other countries, and much of the US public has turn away from free speech as a treasured and valuable right.

[Martinned]

You mean like this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_the_People_(petitioning_system)

Or were you think of something that allows for more conversation between citizens?

[OtisAH]

More than likely he’s referring to a publicly funded site where violent threats, misogyny, propaganda, n-bombs and “trans people are evil and gross” posts are plentiful and the admins are powerless to do anything about it. VC is okay for the purpose but I think some of the regular clowns still get the banhammer from time to time.

[Gandydancer]

"...were you think[ing] of something that allows for more conversation between citizens?"

That's obtuse. His plain objective is to provide at public expense a placebo to discourage conversations between citizens that he disapproves of. That "most of the posts would never be read by anyone" is a feature, not a bug.

[Gandydancer]

"If private companies can’t be forced to provide it, government could."

The premise is false. Private companies are routinely forced to provide "public squares". The case(s) I'm thinking of involve shopping malls, iirc.

[StellaLink_the dog]

California only, as far as I know.

I don't think:

California requires malls to function as public squares
therefore twitter must host Alex Jones

is a very good argument.

[John F. Carr]

Going to the public square takes time. You have to bring a platform and a sign if you want a platform and a sign. You have to deal with the hostile reactions in person instead of from behind seven proxies. So the number of people competing for attention is limited.

[Randal]

Usenet, the pre-section-230 forum, is similar to what you've described. It's based on public (government-sponsored) protocols, so it's a distributed system rather than government hosted, but as a result of being distributed, there's no central moderation.

The easiest way to dip your toes into Usenet is to use Google Groups. Google built a Usenet portal into Groups. https://groups.google.com/g/alt.politics.libertarian

Pretty terrible to read, as you predicted. There are a lot of rants. But I think people writing rants still want to think that someone's going to read them, so just having a place for people to go and rant into the void isn't going to stop them from complaining about being victimized by the actually popular platforms.

[Gandydancer]

"Likewise, the ancient public square does not guarantee a right to an audience, only the right to speak."

False, again. The public squares in question are places inherently frequented by an audience, not isolated locations deep in the woods. See the questions surrounding the ridiculous roped-off "demonstration areas" in the vicinity of, e.g., political conventions.

[Doug Huffman]

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison, Prologue After Ten Years. A Reckoning made at New Year 1943.

Of Folly

Folly is a more dangerous enemy to the good than [is] evil. One can protest against evil; it can be unmasked and, if need be, prevented by force. Evil always carries the seeds of its own destruction, as it makes people, at the least, uncomfortable. Against folly we have no defense. Neither protests nor force can touch it; reasoning is no use; facts that contradict personal prejudices can simply be disbelieved - indeed, the fool can counter by criticizing them, and if they are undeniable, they can just be pushed aside as trivial exceptions. So the fool, as distinct from the scoundrel, is completely self-satisfied; in fact, he can easily become dangerous, as it does not take much to make him aggressive. A fool must therefore be treated more cautiously than a scoundrel; we shall never again try to convince a fool by reason, for it is both useless and dangerous.

If we are to deal adequately with folly, we must try to understand its nature. This much is certain, that it is a moral rather than an intellectual defect. There are people who are mentally agile but: foolish, and people who are mentally slow but very far from foolish - a discovery that we make to our surprise as a result of particular situations. We thus get the impression that folly is likely to be, not a congenital defect, but that one that is acquired in certain circumstances where people make fools of themselves or allow others to make fools of them. We notice further that this defect is less common in the unsociable and solitary than in individuals or groups that are inclined or condemned to sociability. It seems, then, that folly is a sociological rather than a psychological problem, and that it is a special form of the operation of historical circumstances: on people, a psychological by-product of definite external factors. If we look more closely, we see that any violent display of power, wether political or religious, produces an outburst of folly in a large part of mankind; indeed, this seems actually to be a psychological and sociological law: the power of some needs the folly of others. It is not that certain human capacities, intellectual capacities for instance, become stunted or destroyed, but rather that the upsurge of power makes such an overwhelming impression that men are deprived of their independent judgement, and - more or less unconsciously - give up trying to assess the new state of affairs for themselves. The fact that the fool is often stubborn must not mislead us into thinking that he is independent. One feels in fact, when talking to him, that one is dealing, not with the man himself, but with slogans, catchwords, and the like, which have taken hold of him. He is under a spell, he is blinded, his very nature is being misused and exploited. Having thus become a passive instrument, the fool will be capable of any evil and at the same time incapable of seeing that it is evil. Here lies the danger of a diabolical exploitation that can do irreparable damage to human beings.

[Martinned]

It's always good to read Bonhoeffer, but what made you think of that?

[Martinned]

Because of the fantastic series finale of Derry Girls and the recent tragedies in the US I started doing the maths on the Troubles:

The Troubles:
- 3532 dead
- Approximately 2 million inhabitants in Northern Ireland
- Lasted approximately 30 years
- Average annual casualty rate: 59 deaths per million population per year

The US:
- Applying the Northern Ireland casualty rate to the US gets you to about 19,500 deaths per year
- Google tells me the 2019 number in the US was 39,707
- Take out the suicides (23,941) and you are left with 15,766 non-suicide firearms deaths.

So basically people are dying from gun violence in the US at about the same rate as people in Northern Ireland during the troubles. The UK government sent in the army. What do US authorities do?

[Brett Bellmore]

They pull out the army, essentially. You know, defunding the police?

Remember, almost all of this is criminal on criminal violence. And most of that is gang violence.

If you really wanted to reduce it, you'd fight to suppress gang culture, and one of the best ways to do that would be to end the war on drugs.

[Martinned]

Sounds like a sensible suggestion to me. Is anyone working on walking back drugs legislation? If you support it and I support it, it seems likely that there would be bipartisan support for it in various legislatures...

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, *I* haven't run for any public office in decades, and that one time I ran for state rep, it was on the Libertarian ticket, so coming out for re-legalizing drugs, (I always emphasize that they used to be perfectly legal, so it's "re" legalizing.) wasn't a big deal. I don't know about you.

Ending the war on drugs is good policy, but absurdly easy to demagogue. So politicians who actually want to win elections run from it screaming.

The sad thing is, we were through this same scenario with alcohol, and actually DID manage to do the right thing and end the mistake. The war on drugs is just Prohibit MK II with extra stupidity.

[Michael P]

Democrats pull police off the streets, stop enforcing laws, and curtail the permissible investigative techniques. That's what US authorities do in response to that kind of murder rate.

Whether it's vehicular homicide at a parade or a shooting in a subway, a disturbing number of Americans who commit murder already have pending engagements with the legal system.

You should not focus only on firearm deaths, unless you want to make your agenda transparent. In 2019, about a quarter of murders where the method was reported to the FBI were non-firearm murders. (https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls) Neither are all non-suicide gun deaths crimes.

[Krayt]

Derry Girls season 3 is not on Netflix, yet. Probably for the best, as some UK colleagues were pissed off US Netflix had season 2 before they did.

[Gandydancer]

That's a bizarre mixing of apples and oranges.

The actual comparable number is, maybe, the number of those killed in the George Floyd riots. 15,766 isn't it.

[Armchair Lawyer]

So, we all know the Senate recently passed a bill unanimously to give the SCOTUS Justices' families police protection due to the potentially dangerous protests outside their homes. A truly bipartisan, unanimous bill passed in near record time

Seems that Nancy Pelosi just "can't find" time to schedule that vote in the House. The SCOTUS justices' families are still without police protection, and still potentially in danger from whackjobs.

Why hasn't Pelosi scheduled this vote and passed this bill, once that was passed unanimously in the Senate? Is she "hoping" something will happen? Is she bending to political pressure?

If something tragic happens...this is on Pelosi.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/top-senate-dem-very-much-concerned-pelosi-hasnt-passed-bill-to-protect-families-of-supreme-court-justices/

[Sarcastr0]

potentially dangerous protests

No slippery slope here! Lets being back free speech zones!

If something tragic happens...this is on Pelosi.
2A means some kids get shot, that's the price you pay for freedom.
1A means something tragic happens to a public official, well that's real business!

[Armchair Lawyer]

I take it that means that you don't approve of the Justices families being able to get increased security during these times?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Increased security would be reasonable. Banning protests would be constitution-flouting authoritarianism.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Wow, a reasonable comment! You're doing better than Sarcastro.

If you read the bill, it provides increased security for the Justices families. Entirely sensible in the wake of the potential violence. It doesn't "ban protests."

That Pelosi hasn't even scheduled a vote on it, despite it passing unanimously in the Senate is troubling.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Maybe she is adopting the Republican tactic of refusing to do anything -- even something worthwhile, to which no reasonable person would object -- without extracting something from the other side or making the process as excruciating as possible?

I hope not.

[Krayt]

That ship sailed millenia ago. These asses go into politics to get in the way of stuff, so their spouses can mysteriously become investment geniuses.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I must know a better class of elected official than those with whom you interact.

Disaffected, cynical, all-talk, anti-government cranks are among my favorite culture war casualties.

[Estragon]

Just curious:

Among the “there’s nothing to be done” crowd, how many of you have children currently attending elementary school?

[John F. Carr]

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts is allowing lawsuit against the government for threatening to deny a permit for illegitimate purposes. A property owner had a deal to sell to a developer who wanted to build a casino. The government did not want the property owner to make a profit on the sale and threatened to hold up the license if the sale went through. After the purchase price was lowered from $75 million to $35 million (fair market value for a non-casino use) the government relented. A private party might be guilty of tortious interference with contract. The government has sovereign immunity and the claim is analyzed as a regulatory taking instead.

https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2022/05/23/f13196.pdf

Also, anti-SLAPP procedure may not be used against an enforcement action by the Attorney General. This was one of the climate change lawsuits against Exxon.

[dwb68]

I can prove the multiverse is not real.

