Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Poll

Bay12 Presidential Focus Polling 2016

Ted Cruz
- 7 (6.5%)
Rick Santorum
- 16 (14.8%)
Michelle Bachmann
- 13 (12%)
Chris Christie
- 23 (21.3%)
Rand Paul
- 49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107


Pages: 1 ... 136 137 [138] 139 140 ... 667

Author Topic: Bay12 Election Night Watch Party  (Read 832026 times)

GlyphGryph

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: FearfulJesuit's American Politics Megathread Two: Election Boogaloo
« Reply #2055 on: September 17, 2013, 09:40:38 am »

Quote
In 2006, after years of suicides among young men in the Israel Defense Forces, authorities forbade the troops from bringing their rifles home on weekends. Suicides dropped by 40 percent, according to a 2010 study by psychiatrists with the IDF and the Sheba Medical Center.

It was Isreal that ran the study and it was a 40% drop, no 50%. But still.
Logged

Owlbread

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: FearfulJesuit's American Politics Megathread Two: Election Boogaloo
« Reply #2056 on: September 17, 2013, 10:00:26 am »

To be honest, I would prefer to focus on what has brought them to that choice rather than how to reduce the numbers of suicides through restrictions. That's like a doctor or vet providing treatment and not working to cure an ailment.

I also support the idea that anyone that seeks to own a gun of various sorts should pass a mandatory "Gun Safety Test" (or something like that) where they must show an excellent understanding of firearms safety and law. Part of that would entail classes that would explore the reasons why they want to own a gun, when they would use it and so forth. This would be accompanied by a psychological evaluation from their GP.

I am of course speaking on this issue as someone who has been hurt by misuse of firearms. One of my two cats, whom I loved very dearly, was shot by a gamekeeper many years ago who "thought it was a mink", but he'd already shot someone else's cat not too far from me. I don't know if they went to the police, because my understanding from the police statements following my cat's killing the police would take the guy's shotgun and license off him if he did it again. He's a twisted guy too. I saw an image on Facebook (he's a neighbour) where he'd lined up about 5-6 mutilated fox corpses (shot by him) in memory of his younger brother who had been killed in a car accident. The guy shoots animals because he likes it and gets off on it, that's what gets me.

I am, of course, filled with hatred and anger when I even think about that man but I don't think his cruelty is enough to justify our own gun laws and restrictions. Maybe a better system of psychological evaluations would help, but he's a pretty standard guy among men in his line of work.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2013, 10:04:15 am by Owlbread »
Logged

Mictlantecuhtli

  • Bay Watcher
  • Grinning God of Death
    • View Profile
Re: FearfulJesuit's American Politics Megathread Two: Election Boogaloo
« Reply #2057 on: September 17, 2013, 03:33:55 pm »

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/

Gun ownership and many topics are researched already, including;
Spoiler: Homicide (click to show/hide)

Spoiler: Self-Defence Gun Use (click to show/hide)

Spoiler: Women (click to show/hide)

Spoiler: Suicide (click to show/hide)


I like this part:
Spoiler: Policy Evaluation (click to show/hide)
Logged
I am surrounded by flesh and bone, I am a temple of living. Maybe I'll maybe my life away.

Santorum leaves a bad taste in my mouth,
Card-carrying Liberaltarian

GlyphGryph

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: FearfulJesuit's American Politics Megathread Two: Election Boogaloo
« Reply #2058 on: September 17, 2013, 03:38:51 pm »

Thank you for that, by the way.
Logged

Scoops Novel

  • Bay Watcher
  • Talismanic
    • View Profile
Re: FearfulJesuit's American Politics Megathread Two: Election Boogaloo
« Reply #2059 on: September 17, 2013, 03:44:11 pm »

He's a twisted guy too. I saw an image on Facebook (he's a neighbour) where he'd lined up about 5-6 mutilated fox corpses (shot by him) in memory of his younger brother who had been killed in a car accident. The guy shoots animals because he likes it and gets off on it, that's what gets me.

I am, of course, filled with hatred and anger when I even think about that man but I don't think his cruelty is enough to justify our own gun laws and restrictions. Maybe a better system of psychological evaluations would help, but he's a pretty standard guy among men in his line of work.

Not that your morals are wrong, but good luck rationally (what am i saying) hating the man. Hunting presumably involves more then pulling a trigger repeatedly, especially after a death.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2013, 03:47:09 pm by Novel Scoops »
Logged
Reading a thinner book

Arcjolt (useful) Chilly The Endoplasm Jiggles

Hums with potential    a flying minotaur

Owlbread

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: FearfulJesuit's American Politics Megathread Two: Election Boogaloo
« Reply #2060 on: September 17, 2013, 06:17:26 pm »

I've always found the self-defence argument in favour of gun ownership to be far too shaky, that's why I never argue that position. I argue instead on my preference for sacrificing a degree of personal safety for the sake of personal freedom.

