Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
"Use both hands."
Laws that target the tools is not going to be effective. Laws that better vet the people will. The laws that require better background checks and better mental healthcare are the way to go.
Obama's message of "self-reflection" needs to be heeded when we talk about our personal responsibility, rather than trying to nanny-state our way through the situation. Our children need to be taught better, parents need to be parents. Parading children in front of you to try and make a point is going to be meaningless when those children grow up and continue the cycle of having to run to the government to protect them, rather than them taking the reins when we're gone.
If the philosophy behind our president's plans is to be his legacy, let it be with the people to be enabled to make ourselves better, not to restrict us. Violence can't simply be wished away by punishing law-abiding citizens. Making peaceful people who own firearms into criminals by targeting their private property will do nothing to combat the crime and violence committed by those who didn't follow our laws in our nation in the first place.
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!edited 22nd Jan '13 11:52:35 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016Mc Donnel has this tendency of criticizing what the republicans in the Virginia state senate do... then signing it anyway.
Add Amgen, a pharma company, to my list of most infuriating corporations in the world
.
Its lobbyists donated money to Orrin Hatch ($59,000), Max Baucus ($67,750), Mitch McConnell ($73,000) and Barack Obama ($141,000). They also donated campaign contributions to Glacier PAC, Orrin Pac, Freedom Path (who released pro-Hatch ads) and Utah Families Foundation (another Hatch agency).
edited 23rd Jan '13 12:14:11 AM by Serocco
In RWBY, every girl is Best Girl.Beyoncé Lip-Synched ‘The Star-Spangled Banner’ At Obama’s Inauguration
Hannity: ‘The Media Is Just An Extension Of The Obama Press Office’
edited 23rd Jan '13 12:14:02 AM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016The top lobbyists (of which there are 74) for Amgen were Jeff Forbes (former Chief of Staff for Baucus), Hunter Bates (former Chief of Staff for McConnell) and Tony Podesta (the White House tends to follow whatever he says).
Dan Todd worked as a health and policy analyst for Amgens government affairs office. He wrote a law that allowed Amgen to over-prescribe pills to patients.
In this fiscal cliff deal, where we were supposed to fix the deficit, we actually added to the deficit by 500 million dollars, for a loophole that helps the profits of Big Pharma, like Amgen - thanks to the Dan Todd bill, which was passed by Obama, Hatch, McConnell and Hatch.
edited 23rd Jan '13 12:29:16 AM by Serocco
In RWBY, every girl is Best Girl.![]()
Charlie Brooker addressed that nicely, in a video he did a couple of years back.
"Now Obama's in the White House Fox's commentators are getting to play the underdog again - but its a curious kind of underdoggery where they complain about liberal bias one minute and brag about their massive viewing figures the next."
Schild und Schwert der ParteiI think the idea in "anti-Columbine" gun bans is to ban guns that allow killing a lot of people in a short time: Keep Flintlock pistols, crossbows and the good ol' break-action double-barrel, and then find a magical way to wipe out or nationalize everything else.
On the other hand the idea of "regular" gun bans is to ban guns that allow ordinary gun crime: Like Barkey advocated, ban small, easily-hidden guns (and concealed carry in general?)
The obvious conflict between these two laws is how derringers are affected.
edited 23rd Jan '13 6:00:39 AM by Medinoc
"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."While better mental healthcare is definitely a way to go, background checks are actually no more or less effective than any other form of regulation. That is to say they have no effect. Statistically, gun control laws and anti-gun control laws (loosening gun control, that is) both have a negligible effect on rates of gun deaths (though background checks being implemented leads to less gun related suicides by the elderly). What DOES have an effect is the concentration of guns in the environment. Households with guns in them are 3x more likely to experience a homicide and 5x more likely to experience a gun related suicide. In addition, people who have a gun are 4x more likely to be shot in an assault than people who don't. Statistics show that the best predictor of gun violence isn't gun control, background checks, and all that shibang, but, in stead, the availability of guns in a community or in a home.
edited 23rd Jan '13 6:45:45 AM by deathpigeon
Keep it up, Lost. My OTC ban finger is itching.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"If a person is going to snap and try to kill people, having access to guns just makes it easier. Owning a gun, or having access to one, doesn't turn an ordinary person into a homicidal maniac. That fact should be obvious.
Likewise, just because you own a gun for self-defense, recreation, or any other reason, doesn't by itself mean that you're going to be able or willing to stop a crime with it. Burglars almost always break in when the owners are away; they generally just want to steal things, not hurt people. You can be safe from muggers by avoiding bad areas and walking in groups. Most other violent crimes are caused by somebody the victim knows.
Also, if you own a gun, who is to say that you'd be able to get it and willing to use it if you really had to? Most people have an innate, instinctual aversion to causing harm to others, even in self-defense.
Personally, I think it's a social thing. Our culture has idolized guns and those who use them for over 200 years. Every schoolkid grows up hearing about how our forefathers solved their problems with the use of guns. We devour action movies whose heroic protagonists use guns to kill the bad guys and save the day. Crazed shooters get on the news and are remembered. It's not hard to see that somebody who is already mentally unbalanced could come to believe that the best way to deal with their problems is by shooting people. After all, that's how every hero solves his problems, isn't it?
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.![]()
We're all the hero of our own story, and in our stories, the hero solves his problems with a gun. I can see the obvious appeal.
Oh, look, she testified. Clearly faking a blood clot didn't get her out of it after all. What was the woman thinking?
edited 23rd Jan '13 8:15:35 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Can I just say that I somehow fail to find within myself a deep reserve of outrage for people lip-synching? I must be morally degenerate or something, but I don't actually give a shit. Okay, if they lied about it... I guess that's bad, right? My psyche yet remains intact, unshattered by the devastating revelations of their treachery.
edited 23rd Jan '13 1:03:17 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

A law that doesn't help is a bad law, since enforcing it takes money and/or it restricts something. The Assault Weapons Ban did jack shit, so it failed to do anything of worth.
It did, however, manage to convince a lot of gun buyers to stock up on things likely to get banned (any ban is "they're coming for your guns" BTW, unless it doesn't aim to make anything illegal) ensuring that any future bans on sales would be totally ineffective to stopping their sale, in addition to not stopping crime.
Fight smart, not fair.