If the multiverse was real, there would be a universe, call it universe_meta without loss of generality, where people posted rational objective thoughts on Facebook_meta, not exclusively stupid gun/antigen meme from the comfort of their underground bubble.

But posting rational thoughts on Facebook_meta would blow up the algorithms, contradicting the existence of Facebook_meta.

There is multiverse, QED.

[dwb68]

there is *no* multiverse.

although I'd like to be in one with better voice to text and editors.

[John F. Carr]

YouTube's auto transcripts of news from Ukrainian sources show the limitations of the technology. Heavily accented English littered with Ukrainian place names. Given time you figure out that harki is Kharkiv (where the kh is an h-like sound we don't have in English, and the v is a w that softens even further at the end of a word).

[DaveM]

It wouldn't blow up the algorithms in universe_meta, because that's the universe where rational posts are posted. Sorry.

[Krayt]

What if there's a meta meta universe with multiple meta universes in it?

[Voize of Reazon]

We are in the universe where there is no multiverse.

[dwb68]

yes, this.

[Michael P]

The Biden administration demands that schools pretend Y is X, or else it will take their lunch money: https://thefederalist.com/2022/05/25/biden-admin-k-12-schools-must-put-boys-in-girls-bathrooms-to-get-federal-lunch-money/

[Martinned]

Based on that URL alone I'm going to nope out of clicking. Right wingers aren't even going to pretend to be honest in their description of the issues, are they?

[bernard11]

Right wingers aren't even going to pretend to be honest in their description of the issues, are they?

No they are not. And the Federalist is one of the worst. I've been gulled into going to their site a few times. No more.

[Illocust]

So with Georgia proving that voter IDs increase vote participation not decrease it. You think that any other states will follow suit? Also, what are the chances this might deflate opposition to vote IDs, seeing as the test case managed to get through before anyone could pass a federal law banning them.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Conservative logic:

If government officials close several polling places for the purpose of making voting inconvenient (for certain voters), and this offends relevant citizens to the point at which they organize and travel the extra distance in increased numbers, this "proves" that closing convenient polling places increases turnout and is a good idea.

These conservative dullards are your people, Volokh Conspirators. That their race-targeting voter suppression projects sometimes backfire demonstrates that your target audience is a group of hapless dumbasses. This is an important part of the reason your stale, ugly, right-wing thinking is doomed in modern America.

[Sarcastr0]

Pissing people off by burdening their franchise works, folks!

Most of the Dems I talk to are fine with voter ID, so long as it's provided for free. Else it's just a more marginally applicable poll tax.

[Illocust]

That's a pretty desperate spin, considering data shows that voter ID increases voter participation across the board wherever it is implemented.

Also, you do realize in the modern US you cannot rent a home, apply for government benefits, purchase alcohol, or exercise your second amendment rights without a government ID? Your concern is such an obvious non-issue you might as well complain that the act of voting is a poll tax because you have to pay for your own transportation to the polls.

[Sarcastr0]

Hard to see the causality there, given the demographics that come out, other than spite.

In the modern US ID is required for lots of stuff that isn't vital to our Republic. But also there are people without IDs, most of whom are not well-off. So unless you're arguing there should be a fee for those people to vote, your argument doesn't mean much.

[Illocust]

Everyone being more likely to show up to the polls, undermines your arguement. If only specific minorities were more likely to show up, your spite arguement might if combined with real data hold some water, but everyone is more likely to show up to the polls. Which suggests that minorities are shockingly to some people on the left, just like everyone else, and more likely to vote, when they know their vote will be actually counted.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't know Georgia this time, but in the past it's been largely black turnout. As with other states who have tried this.

But what about the base question - why are you okay with a fee for those without IDs, or do you think actually zero exist?

[Sarcastr0]

As in the relative increase.

If you're pointing to just general increase, well, I can think of some other things driving that correlation than voter ID.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's kind of hard to argue suppression when the vote total went up.

Yeah, you can argue that it would have gone up even more, but what's your basis for that? Just your claim in the first place that it was suppression.

[Sarcastr0]

I disagree. Voter ID is nothing but an impediment; it's not going to enhance turnout.
Short-term increases are not a sign this headwind is not a thing. Like, there are structural reasons that it's going to be a thing.

You can *at best* argue de minimis, but voting access should be examined on an individual basis, not a statistical one. Which means you need to grapple with constructive denial, not just brush it under the rug.

[Brett Bellmore]

Not providing free taxi rides to the polls reduces turnout a bit. It's still not "vote suppression".

Seriously, you need to accept that "vote suppression" doesn't consist of merely failing to exactly match Democrats' preferred balance between ballot security and ease of voting. It has to involve some affirmative effort to prevent people from voting that lacks any rational justification.

[Sarcastr0]

That's not what I'm saying. You're short-circuiting the actual policy analysis.

A policy can be suppressive and worth it.

But so far attempts to empirically establish it's worth it have basically failed.

And your taxi thing is dumb as hell - voter ID isn't a differential compared to some hypothetical, it's an impediment from the status quo.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" That's a pretty desperate spin, considering data shows that voter ID increases voter participation across the board wherever it is implemented. "

Are there sources for that assertion (other than a bigoted clinger at a white, male, right-wing blog)?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I guess not.

Carry on, clingers. Especially the race-targeting, right-wing vote suppressors. Stomping those worthless clingers into irrelevance may be my favorite part of the culture war.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Illocust:
"Also, you do realize in the modern US you cannot rent a home, apply for government benefits, purchase alcohol..."

Listing things that require ID as an argument for requiring ID to vote is just saying "I know nothing about voting but it seems to me that we should require ID because it seems like we should."

Requiring ID for those other activities is for specific reasons. There is no good reason to require voter ID, because it only addresses one single type of possible vote fraud, voter impersonation, which is rare to the point of irrelevance.

As for your argument that it caused voter turnout to increase in Georgia, you have no evidence whatsoever of a causal link.

[Commenter_XY]

Sarcastr0, I am totally on-board with providing state issued IDs (with stringent identity verification) for free. No question about that.

To me, if you want mandatory voter ID (which I do), then give people the means to exercise that right (voting) with the requirement (a verified state-issued ID; something with Real ID verification requirements).

[Brett Bellmore]

Agree. The most suspicious thing about Democrats' opposition to Voter ID, which drove a lot of belief they were into vote fraud, is that they went with prohibiting requiring the ID, instead of requiring that it be provided free.

ID is needed for so many modern activities that solving the problem by providing the ID was an obvious win-win. Unless your goal really was to enable people to lie about who they were.

[Sarcastr0]

The Republicans said that a universal ID was a non-starter.
Mark of the Beast. Really, that was the objection in the early 2000s.

[ducksalad]

Are you clear on the difference between providing something for free, and requiring people to accept it?

[Sarcastr0]

Requiring it to vote is a lot like a mandate to some. Or to work.

It's not my circus, I'm just saying what the debate is.
https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/new-national-id-systems

[Commenter_XY]

That is why I am very careful to say 'state issued'. 🙂

[M L]

Who said anything about National ID? Weird how you just change the subject out of left field.

[Sarcastr0]

Requiring it to vote is a lot like a mandate to some. Or to work.

That applies to both federal and state-by state.

Thanks for reading!

[M L]

What is a "universal ID" ? What does that have to do with this topic of needing to show your ID to vote like buying cigarettes?

[Sarcastr0]

So you're okay with state-by-state programs to provide free IDs to eligible voters?

I'm under the impression Republicans are still pushing back on that as a Big Government Power Play but I'd be happy to be proven wrong!

[M L]

Sure. Each state already has IDs. I wouldn't mind not having to pay the $25 every 5 years or whatever. Not sure why anyone would care about this except the state revenue departments.

[Randal]

The Democrats' objections to ID requirements aren't mysterious and go beyond any potential fee. ID requirements also interfere with mail-in voting, same-day registration, voter-registration drives, things like that. If the ID was free, same-day, able to be issued by third parties, and not required for mail-in, then you wouldn't see Democrats objecting. But of course that undermines Rebuplicans' desires, both stated and unstated.

If voter fraud were a real problem, Republicans would be right to be suspicious of Democrats' motives. As it's not, Democrats are right to be suspicious of Republicans' motives.

[Sarcastr0]

So...free ID and a national holiday for election day?

[Brett Bellmore]

Sounds good to me, if that's the price of limiting absentee voting to cases of genuine necessity.

I think the default should be that everybody votes in person unless they have a good case that it's just not practical, and that everybody votes on election day, again, unless they have a good case that it's just not practical.

In person because of chain of custody and ballot secrecy, and on election day so that everybody is voting on the same up to date information.

[Randal]

Sure, if you can get the ID on election day if you don't already have one.

[Brett Bellmore]

IOW, if it's set up so that there's no time to verify anything, and so is reduced to just an honor system, in the cause of enabling voting by people who literally didn't think about the election until election day?

[Randal]

Just as I thought, your real goal is to prevent people you'd rather not vote from voting, in this case "people who literally didn't think about the election until election day." Why is advanced planning a requirement? You've just got an itch to deny people the vote. Democrats have the opposite urge.

The DMV can issue same-day IDs, so it shouldn't be a problem unless Republicans make it a problem. There's also such a thing as provisional ballots.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Brett, I personally have no idea why Democrats oppose voter ID, but I oppose it because it serves no purpose whatsoever. It only addresses a problem that does not exist to any significant degree, voter impersonation at the polls. I would be interested to read your case for the reasons requiring ID at the polls is a good idea, and what purpose it would serve.

[Josh R]

I've always supported voter ID, proactively given out by the government, along with no-excuse mail-in voting.

[M L]

How do you show your ID when voting by mail?

[Brett Bellmore]

I prefer that mail in voting be for cause only. Mail in voting really compromises chain of custody and protection of ballot secrecy, and so enables a lot of abuses which, not coincidentally, would be hard to prove occurred afterwards.