Not that your morals are wrong, but good luck rationally (what am i saying) hating the man. Hunting presumably involves more then pulling a trigger repeatedly, especially after a death.

I don't really hate him because he shot the foxes (though the manner in which he lined them up with bloodied eyes and faces and stuff was repulsive), I hate him because he shot my cat and I know in my gut he got off on it. He'd have to be a terrible gamekeeper to make the same mistake twice, and I know what that family was like.

In any case, I'm only bringing that up to show that I have been hurt by the negligence of firearm users and still argue for looser restrictions. Of course there might be someone here who has actually lost a family member or been shot, my problem doesn't really compare with that, but it still affected me very badly. In a way though, I'm not sure if I'm really arguing for "looser" restrictions per se or just a different sort.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2013, 06:24:41 pm by Owlbread »
Logged

Helgoland

  • Bay Watcher
  • No man is an island.
    • View Profile
Re: FearfulJesuit's American Politics Megathread Two: Election Boogaloo
« Reply #2061 on: September 17, 2013, 06:48:19 pm »

Huh, looks like I was wrong about the suicide thing - fits better with my personal experience, really. You tend to only really, really think these things through when you've read how ineffective and goddamn painful slitting your wrists is, what an impact jumping in front of a train has on the conductor, etc etc

@Owlbread: Don't you think a very basic right, that to life, beats a fairly trivial one, the one of firing a gun for pleasure? Not that I'm against guns for sporting use, but you better make damn sure they stay at the clubhouse.
And lock up the people responsible for gun security for about seventy years when (not if) something goes wrong.
Logged
The Bay12 postcard club
Arguably he's already a progressive, just one in the style of an enlightened Kaiser.
I'm going to do the smart thing here and disengage. This isn't a hill I paticularly care to die on.

Funk

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: FearfulJesuit's American Politics Megathread Two: Election Boogaloo
« Reply #2062 on: September 17, 2013, 06:58:23 pm »

With guns two thing are certain:
One, any determined person can make a gun with only the simplest of tools and a few scraps of metal.
Not a nice well built gun but a crude simple weapon made from tape and pipe.
Two gun death well happen.
Even among trained professionals accidents happen.

More guns lead to violent crime with worse out comes, due to nothing more than the ease at which a gun can end a life.

Sources
homemade guns
professionals accident
Logged
Agree, plus that's about the LAST thing *I* want to see from this kind of game - author spending valuable development time on useless graphics.

Unofficial slogan of Bay 12 Games.  

Death to the false emperor a warhammer40k SG

Owlbread

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: FearfulJesuit's American Politics Megathread Two: Election Boogaloo
« Reply #2063 on: September 17, 2013, 07:17:46 pm »

@Owlbread: Don't you think a very basic right, that to life, beats a fairly trivial one, the one of firing a gun for pleasure?

In that case it should be impossible for cars to go above 40 mph. Nobody really needs to go any faster than that unless you're running late, in which case you just need to be early for things. That would save lives at the expense of a degree of personal freedom, but the right to life of the people who would crash going at 80-90mph in a 60mph limit road would be protected. On top of that motorcycles should be banned because there's no strong, practical reason why you would own a motorbike as an alternative to a car, and cars are much, much safer. Lives and the greater "right to life" will be saved there again.

My philosophy is that people are going to die anyway, the number of which can be reduced with various restrictions placed on their freedoms, often quite markedly as Mictlanticuhtli has shown. I would propose the creation of a more balanced system that is both heavily regulated and sacrifices the fewest freedoms as possible. For me, it's all about the balance between freedom and restriction for the sake of safety.

It's quite a difficult moral dilemma - on one hand, it's obviously noble to support someone's right to live, but someone taking that person's life is already breaking the golden rule of civil liberties - don't infringe on those of another person. You may then ask, is a government that does not implement legislation to save lives infringing on the rights of their own people? You could argue that, but there are many things the government could be doing to save lives that we really, really would rather they didn't. You know, that would include such delights as monitoring our telephone calls and emails, installing spyware on our computers, the introduction of mandatory ID cards and so on and so forth. You have to remember that an Orwellian society that most of us fear could actually be an extremely safe society in which the right of everyone to live is protected, provided that executions are illegal.