We could throw a lot more resources at enabling shut-ins to vote securely, if we weren't extending mail in voting to people who perfectly well could show up at a polling place.

[bernard11]

Mail in voting really compromises chain of custody and protection of ballot secrecy, and so enables a lot of abuses which, not coincidentally, would be hard to prove occurred afterwards.

And yet you can't actually point to any big problems or scandals that have come up.

By the way, how do you think the Michigan GOP primary petition matter should be handled?

[Brett Bellmore]

You make it impossible to have evidence, and then dismiss concerns on the basis of a lack of evidence. Seems kind of circular.

Looks like several of the candidates in Michigan were the victims of fraud by signature gatherers. Was it financially motivated, or political sabotage? No idea, I don't follow Michigan political affairs closely anymore, I haven't lived there since '08.

I will say this: The responsible petition gatherers should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. If they benefit from any sort of prosecutorial discretion, I think that would weigh in favor of the sabotage explanation.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm highly skeptical that in all 50 states, Democrats have managed to cover-up voter fraud evidence despite endless GOP-driven commissions.

[StellaLink_the dog]

But, the absence of evidence just goes to show how crafty the vote fraudsters are. Brought to you by the same nutcase who thinks that John Roberts is being blackmailed with publicly available information.

[Randal]

The double negative has led to proof positive! I'm afraid you gave yourself away.

[Brett Bellmore]

They haven't managed to cover up all voter fraud evidence. Such as does turn up gets dismissed as either rare exceptions or conspiracy theorizing.

[Sarcastr0]

Are you taking refuge in the 'if any fraud ever occurs that's proof it's widespread?'

Because that's a helluva strawman.

[David Nieporent]

Actually, they have managed to cover up all voter fraud evidence, since there isn't any.

[bernard11]

Let's add one thing. It's not only free but widely and readily available. You don't have to go to the DMV or City Hall.

[Michael D]

Last week, the Supreme Court of Tennessee ruled on a major case involving the creation of education savings accounts (ESA) for Davidson (Nashville) and Shelby (Memphis) counties.

The ESA for these counties is a pilot program. It had been ruled unconstitutional by the court of appeals for being in violation of the Home Rule provisions of the state Constitution. SCOT determined that is not the case.

https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/metro.government.opn_.pdf

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Tennessee seems to want to accelerate the sifting of America -- modern, educated, reasoning, successful states vs. can't-keep-up backwaters -- by crippling its already downscale public school systems and directing more students toward backwater religious schools.

Some decent young people would be hurt, but superstitious knuckle-draggers have rights, too.

[Commenter_XY]

Arthur, Nashville is not exactly a 'poor' area. There are any number of secular private schools in that area catering to upper middle class parents. Those secular 'tony' institutions will get some of this pilot program money. I'd also note that TN has some pretty good universities.

Do you live in TN? Are you affected by this pilot state program in two counties of TN (note, there are 95 counties in TN)?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

LIST OF STATES BY EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
(includes territories; 52 participants)

HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA
Tennessee 38

UNDERGRADUATE DEGREE
Tennessee 41

ADVANCED DEGREE
Tennessee 35

This concerns me because I believe our society should offer a solid education to every young person, including those who reside in shambling communities and/or have substandard parents.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The most surprising part of that chart may be that 15 states are worse than Tennessee.

I wonder how many of them are red states?

[bernard11]

Well, yes, there are 95 counties, but about one third of the population is in Davidson and Shelby, so this is not an insignificant "pilot" program.

There are some tony private schools in Nashville, mostly attended by students whose parents can afford them. There are also a number of religious schools of various stripes.

[Commenter_XY]

True Bernard11...my point to Arthur is TN decided this for residents of 2 TN counties. I am not seeing a national, or even statewide impact from the pilot.

Now what comes out of the pilot...could be a different story.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

As I indicated, shambling people from bigoted, uneducated, superstition-heavy states have rights, too.

Including the right to enact stupid, partisan laws, even if they will predictably hurt young people.

[John F. Carr]

I see Tennessee has a very strong home rule amendment in its constitution. The state may not exercise authority over a city or county without its consent, other than by a generally applicable law. In Massachusetts a law can be enacted over the objection of the affected local government by a supermajority vote of the legislature.

[Michael D]

That is how I read the TN Home Rule as well but I did not know about Mass.

[Moderation4ever]

A lot has been said about guns in this and other columns and little will change. What I would like to suggest is that move from thinking about laws as solution and rather as statements about guns use. Comprehensive background checks will not stop all killings, but it will send a signal that our society takes gun ownership seriously and requires buyers meet standards. Again, loosening requirements for concealed carry say to me that we don't take guns seriously. An eighteen-year-old can handle weapons in the army, but he is also taught about handling and using the weapon. An eighteen-year-old civilian does not get that training. Finally with regard to banning certain type of weapons, perhaps the focus should be on specific characteristics of the weapon. I see this as setting reasonable limits on number of bullets between reloads, the rate of fire, and impact of the bullet.
Laws cannot solve all the problem of shootings, but they can make a statement and it seem that lately the statement is disjointed and weak.

[ducksalad]

Replied to this but due to the great commenting system here, it ended up elsewhere.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Comprehensive background checks will not stop all killings"

Both Buffalo and Texas killers passed background checks. But let's pass more "symbolic" legislation.

"loosening requirements for concealed carry"

Rifles aren't really concealed, are they.

"rate of fire"

Only fully autos have a rate of fire higher than one squeeze, one bullet.

"reasonable limits on number of bullets between reloads"

Buffalo killer's gun had such a restriction. He drilled it out.

[Ben_]

Rights aren’t subject you your opinions about what is taken "seriously" and what isn’t. Rights don’t have to satisfy.

You should pass a background check before exercising your First Amendment rights on this forum again. Just to lead by example. If you don’t, we will take it as a concession that you don’t actually believe that innocent people should have to justify themselves in order to do what they have a constitutional right to do.

[Sarcastr0]

The push I'm seeing on the left regarding this shooting is less about gun laws and more about attacking the cops who did nothing. That town spent a lot on police and equipment, and for what?

It's still policy by anecdote, but for y'all's awareness, I'd wager that's where this debate may go.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd welcome the debate going there, I think there have been some rather negative, from the perspective of the public, developments in police doctrine for such cases. The objective seems to be minimizing police deaths, rather than total deaths.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I would unreservedly support an Admiral Byng style law for these situations, and I hope it inspires states to seriously reconsider how they provide police services for small towns.

[Sarcastr0]

Rather than requiring police to step into the line of fire, a la the British Navy, I think maybe spend less on the police, limit their mission to more specifically law enforcement, and do better on mental health and domestic violence and the like.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Okay, I give up. What is it that you think the police did wrong here?

[Sarcastr0]

There's going to be an investigation, but I don't know if they broke any rules. We shall see.

Certainly they acted in really bad character, both taking refuge and preventing anyone else from trying anything.

It's almost as though this isn't a problem that can be solved by throwing cops at it.

[Noscitur a sociis]

This problem was solved by throwing cops at it, once they actually started dealing with the problem.

[not guilty]

I thought the mantra was that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. The recent mass shootings give the lie to that nonsense.

[Noscitur a sociis]

May I ask, are you a fucking moron? This killer was himself killed by a good guy with a gun, and by all indications could have been stopped much sooner (possibly before he killed anybody) had an actual good guy gotten there faster.

[not guilty]

Police were on the scene while the shooter was barricaded inside a classroom, killing 21 people before he was confronted.

[ducksalad]

"What I would like to suggest is that move from thinking about laws as solution and rather as statements about guns use."

No, just no. And it doesn't matter whether it's guns or something else.

You put people in jail because they - individually - did something wrong. Not to make a political point (which you call "making a statement").

There's a decent argument to be made for each of the regulations you mention. However, "making a statement" isn't one of the arguments.

Even if you had really good message that might convince somebody of something, still no. But in this case, you don't even have that. "We take guns seriously." That's it? That's your big PSA enforced with jail time? Do you really believe people use guns in crimes because they didn't take the gun seriously?

[M L]

At first I thought, this must be fake. But no:

Barack Obama
@BarackObama
As we grieve the children of Uvalde today, we should take time to recognize that two years have passed since the murder of George Floyd under the knee of a police officer. His killing stays with us all to this day, especially those who loved him.

https://twitter.com/BarackObama/status/1529555038246428672

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Some people can manage multiple concepts simultaneously.

Probably no one you know, though, M L.

[M L]

I'll take one innocent Kindergartener over a thousand violent felon Fentanyl Floyds.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Just as I welcome -- daily -- every new young voter (less conservative, less bigoted, less backward) and don't miss the cranky, old, newly deceased clinger that this new voter replaced in our electorate.

[M L]

Ok, boomer.

[Michael P]

At least he's better than the WashPoo, which briefly claimed Floyd was shot and killed by police.

Layers of editors and fact-checkers, friends, layers of them.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

He’s one of the grossest people alive. Topped only by his husband.

[Estragon]

Oh really? What specifically do you find gross about the former First Lady. Please! Say more!!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Her broad masculine shoulders, her swinging penis, and her hatred of America and White People.

[Estragon]

“Her swinging penis”

Interesting! When did you have the opportunity to view that?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Where have you been, dude?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAg7SiUceNI

[Estragon]

I just love the type of person, (I’m guessing white, male, 50+, of course that’s just a guess) who spends their weekdays on a legal blog posting nuggets of wisdom such as “Michelle Obama has a penis.” I suppose what I’m wondering is… what do you get out of that?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Informing low-information smug morons who agitate and vote against their best interests is fulfilling and rewarding.

[Estragon]

“Michelle Obama has a penis” is rewarding a fulfilling to you? You should get out more

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Informing you that Michelle has a penis is rewarding to me.

You didnt know before.

[Estragon]

I think you meant: “if you don’t know, now you know”

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

BravoCharlieDelta is your target audience, Volokh Conspiracy.

This may be why strong American educational institutions are disinclined to hire movement conservatives (even if faux libertarian) for law school faculty positions.

Tenure will probably protect the right-wingers already positioned at strong law schools, but you guys will always have Liberty, Regent, Ave Maria, and South Texas College Of Law Houston as a backup plan!

Look at the bright side -- maybe someday Prof. Blackman will no longer have to sit alone at the faculty lounge during lunchtime.

[Frank Drackman]

ahh, you prefer the erect motionless dick(s),

[M L]

Someone claimed that for the $40 billion that was sent to Ukraine, we could have spent $300,000 for every public school in the nation to improve security.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Imagine what benefits could have been arranged by stopping churches from freeloading in America!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

At least 50% of the benefit we would get if we got the Federal Class freeloaders off our backs.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I would wager I pay more in taxes than you earn, clinger.

I have been subsidizing downscale Republicans since before I graduated from college.

Other than that, great comment!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Have you ever actually created anything of value? Or just profited off of everyone elses labor and production while on the Federal Class gravy train?

The money you used to pay taxes came from my taxes to begin with.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I have never worked for government (since a summer fixing roads when I was about 14). I also interned at the district attorney's office, but as I tell my children 'it isn't work if you don't get paid'). Have you ever sucked at that government teat as an adult? I don't take you as a guy who would find much success in the private sector.

My clients conclude I create enough value to make my time worth $10 a minute. What is your time worth, clinger? Not in your fever dreams -- what is the market verdict?

I'm starting to think I pay more taxes in a few months than you earn in a year.

[Frank Drackman]

you pay taxes?
you can't be making that much,
Oh, I get it, maybe even 7 figures, Wow! you're Rich!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I'm not Rich. I am Arthur.

You seem to struggle with basic concepts.

[Krayt]

The source of your "freeloading churches" was to prevent true freeloading churches with tax money to support them as national churches.

Why do you want to get rid of that? The People just want their government leaving their religion alone, neither boosting them with tax dollars, nor hurting them. This is their life, and their world.

[Krayt]

Many Bothans died to bring you this freedom.

[Bob from Ohio]

"CNBC Now @CNBCnow
· 1h
First-quarter GDP declined at a 1.5% annual pace, worse than expected. "

Inflation and maybe recession together!

I'm sure its transitory though.

[Sarcastr0]

Just keep hoping, you ghoul.

[Bob from Ohio]

Your buddy is doing a great job, you putz.

[Sarcastr0]

Without commenting on how much actual control a President has over the economy, you should really be less gloating about this.

[Bob from Ohio]

Not gloating, ridiculing those who thought inflation was "transitory" when it was obvious from the beginning it was not.

BTW, did you call Kycheck a "ghoul" for hoping dozens of senators get their kids killed?

[Sarcastr0]

Your 10:59 am seems pretty freaking enthusiastic. But maybe I have you wrong!

I do love that people really want me to turn my wit to the left, but I don't find it fun or needed. Around here, liberals are not lacking folks calling them out.

[Bob from Ohio]

"people really want me to turn my wit to the left"

Wit?

We just want you to be occasionally consistent.

[Sarcastr0]

I never claimed consistency.

I have a lot of liberal folks blocked, actually.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

No he only tone polices those on the right.

[Sarcastr0]

There are not many who are bipartisan in their criticism on here. Noscitur, DMN, bevis (maybe not on energy policy :-).

[tkamenick]

https://www.pcgamer.com/cd-projekt-red-pulls-the-plug-on-real-life-witcher-school/

Major video game developer pulls license to use its name (Witcher) from a LARP school. Why? Because the organizer's wife is a lawyer who did some work for the LARP school and also did some work for a very mainstream legal organization on the right.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" a very mainstream legal organization on the right "

If your point is that superstition-laced, aggressive bigotry is an important part of what is left of right-wing culture, I am inclined to agree.

[M L]

CNN and AP reports that police waited outside the TX school for nearly an hour as terrified parents yelled at police officers to go in, and some even proposed rushing into the school themselves because the police were not acting.

“Go in there! Go in there!” nearby women shouted... the officers did not go in.

Javier Cazares, whose fourth grade daughter, Jacklyn Cazares, was killed in the attack, said he raced to the school when he heard about the shooting, arriving while police were still gathered outside the building.

Upset that police were not moving in, he raised the idea of charging into the school with several other bystanders.

“Let’s just rush in because the cops aren’t doing anything like they are supposed to,” he said. “More could have been done.”

Doesn't seem like a stellar performance. And then, an elite tactical Border Patrol unit happened to be in the area and showed up and took out the shooter. Lucky coincidence or are they stationed there? Must be they closely cooperate with local law enforcement in this region.

[Illocust]

Wait, did the border patrol actually take out the shooter, because that's funny as fuck if true.

[M L]

Yes they did.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" Wait, did the border patrol actually take out the shooter, because that's funny as fuck if true. "

Which part or that is humorous (from the half-educated, bigoted, backwater clinger perspective)?

[Frank Drackman]

That a Border Patrol agent shot an Amurican Citizen (albiet a Mass Murdering one) miles away from the border, while thousands of potential (or already) mass murderers stream across every day, and don't even get a nasty look from the agents.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Yes it’s absolutely true. The BP agent was hit twice while killing the shooter, one in the leg and a graze of his head.

[Illocust]

Damn, give the guy an award, and I'm actually serious about that, it's not his job to rush into an active shooter situation. Good on him for putting his life on the line for other people.

[David Nieporent]

It gets worse; the cops actually sprang into action… against the parents.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/uvalde-residents-voice-frustration-over-shooting-response-11653588161

[M L]

These people are psycho. What is wrong with them?

CNN’s Juliette Kayyem Demands Federal Government Suspend Immigration Enforcement in Uvalde

In the wake of Tuesday’s attack on a Texas elementary school which left 19 children and two adults dead, CNN national security analyst Juliette Kayyem called for the federal government to suspend immigration enforcement in the area of Uvalde, Texas, and turn the small town into a “safe harbor” for illegals residing there.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/05/25/cnns-juliette-kayyem-demands-federal-government-suspend-immigration-enforcement-in-uvalde/

[bevis the lumberjack]

Yeah you wouldn’t want the Border Patrol in Uvalde. It’s not as if a Border Patrol agent was the one that went into the school and stopped the killing while getting himself shot twice. LOL. The media is so far up their own ass politically that they can’t handle reality.

The good news for CNN is that it doesn’t look like they’ve got much to worry about as to the Uvalde cops. Doesn’t look like those guys are too aggressive.

[David Nieporent]

These people are psycho. What is wrong with them?

What is wrong with you? What exactly about what she said do you think was problematic? Do you think the government should be going around this small town that just experienced this mass tragedy, looking for people to deport?

[M L]

Not any more than usual or outside their ordinary course of enforcement.

But to get on TV and demand that the government declare the region a "safe harbor" for illegal immigrations is just activism from from open borders lunatics, which unfortunately routinely gets made into government policy.

[Sarcastr0]

Only if you see everything through a nativist lens do you see this as only a sop for 'open borders lunatics.'

[M L]

It's the same as all of their unhinged leftwing commentary and wild demands on the topic of immigration.

I wouldn't put interests above native-born American citizens over naturalized citizens in any way, so no nativism here.

[Michael P]

Picking a criminal tragedy and claiming it's a reason to stop enforcing unrelated laws (either specific laws or generally) indefinitely pretty much is the definition of lunacy.

[Sarcastr0]

DMN explained how it's related.

You just have a failure in your humanity bits.

[SRG]

This case: Shinn v Martinez-Ramirez

The Supreme Court has made it effectively impossible for some convicts to argue ineffective assistance in Federal court where state laws restrict ineffective claims in state courts.

Thus Sotomayor:
the Court today holds that such a petitioner is...at fault for the ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel in developing the evidence of trial ineffectiveness in state court. The Court instead holds that a petitioner in these circumstances, having received ineffective assistance of trial and postconviction counsel, is barred from developing such evidence in federal court.

[Noscitur a sociis]

This ruling seems both pretty clearly correct, and one that produces the intuitively just results for the individual litigants.

[Jimmy the Dane]

It doesn't stop defendants from making ineffective counsel claims. It does pretty much end the two bites at the apple. You don't get to relitigate your claim in federal court with discovery. I know "federalism" is not all that popular unless it is, but that is consistent with the role of a federal habeus court.

[SRG]

The issue is that in some state courts, in places like Arizona, you don't get those two bites yet the SC ruling says that, in effect, you do.

And more generally, if your counsel is ineffective at trial, and another counsel is ineffective on appeal, it is manifestly unjust to deny an appeal on the basis of ineffectiveness.

This is not about federalism in theory but about the workings of the justice system in practice.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

If Democrat gun policies worked, why aren’t they working?

Oh did anyone see that video of Beto laughing about the shooting then trying to fake cry?

[SRG]

Has Texas implemented the Democrats' gun policies?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

No but the five murder capitals of the world have: Detroit, Chicago, St. Louis, DC, and New Orleans.

[Frank Drackman]

Hmm, seems like there's something those cities have in common, can't quite make it out.....

[Jimmy the Dane]

Don't forget that New York's extreme strict gun policy didn't stop either the upstate shooter or the racially motivated city subway shooter.

[Bob from Ohio]

A random 18 year old with a drill easily defeated the magazine limit law.

[Estragon]

Racially motivated upstate shooter you mean.

[Jimmy the Dane]

No I meant the racially motivated subway shooter who posted video after video about his hateful thoughts on various races, which somehow...... managed to avoid the long arm of FB/oogle/IG censorship for some reason......

[Estragon]

Can both be true?

[M L]

At the World Economic Forum (WEF) event in Davos, the head of the World Food Programme warns, "We will have famines around the world."

"As the world’s elite mulls over various Great Reset policies at the annual World Economic Forum event in Davos, a popular topic of discussion at the globalist event is the world supply of food in the midst of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine."

Meanwhile, Chinese state media continues to propagate conspiracy theories. The Global Times claims that the U.S. is using its "bio-labs" to create insect "bio-weapons" to to cause famines.

"The intentions of the Pentagon are also in question – is it really to save humanity from starvation, or will it, on the contrary, deliberately cause a humanitarian crisis in order to serve some “military aims.”"

https://twitter.com/globaltimesnews/status/1529170370300977152

[Sarcastr0]

Nice Chinese agitprop.

Global Times News is not a source I would recommend.

[M L]

It is a significant fact that Chinese agitprop is spreading these things as part of their hostile operations. The perfect source for showing what Chinese state propaganda media is saying, is . . Chinese state propaganda media. Please tell me you're not this dense.

There is an interesting side note here about Twitter speech policies, too.

The first half of my post was a different topic.

[Sarcastr0]

You should probably post when something is propaganda, lest you be thought a propagandist.

[M L]

Describing the claims of Chinese state media as claims being made by Chinese state media, is the same thing that media outlets like the Washington Post do, ya dolt. Everyone knows what it means.

I said, "Chinese state media continues to propagate conspiracy theories." I doubt you even read my comment.

[Sarcastr0]

Or at least source your quotes.
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2022/05/26/warnings-of-famines-around-the-world-as-world-economic-forum-bigwigs-wrestle-with-global-food-crisis/amp/

Also shitty propaganda.

[M L]

I forgot to include the link on my first item. I can see how that was confusing. My apologies.

No, it isn't propaganda, it just recites factual information. Here's the NYT:

At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, where worries about the war’s consequences have eclipsed almost every other issue, speakers reached for apocalyptic language to describe the threat.

“It’s a perfect storm within a perfect storm,” said David Beasley, the executive director of the World Food Program, a United Nations agency. Calling the situation “absolutely critical,” he warned, “We will have famines around the world.”

[M L]

“The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.”

― Vladimir Lenin

Lenin would be smiling on the United States today as our government follows his communist roadmap.

[David Nieporent]

Obviously fake quote is fake.

[M L]

No way goodreads.com would lie to me.

Looks like this originated with John Maynard Keynes paraphrasing something he claimed that Lenin said when he interviewed him.

[Sarcastr0]

Somehow I don't think you were trolling goodreads for Lenin quotes.

Dunno where you got it, but you need better sources.

[M L]

FB post I think, then googled and goodreads (and lots of others) is what came up.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Do you think it was a Democrat linked to Beto who ordered those police to stand down and wait for an hour outside that school?

To help setup his stunt?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Apparently, science has discovered that women's sports doesn't exist to give women a space to compete fairly, but to protect men from being threatened by women. If true, we should abolish women's sports immediately and allow men to sink or swim based on merit.

[M L]

Follow the Science.

[Sarcastr0]

Well. https://twitter.com/realscientists is pretty silly.

Her choice of sports, janky switching between metrics of success (soccer is good because it brings in crowds?), and leaning on anecdotes, all show some outcome-oriented reasoning at work.

Though the baseline idea of women who want to being able to compete in men's sports is worth some thought, womens' sports are popular among many who are not tools of the patriarchy.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

womens' sports are popular among many who are not tools of the patriarchy.

The evidence is that the popularity...or lack thereof...of a given womens' sport has diddly to do with any alleged "patriarchy" on the part of sports fans, and is dictated primarily by the quality of the competition...no matter how many virtue-signaling points you're so pathetically trying to score here. Women's gymnastics is enormously popular with Olympic audiences. And the Williams sisters' names aren't household words for nothing (ditto the many world-famous female tennis players who preceded their current time in that spotlight). There are many other examples as well.

Your nonsense is much like the whining about those who dislike the agenda-driven stupidity from Hollywood in the form of no-talent trap like Bree Larson's "Captain Marvel", the "you go, girl!" version of Star Wars, etc, with such fans being branded as "misogynists" and other similar worst-thing-you-can-possibly-be labels. The problem being that such complaints completely discount the possibility that people don't like those entertainment products because they're low-quality crap, and ignore all evidence to the contrary...for instance the enormous popularity with these same fans of "strong female" action characters like Sigourney Weaver's "Ripley" from the Aliens franchise, "Carol" from The Walking Dead and many other well-written and acted roles about women who possessed and demonstrated enormous strength of character.

No, the low popularity of the WNBA (compared with the NBA) isn't because the fans are a bunch of women-hating/fearing "tools of the patriarchy". It's because the women simply aren't even remotely on the same level athletically as their male counterparts.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

https://www.uvaldeleadernews.com/articles/juveniles-detained/

From 2018.

“ Two Morales Junior High students are in custody at a juvenile detention facility in Del Rio after the pair allegedly made plans to carry out a school shooting in 2022, which would be their senior year at Uvalde High School.”

This is looking more another Fed Special.

[Sarcastr0]

It's telling how many have to go into deep conspiracy-land rather than have to deal with this shit.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Like when "gun walking" was a so-called "conspiracy"....?

[Noscitur a sociis]

What do you think happened in Uvalde, and how do you think the federal government was involved?

[Estragon]

What’s a “fed special”?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

oh you know things like the fednapping of Gov Whitmer and the fedsurrection of Jan 6th

[Estragon]

This kid was entrapped by the FBI into shooting up a school? That’s what you’re saying?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

For a poor kid he sure had some nice gear, electronics, and a sweet truck.

[Estragon]

Ok huckleberry

[Frank Drackman]

I thought the same thing, heck, at 18 I had a 78' Ford LTD and a Marlin 22 rifle (held some 20+ Long Rifle rounds in its totally tubular magazine, was it an "Assault Rifle??" (still have it, shoots great)
Oh, and's not killed anyone except for some rats (Animal variety)

[bernard11]

Haven't you heard? Uvalde was just a bunch of crisis actors sent in by George Soros.

[Estragon]

People should check in with Alex Jones and see how things are going with him before going with the “crisis actors” angle here. Free legal advice.

[Michael P]

Did you also claim that the Whitmer kidnapping got "crisis actor" responses? Or was that a legit "Fed Special"?

[Sarcastr0]

It's neither.

But quit throwing chaff - do you think the shooter here was manipulated by the FBI?

[Frank Drackman]

Hmm, take Governor Whitmer hostage, or 20 years in ADX Florence????
I'd take the Supermax, that Robert Hanssen's gotta have some good stories.

[M L]

It seems that the TX shooter's social media and online presence was scrubbed off the Internet very quickly.

[Jimmy the Dane]

The Dems are making themselves an absolute laughing stock of the country with their response to the latest public shooting. They look like nothing more than blood thirsty opportunists that have the secret hope that kids are murdered so they can forward their political agenda.

This is blatantly evident in their response. First it was "white supremacist!!!!!" without any evidence. Then when pictures and the name of the shooter came out it was "gun control!!!!!!!!" But they are getting lazy in that the articles alleging "white supremacist!!!!!" were still floating around even 24 hours after. But the answer was obviously "gun control will save us all!!!!!!!" even though we didn't know what guns were used, any other details, or even if the guns were legally acquired.

Then you have Beta, who is irrelevant to everyone except himself, choosing to virtue signal through a sick publicity stunt in crashing a press conference.

Dems are nothing but jokes. They do not care about kids. In fact, they hate babies in that they advocate for them to be openly and legally murdered. All they want to do is grab your guns and will use any excuse to do so.

[Joe_dallas]

Jimmy the Dane
May.26.2022 at 1:14 pm
"Then you have Beta, who is irrelevant to everyone except himself, choosing to virtue signal through a sick publicity stunt in crashing a press conference."

Unfortunately , his core voter group will treat his behavior as a sign of strength - truth to power

[BravoCharlieDelta]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YP8PhdOMO_E&t=3s

Beto laughing at the tragedy. Sickening,

[Frank Drackman]

and another guy lucky enough to have hair with a stupid haircut (not Political, President Trump would look better with a Medium Skin Fade),

[David Nieporent]

This is blatantly evident in their response. First it was "white supremacist!!!!!" without any evidence.

I think you're confused. First it was transgender illegal alien without any evidence. That was by Republicans, though.

[Estragon]

Whatever David, it FEELS true

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

At the practical level, gun nuts need to arrange a way to stop or diminish the carnage that is consistent with their beliefs and preferences . . . or other Americans will perform that task for them, likely disregarding the clingers' preferences.

Either way will be fine with me. I hope a right to possess a reasonable firearm for self-defense in the home survives the modern mainstream backlash against gun absolutism, but if that right is a casualty the gun nuts will have only themselves to blame.

Carry on, clingers. So far as your betters permit; not a step beyond.

[John F. Carr]

Yesterday I noticed something was missing in all the reaction to the school shooting. I didn't see any attacks on the shooter's race or ethnicity. Usually I'll get an email blaming a shooting on racism or white supremacy or men. None of that. Only one from a local politician saying originalists are baby killers. (I responded to her hateful rant suggesting we should repeal the First Amendment instead of the Second.)

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"(I responded to her hateful rant suggesting we should repeal the First Amendment instead of the Second.)"

How you spend the time until you are replaced is your call, John F. Carr.

Except that, until you are replaced, you will continue to comply with the preferences of your betters. Thank you for your continuing compliance.

(Yet get to whine about it as much as you like, of course.)

[Jimmy the Dane]

Don't worry AOC did not disappoint. The shooting is apparently also because men are bad. Guns = bad. Men = bad.

This is why the democrat party is a joke.

[M L]

Psychiatric Drugs and Violence: A Review of FDA Data Finds A Link

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mad-in-america/201101/psychiatric-drugs-and-violence-review-fda-data-finds-link

At least 37 school shootings and/or school-related acts of violence have been committed by those taking or withdrawing from psychiatric drugs resulting in 175 wounded and 82 killed (in other school shootings, information about their drug use was never made public—neither confirming or refuting if they were under the influence of prescribed drugs).

27 International drug regulatory warnings cite violence, mania, hostility, aggression, psychosis and even homicidal ideation.

https://www.cchrint.org/2012/07/20/the-aurora-colorado-tragedy-another-senseless-shooting-another-psychotropic-drug/

[bevis the lumberjack]

Aaaaaaaand here come the bullshit stats. There have been 27 school shootings this year. Or 37. Or some other number but whatever it is it’s a WHOLE LOT.

These counts are biased as hell and do things like count 2am gang shootings that happen to occur on school grounds as “school shootings”.

Our pathetic media is so hung up on bullshit narratives and their agenda that we can’t even have a factual discussion on things like this. Why even try to pay attention? There are no real facts to be had.

[Jimmy the Dane]

This one is getting attention because 1) It is in Texas and 2) It is a few days before the NRA convention. Funny how the media ALWAYS seems to highlight a shooting right before the NRA convention. It is like it is on their programming calendar to find something to hype up.

Go to the bad part of any city on a Saturday night and this is business as usual (and hardly white supremacists shooting up the place either....)

[David Nieporent]

This one is getting attention because 19 elementary schoolers were killed, you asshole.

[Jimmy the Dane]

The inner city kids killed in Chicago, Philadelphia, New York City, New Orleans, etc. etc. (all run by dems by the way) do not seem to get the same attention despite the fact that is an almost weekly occurrence.....you asshole....

[Sarcastr0]

Are you a human being? Do you not understand how a single act killing 19 kids hits a lot harder than if they were killed over a couple of months all across a city?!

[Frank Drackman]

I am a human being, I do understand why nobody cares about the hundreds of Afro-Amuricans killed in Chicago, and I'd tell you but then I'd have to kill you.

[Jimmy the Dane]

I know you don't care about inner city black kids, but that happens in any given WEEKEND in many of those cities. Not over months....gees....holy shit, wake up a bit and get out of your echo chamber.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, that's it, Jimmy. That's exactly what I said when I was explaining how emotional reactions work to you.

Jesus.

[Jimmy the Dane]

You having no emotional reaction to kids of color getting killed in inner city shootings is pretty telling....

Those kids are not good enough to even be political props for you.

[Sarcastr0]

Do you...have emotions at all? Or are they just weapons to you?

[Jimmy the Dane]

Yeah I read a story about an illegal alien that was drunk driving in my town and killed a pregnant mother in a collision. Therefore, we because I feel bad about the tragedy we should start a national movement to remove all illegal immigrants and crack down on their ability to obtain a driver's license. Is that how it works or does the hand wringing being a legitimate argument for broad public policy on work on guns?

[Sarcastr0]

So just a weapon to you.

What a cold, small world you live in.

[Estragon]

I would love to see something to back up this claim of 19 children under the age of 12 shot in a single weekend. Any city, any time frame.

Or is this another one of those stats that just FEELS true to you? Kinda like very fine people, allowed in, just taking pictures, right?

[Jimmy the Dane]

Oh so you want "proof" just because it is dead black kids so you don't believe me. Well isn't that your fancy white privilege.

[Estragon]

Sooooo, you got nothing? Shocking. How do YOU define gaslighting again?

[Jimmy the Dane]

I'm sure you know how to work the internet. Go and do a basic search for inner city shootings. The data might actually shock you.

[David Nieporent]

Jimmy, of course, is full of his usual shit. No, 19 elementary school students are not killed in any given weekend in any of those cities.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Look I get it you don't care about inner city black kids, but you don't need to keep on posting about it. If you can't work the internet and do simple searches, me telling you how to do it isn't going to help.

It is an easily verifiable fact that this is a weekly occurrence in many cities. The only difference is those kids don't make as good of political props.

[Estragon]

Ok huckleberry

[StellaLink_the dog]

According to the CDC, about 55 - 60 children under 19 die as a result of gunshot homicide in the US each week. That's a lot. States with the highest firearms death rates for children:

Louisiana
Alaska
Mississippi
South Carolina
Arkansas
Kansas
Indiana
Kentucky
Missouri
Alabama

[David Nieporent]

First, "children under 19" isn't even a thing; 18 year olds are adults. Second, most of those "under 19" are in the 16, 17, 18 range, not 10 year olds. Not that it's good for anyone to be shot, but these are mostly mutual gang shootings, not (thank god) elementary school students being mass murdered.

And, just to be clear, Jimmy continues to be full of shit.

[StellaLink_the dog]

CDC calls them children.

Jimmy is full of shit (my major point).

That's a lot of dead young people and the death rates are highest in red states, not MI, PA, IL. States with lax gun laws.

[Jimmy the Dane]

That is some fancy dancing there Dave. Where did you learn that two step? The data is readily available any time you want to step outside that echo chamber. But obviously you don't care because it is black kids that you can't use as political props. You couldn't be making that any clearer.

[Brett Bellmore]

"CDC calls them children."

Newsflash: The CDC lies a lot. They're calling people old enough to vote or join the Army "children". That's just straight up lying.

[Sarcastr0]

They're calling people old enough to vote or join the Army "children". That's just straight up lying.

That's the legal status of someone under 18.

It's not lying, it's standardized terminology, Brett. Has been for a very long time, actually.
Not everything is a conspiracy.

[StellaLink_the dog]

"Newsflash: The CDC lies a lot. They're calling people old enough to vote or join the Army "children". That's just straight up lying."

Jesus Christ on a fucking pogo stick. You are complaining because the CDC considers anyone under 19 to be a child. BFD. It doesn't make any difference to the question at hand which is the veracity of Danny the Gym's claim that there are cities in the US where 19 legal infants are murdered every week. The answer to that question is that Danny is full of shit.

[StellaLink_the dog]

"But obviously you don't care because it is black kids that you can't use as political props."

Said by a known mental defective as he uses dead black kids as political props.

[bevis the lumberjack]

See? Y’all just made my point. Everything breaks down in to partisan misinformation and crap. The actual kids that were killed are lost in the noise because there is political advantage to be gained. We are an embarrassment.

[Hugh]

Professor Volokh, David Kopel, and other conspirators who take a "maximalist" view of 2nd amendment rights despite the fact that Justice Scalia specifically allowed for reasonable gun regulations in Heller: given that any plausible statistical interpretation of the evidence shows that thousands of Americans, including 19 children in Uvalde, die as a result of our lack of sensible gun laws (such as limiting purchases to persons 21 years and older), does your provision of debatable legal arguments to support a maximalist position on gun rights mean that you have blood on your hands?

[Ben_]

No. Guilt for acts is restricted to the individuals who commit those acts.

We could prevent a lot of murders and other crimes by getting rid of the 6th Amendment right to an attorney. But let’s not do that.

We should preserve rights and obey the constitution even if Hugh or some other jerk makes dishonest emotional arguments. There’s a constitutional amendment process if someone thinks they can convince people to agree to changes.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Getting serious about illegals would also reduce violent crime. Not giving them drivers licenses would also reduce roadway collisions and deaths. But, the next time Mr. Al Eagle drives drunk into an innocent person we never see the same level of hand wringing about that....

[David Nieporent]

Not giving them drivers licenses would also reduce roadway collisions and deaths.

I wasn't aware that drivers licenses cause car crashes.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Giving people who can't read or speak English which just happens to be what all traffic signs use as their only language permission to engage in an activity is most likely going to increase the number of people doing so. Or is basic logic just not your thing? If so, let me find one example of an illegal killing someone in an auto crash and then proceed to yell and scream really loudly about it. That you should understand.

[Frank Drackman]

Oooh, what a burn!!! (not being sarcastic, you just really gave that David Never-potent "Wat' Fur'")
Effin Idiot probably believes "Assault Rifles" (unless it's 1: Selective Fire and 2: Shoots a "Medium Powered " round, i.e. 5.56x45, can't remember the Roosh-un(HT Bernie S) equivalent, 7.62 x 39 it's not an "Assault Rifle")
and I'll buy a Beer for anyone who knows the Make/Model/Caliber of the Not-an-Assault Rifle James Earl Ray shot (Dr.) MLK Jr. with.... (yes, he really did it, it wasn't "Raoul")

Frank "Gun Nut"

[Estragon]

As a self proclaimed “gun nut” do you believe that the AR-15 is the “rod of iron” referenced in psalms 2:9 and the book of revelation? Asking for a gubernatorial candidate friend of mine

[Frank Drackman]

Oh you mean #34?? (if you ask that in Jaw-Jaw you'll hear "You ain't from around here, are ya (boy, not racial, I get it all the time, and I've lived there 25 years, but got the Yankee accent(HT Military brat) )
And #34 can start speaking in Effing Tongues (google that shi*), as a (1/2) Jew, I'd vote for Kanye over that Sum-Bitch (what Governor Abbot meant to say) Rafael (there's another Senator with that name, know who it is?)
War-lock, lets see, I'll go Rodney Dangerfield mode,

"You look up "Anti-Semite" in the Dictionary you say Rafael War-lock's picture!"
Louis Farrakhan said "lets take a Selfie" Senator War-lock said "Great!!"
"Senator War-lock has been labeled an anti-Semite after his Palm Sunday sermon from 2016 came to light. In the sermon, Warnock compared Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to George Wallace, a segregationist and former governor of Alabama. "
Where I come from, (Atlanta) "Bibi" is right up there with Ronaldus Maximus and Dale Earnhardt,

So yeah, I'll be voting for #34 (only once, as far as anyone knows)
I'd call you something, but I won't, it rhymes with K-hole,

Frank

[Estragon]

Thanks for this one, I’m going to need a few hours to parse. More substantive than the usual reply. Very good, Frank — if that IS your real name

[Sarcastr0]

Basic logic based on speculation and stereotypes.

You want to target illegal immigrants. And also, when pressed, immigrants. And so you're rationalizing based on no stats or understanding of the population of illegals that drive. Heck, you didn't even check if this would act to discourage driving.

Cruelty is all you want.

[Frank Drackman]

Umm, don't say "Target" in today's world, gets all M!ssundaztood (HT Pink)

[Jimmy the Dane]

That is a lot of gaslighting.....

[Sarcastr0]

You make up stuff and call it logic, and I call you on your unsupported speculation, that's not gaslighting, it's critical thinking.

[Jimmy the Dane]

No its gaslighting. That is all you do.

[Sarcastr0]

No, it's just that being asked for support beyond A) Random twitter accounts, 2) counterfactuals and 3) speculation is like your kryptonite.

[Brett Bellmore]

Why wouldn't someone want to target illegal aliens? You might as well complain that somebody wants to target prison escapees.

Damn straight we want to target them.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, Brett, we're not going to deport them all, right now.

You're tilting at windmills.

[David Nieporent]

1) Actually, traffic signs use internationally established symbols, shapes, and colors, not just English.
2) Street signs are in English, but as long as one comes from a country that uses the Roman alphabet, one can read street names even if one doesn't speak English.
3) Obviously most illegal immigrants are not Shakespeare scholars, but most of them can speak a little bit of English. And it doesn't take a lot to be able to drive.

4) All of the above is a red herring anyway. You complained about states giving illegal immigrants drivers' licenses. Do you understand that these illegal immigrants have to pass a driving test, just like citizens and legal immigrants do, in order to get the license? So why would giving someone who passed their test a license make crashes more likely?

5) If states don't give them licenses, do you think that they won't drive? I mean, we're talking about someone who may have snuck across a border, may have forged papers in order to live and work, and you think that this person is going to say, "Oh, no, I don't have a valid driver's license so I will conform to the law by not driving"?

[Brett Bellmore]

On the same theory, it's OK to give an escaped fugitive a driver's license: They have to pass the test, and you think they're not going to drive if you don't?

The reason you don't give an illegal alien a driver's license is the same reason you don't give a fugitive one: Once you've determined that somebody is an illegal alien, the only proper response is deporting them. NOT facilitating their illegal presence!

[Sarcastr0]

Wait, so under this scenario you've identified someone as an illegal? Because that's rather changing the fact pattern.

[David Nieporent]

On the same theory, it's OK to give an escaped fugitive a driver's license: They have to pass the test, and you think they're not going to drive if you don't?

You're very bad at logic and reading. I didn't say anything about what's "OK to" do. What I said was that licensing illegal aliens does not make car crashes more likely. Similarly, licensing escaped fugitives does not make car crashes more likely.

[Gandydancer]

"What I said was that licensing illegal aliens does not make car crashes more likely."

It does if they're more likely to be dangerous behind the wheel.

Maybe illegal immigrants (particularly from Mexico) AREN'T more likely to drive drunk, but your assertion is that the stereotype isn't true. Where's your data?

[David Nieporent]

I have to have data to disprove something you just made up?

Also, that's not even the right question, statistically: the right question is whether illegal immigrants with driver's licenses are more likely to drive drunk than illegal immigrants without them.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

given that any plausible statistical interpretation of the evidence

And by "plausible" you mean "satisfies my confirmation bias".

shows that thousands of Americans, including 19 children in Uvalde, die as a result of our lack of sensible gun laws (such as limiting purchases to persons 21 years and older)

That certainly stopped Adam Lanza, didn't it?

[Jimmy the Dane]

"Let me make a bunch of assertions here supported by absolutely nothing, but hey let's use the bodies of these 19 kids over here as a political prop because my agenda has become stalled and stale and needs a kickstart...."

[Frank Drackman]

Hey (man!) just heard Ray Liotta died, Sleepy always reminds me of "Spider" in "Goodfellas" with his S-S-S-S-S-tutter....
Actually, does Sleepy ever really Stutter??? (I think it's more Expressive Aphasia) I think he stole it from "Spider" just like he stole Neil Kinook's speech, (yeah, Amurican Mine Workers really enjoy a relaxing game of Tackle Football after working in the mines all day (kicking a Soccer ball around I could believe, which is what Kinook was referring to)

Frank "Did I stutter?"

[Noscitur a sociis]

Can you give an example of a proposed (or actual) gun regulation from the last 20 years that you don't think was "sensible" or "reasonable"?

[Brett Bellmore]

"Reasonable" gun regulations are reasonable in the same way separate but "equal" is equal. You didn't demand separate if you wanted equal, and you don't demand gun regulations if you want reasonable.

[Sarcastr0]

That's kinda crazy, Brett. NOTHING is reasonable? You do see how that appears...unreasonable, no?

We have a ban on machine guns, is that unreasonable?

[Ben_]

"Reasonable" is never followed up by actual reasoning. Like most leftist slogans, it mostly means shut up and obey.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Brett put it in a characteristically stupid way, but in my experience "reasonable", "sensible", and the like are rhetorical flourishes designed to make hoplophobes seem more moderate than they actually are.

I'd be interested to hear your answer to the same question, if you'd care the answer.

[Sarcastr0]

That seems less substantive than Brett's usual concerns, but of course calling something reasonable may not mean it's reasonable.

As to the substantive question, I like registration, and I think the restrictions we currently have across the nation are generally pretty reasonable, with some notable exceptions usually on the too restrictive side.

[Ben_]

Also, no one ever used the "reasonable" slogan to justify anything about machine guns.

"Reasonable" is reserved for other hand-wavy stuff, mostly by people who are totally ignorant and think of gun owners as people who are not like us (and therefore fair game for whatever government wants to do about the other).

[Estragon]

Don’t worry everyone: Ted Cruz has hit upon the solution. More guns, less doors! The Uvalde fire code inspector could not be reached for comment.

[Frank Drackman]

Well at least 1 gun inside the school may have been useful .

[Sarcastr0]

Cruz is not having a good day.

Ted Cruz just stormed out of an interview after a British reporter asked him why these school shootings only happen in America: “I’m sorry you think American exceptionalism is awful... People come from all over the world to America because it’s the safest country on Earth.”

[Frank Drackman]

Apparently the British have short memories.....

The 2011 Norway attacks, referred to in Norway as 22 July (Norwegian: 22. juli)[13] or as 22/7,[14] were two domestic terrorist attacks by Anders Behring Breivik against the government, the civilian population, and a Workers' Youth League (AUF) summer camp, in which 77 people were killed.

OK, it wasn't a "School" sure as Eff wasn't in the US of A

[Jimmy the Dane]

Maybe he should ask why 10,000 people seem to die in every heat wave in Western Europe? Maybe Europe should ban heat waves.

[Frank Drackman]

It's the lack of Melanin, Europeans aren't cut out to pick cotton (no Racism, when's the last time you saw one (or anyone) picking cotton")
And how many Afro-Amuricans get Melanoma ( some, and there's a particularly virulent version where the cells just decide to stop making Melanin altogether ("Amelanotic melanoma") which is actually easier to diagnose in an Afro-Amurican, of course if you get that type, just prove that Jay-Hay doesn't like you,

Frank "not a Dermatologist (didn't have the grades)"

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Don't disparage Ted Cruz -- not even for responding to someone attacking his wife by affixing his lips to that guy's buttocks -- around here.

Prof. Volokh thinks Ted Cruz is just dreamy.

(The Cruz children must be so confused about how a man is supposed to act when someone attacks their Mommy. Let's hope they overcome that level of parenting.)

[Ben_]

Good to hear Cruz is calling out anti-American bigots.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Everyone - all the politicians just need to STFU. This isn’t the time for their bullshit, and they’re not really trying to fix anything anyway. They’re trying to fire up voters. So they can win and spend another couple of years trying to fire up voters instead of seriously trying to improve anything. And maybe if they win a big enough majority they can spend the next couple of years screwing the other side to avoid the hard work of seriously trying to improve stuff.

And meanwhile the partisans scream their approval

This is both terminally stupid and horribly revolting.

[Bob from Ohio]

"The Uvalde fire code inspector could not be reached for comment."

Doors in public buildings have "panic bars" so they can always be opened even if locked. Either you were born yesterday or are being dishonest.

Cruz didn't leave an unlocked door so the killer could walk right in. Somebody at the school did.

[Frank Drackman]

Not born yesterday, or dishonest (generally)
didn't know about "Panic Bars" but again, I try to avoid Pubic Buildings whenever possible,
Hmm, unlocked door? wasn't that what lead to the Watergate "Scandal" ( A political party spying on it's opposition?? Mercy!!!!)
actually when the (Ex CIA, says alot) burglars re-taped the door, thinking a rent-a-cop Security guard would blame it on the Janitors (probably Ill-legals, even in 1972)

Frank

[Estragon]

Oh thanks for that pointer Bob, I hadn’t been in a building since 1932.

[Frank Drackman]

A little early, but Anders Breivik is scheduled for release in 2033, might want to have him do a background check first.

[Frank Drackman]

Over/Under on when the Marxist Stream Media claims the Murderer (how about not releasing the names? you think Lee Harvey shot JFK because of Cuber? he knew it'd make him immortal(historically at least)
used a "Ghost Gun"
because you know, to "Buy an "Assault-Style(they are stylish, part of their appeal) Rifle on his 18th Birthday) he had to pass ummm,
a "Background Check"

Frank

[questioner7]

Quebec just passed a law forcing residents to use French in many situations -- even in doctor-patient conversations where both parties speak English better. Would such a law be unconstitutional in the U.S.? If yes, why exactly?

[Frank Drackman]

Umm, probably, seeing as how fewer than "The latest U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey reports that 1,301,443 people in the U.S. speak French at home. This includes speakers of French dialects, such as Patois and Cajun, who are over 5 years old. In fact, French is the fifth most common non-English language spoken in U.S. households, after Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese, and Tagalog."

1.3 million, what's that, 0.3% of the Population,

I'm a skilled bilingual Physician, but I'd be limited to "Merci'" "Au' Revo'ir" and "Merd'e'"
I can deal with umlauts, but never know when a "'" is appropriate,

Frank

[David Nieporent]

Would such a law be unconstitutional in the U.S.? If yes, why exactly?

Because the 1A does not allow the government to tell us how to communicate with each other?

[Jimmy the Dane]

The media seems to be leaving out that the school was already a "gun free zone". So the shooter should have known this and just not gone inside, right? Or perhaps making things "super special gun free zones" will make evil killers more likely to not bring in their guns, right?

[Frank Drackman]

and not sure, but pretty sure First Degree Murder is a Crime in Te-Jas, (just accepting it's eventual re-unification with May-he-co), heard rumours that peoples have even been executed there.....

[BrotherMovesOn]

Never mind 'that'. We all know your 'position' on 'that'.
Comedy Gold results from your extensively developed critiques of 'On the Origin of Species'. You started to elaborate a month or two ago, but that foray was never satisfactorily consummated. Truly to be more entertaining than your usual.
C'mon man!

[Jimmy the Dane]

You mean evolution is just a theory and one that is not all that sound in basis of fact, logic, or science? Everyone understands that except for you I guess. (Hint - next time people around you are laughing it is probably AT you and not with you.)

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" You mean evolution is just a theory and one that is not all that sound in basis of fact, logic, or science? "

If I operated a blog that cultivated this type of follower, I would feel shame and consider whether it were appropriate to continue staining the reputation of my employer with this downscale, partisan, bigoted, ignorant rubbish.

I guess the Volokh Conspirators see it differently.

[Gandydancer]

EV lets you continue to post your repetitive trash, so he's obviously not consumed by concern about being contaminated by his toleration of idiocy here.

[Aunt Teefah]

Apparently the Uvalde police, as they were tasing parents attempting to enter the school to save their kids, actually did enter the school: to retrieve their *own* kids only, and no one else. https://twitter.com/SawyerHackett/status/1529808809719480320. Police culture in this country is rotten to the core.

[M L]

It's bad, but no different than the culture at large. What are you doing to improve this in the municipality where you live?

[Sarcastr0]

I'm above saying I don't know if the police broke doctrine, but this is fucking nuts.

Dude, the police do have some stuff they're responsible for above and beyond the 'culture at large.'

It may be legal, but this, you do not need to defend.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I’d seen this before. If it’s true, heads should roll. A whole lot of them.

Interesting to see how any official tries to defend this. A DPS spokesman doing a press conference earlier today and he sprained his back dodging the question.

[M L]

I'm above saying the police did a terrible job. No defending it here.

But here we have "Aunt Teefah" -- who is a self-described communist, if I recall correctly -- condemning not these officers and their actions, nor this police department, but rather "police culture in this country." He claims that police culture nationwide is "rotten to the core." That's nonsense BLM/Antifa propaganda, but it's in keeping with those agendas, which involve the horrific objective of nationalizing control of police forces.

But to the extent there is a culture problem with a particular police force, it is a reflection on the community. So I ask again, what is Aunt Teefah doing in his community to improve things such as police culture? Hopefully something better than throwing bricks through windows and beating Trump voters to a bloody pulp like his comrades.

[Aunt Teefah]

We love our ad hominem logical fallacies, don’t we folks? I’m at a loss to see how my personal contribution to policing in my hometown has anything whatsoever to do with the assertion made.

But if you must know, I’ve represented a number of victims of police abuses in civil lawsuits against officers and departments, some on a pro bono basis. I’ve contributed to bail funds. I’ve written to local politicians to try to convince them (naively and unsuccessfully, obviously) to divert funding from the latest useless police tacti-cool gear and into public services instead. Admittedly, like most, could certainly do more.

Now, how about you share with the class what *your* contributions have been (other than being an internet badge bunny). Maybe the local force could save money on its boot-polishing expenses by just having you deep-throat them for free instead?

[M L]

Well as far as the assertion made, I don't agree that "police culture in this country is rotten to the core." Most cops are good guys who want to do the right thing. But it does seem like there is an upward trend in cowardice, political correctness being put over functionality and truth, selfishness, greed, laziness, and an attitude of CYA rather than bravery and self-sacrifice. Very bad for police work but it's not unique to them.

But that's kind of a subjective thing to argue about. Which is why rather than ad hominem, I was curious whether you do anything about it or just make edgy and cool complaints online. For me, your sweeping comment about police "in this country" sounds like slacktivism and immediately brings to mind the nefarious agenda to incrementally nationalize police forces, which fits perfectly with the tendency for mindless calls that "someone do something" and the ignorant focus on national politics that are totally dysfunctional and only enable tyranny and make things worse. So, good for your for doing something real and local.

[Frank Drackman]

Don't taze me Hermano!
and this is totally out of left field, (I'm a lefty, always in left/right/center field, pitching, or first base)
but how about "contracting" with the Mexican Gangs to provide "Security" for States with significant immigrant populations (Ok, every state except maybe the upper midwest/new england/alaska)
The Drugs/Whores/Workers are coming in anyway, but maybe stops the school shootings? If I was a Psychopathic Killer I'd pick a "softer" target than one guarded by the Juarez Cartel

[Bob from Ohio]

I'm as guilty as anyone here but we argued about the Texas massacre based on totally wrong "facts". Gotta learn that we (I) need to wait at least 24 hours, that first reports are always wrong.

No confrontation with an armed guard and entry thru an unlocked unsecured door. Apparently, though this report could be wrong too.

If true, just layers of incompetence again, like Parkland.

[Frank Drackman]

San Francisco PD Inspector H. Callahan would have taken the kid out with 5 (or was it 6?) shots from his S&W Model 29 44 Magnum (although in "Magnum Force" he said he fired 44 Special Rounds, actually pretty realistic, as the Magnum round is too powerful for rapid double action fire, but the large mass of the Model 29 (40+ Oz if I remember correctly) makes the 44 Special very easy to shoot,
So sad, the demise of the Revolver in LE use, (Ok, I'd still prefer the Remington 870 12g with 00Buck) .357 will defeat most body armor, but if you're a decent shot, go for the Medulla Oblongata, or the Neck,
Or in a pinch, the foot, treated a few 30:06 wounds to the foot (Hunters, can't figure out the safety, or descending from a Tree Stand) you won't be shooting many kids with a foot reduced to goo (HT G.S. Patton)

Frank "Ballistics Afficianado"

[Jimmy the Dane]

BLAME GUNS!!!!

INSERT HAND WRINGING OVER GUNS!!!!!

MAKE BROAD SWEEPING STATEMENTS THAT GUN CONTROL WOULD HAVE PREVENTED THIS PROBLEM BEFORE WE KNOW WHAT HAPPENED!!!!

This is why the left is nothing but a joke. They "decided" the solution before even knowing what the problem could have been. They are using the bodies of children as a political prop. And worst of they think they are being cute about doing it too. Demonstrates the depravity and mental illness of the left quit well.

[John F. Carr]

And police waited outside for periods variously stated as 40 minutes or an hour, preventing anybody from going in to help.

[Jimmy the Dane]

But we should ban guns and only those who have been trained and enforce laws should have guns, right? They will need those guns to stop others from rushing in to try to save their children so that the crazies can be given enough time to murder everyone.

[not guilty]

A bill to authorize federal courts to issue “extreme risk protection orders” — which temporarily confiscate guns from people who are deemed a risk to themselves or others, or prevent them from purchasing new ones -- has passed the House Judiciary Committee. With no Republican votes. https://www.politico.com/minutes/congress/05-25-2022/houses-next-gun-push/

[Gandydancer]

"temporarily"

"are deemed"

[not guilty]

The National Rifle Association is meeting this weekend in Houston. That organization exists to promote firearm sales and usage, including the fatal misuse of instruments of death. Republican politicians, such as Donald Trump and Greg Abbott, are nevertheless in thrall to the NRA. It would be a meaningful gesture in the wake of the Texas and Buffalo mass murders for politicians to boycott the NRA convention.

Who was the last Republican to stand up to the NRA? Was it George H. W. Bush in 1995?

[Brett Bellmore]

"That organization exists to promote firearm sales and usage, including the fatal misuse of instruments of death."

In much the same way the ACLU exists to promote snuff films and ransom notes, I guess.

[Jimmy the Dane]

And defends child molesters and murderers.....

[Gandydancer]

"The National Rifle Association... exists to promote... the fatal misuse of instruments of death."

You are a loon.

[AtR]

How can GDPR apply to US individuals or companies (who have no business with the EU), when it was legislated by the EU?

[Gandydancer]

Why do you think it does?

[F.D. Wolf]

In 2019, the Illinois Assembly doubled the gasoline tax from 19 cents to 38 cents per gallon and indexed annual increases to inflation. (The gas tax is on top of the general sales tax that also applies to gasoline.) In its magnanimity and compassion for the suffering citizenry, the Assembly suspended the 2.2 cent increase scheduled to take effect in July of this year until the beginning of next year.

To make sure everyone knew about this, the Assembly requires gas stations to post "clearly visible" signs at least 4x8 inches in size that read, “As of July 1, 2022, the State of Illinois has suspended the inflation adjustment to the motor fuel tax through December 31, 2022.” Failure to post a sign subjects a station owner to a possible $500 fine.

We're temporarily suspending for six months a small portion of the onerous burden we place upon you in the first place three years ago, You're welcome, peasants.

Anyway, some gas stations are suing, claiming the sign requirements are government-compelled speech in violation of their First Amendment rights. Frankly, this doesn't even seem a close case, as the sole purpose of the signs seems to be to convey the message, "Look at what a great job your government is doing for you!"

[Frank Drackman]

Well the solutions obvious, buy a Tesla,
Jeez, the common people are so stupid.

Pete Booty-Judge, "learned to speak Norwegian just to pick up a Norwegian Guy"