In fact, the government should force everyone into cryogenic tubes controlled by AIs that provide us with simulations of reality, thereby allowing us to live forever in comfort and never harm ourselves, only in the virtual world. The right to live that trumps everything else would be protected 100%.

Quote
And lock up the people responsible for gun security for about seventy years when (not if) something goes wrong.

That isn't quite necessary, more like make sure they're never responsible for gun security again and serve a fair prison sentence.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2013, 07:33:56 pm by Owlbread »
Logged

misko27

  • Bay Watcher
  • Lawful Neutral; Prophet of Pestilence
    • View Profile
Re: FearfulJesuit's American Politics Megathread Two: Election Boogaloo
« Reply #2064 on: September 17, 2013, 08:44:13 pm »

Even among trained professionals accidents happen.
Anyone remember the incident in time Square, where a man with a shotgun was gunned down by cops, and the cops hurt a lot of people?


Their accuracy rating is around 45%. These are trained  professionals, who have taken training to improve their aim. They manage a (what I'm told is respectable) 45%. Shooting under fire is hard.
Logged
The Age of Man is over. It is the Fire's turn now

Flying Dice

  • Bay Watcher
  • inveterate shitposter
    • View Profile
Re: FearfulJesuit's American Politics Megathread Two: Election Boogaloo
« Reply #2065 on: September 17, 2013, 09:02:08 pm »

Quote
Facing resistance at home and abroad about the prospect of a U.S. attack on Syria, President Obama said Saturday that he has decided the U.S. should take military action against the Syrian regime in retaliation for its use of chemical weapons.

He also promised to seek congressional approval after lawmakers return from their recess Sept. 9, saying that he does not believe the law requires him to seek approval, but America will be "stronger" if he does
Source.

I've been fuming over this for days. This? This is an example of why I despise Obama as a president. He has been quietly yet strongly pursuing the ideal of the unitary executive to a far greater extent (and, arguably more effectively, given that he has done what he can to avoid drawing attention to it) than Bush ever did. This is not a question of "is it right to launch strikes on Syria", that's not the issue at hand. This has its roots in the Reagan administration, where this idea was first formulated that the executive is not only motivated but justly motivated to seize and hold powers beyond those given and implied to them in the Constitution, including those explicitly given to other branches to preserve the balance of powers, that doing so somehow strengthens our democracy. Political leanings are irrelevant here, this is a boldfaced attempt to assert that the office of the president is not bound by the most basic tenet of our law, which explicitly declares that the president does not have the authority to (among other things) take military action against other states except in immediate, short-term response to attacks on the nation.

Quote from: Article I, Section 8
The Congress shall have Power... ...To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations. To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water...

There and has been for quire a while an indication that is something dreadfully wrong with our perception of our own government that the statement by any president that they do not need to obey the law is not the subject of multilateral, non-partisan outcry. This ideal of the powerful, decisive, perhaps even... kingly executive is profoundly undemocratic and it baffles me how it has become such a central element of the American political process--at least when one's own party holds the office.
Logged


Aurora on small monitors:
1. Game Parameters -> Reduced Height Windows.
2. Lock taskbar to the right side of your desktop.
3. Run Resize Enable

misko27

  • Bay Watcher
  • Lawful Neutral; Prophet of Pestilence
    • View Profile
Re: FearfulJesuit's American Politics Megathread Two: Election Boogaloo
« Reply #2066 on: September 17, 2013, 09:19:28 pm »

Err, oh dear. Dice, We actually went and resolved that while you weren't looking. There was a big Lobbying push, and Senators said "weeeeellllll I think we should but eeeeehhhh", and the House said "Only if we get rid of Obamacare", and then Putin said "Hey how about we peacefully take the weapons from them, no catch" and Obama said "That actually isn't bad. Let's do that".  And then the UN released a Report stating it is, in fact, Chemical Weapons, and Assad did it, jumping forward to put them one step behind everyone else.

Also War is too important to be left to the generals, and too important to be left to the politicians, but someone should have it left to them, and so we went with the president. This isn't new. Wikipedia says
Quote
On at least 125 occasions, the President has acted without prior express military authorization from Congress.[18] These include instances in which the United States fought in the Philippine-American War from 1898–1903, in Nicaragua in 1927, as well as the NATO bombing campaign of Yugoslavia in 1999.
According to Wikipedia even the Korean War was without congressional approval (although, it going on for 2 years, they approved of it implicitly). Look up the War Powers Act, the act limiting the President's right to declare war and invade. It's sole violation was under Clinton. In fact, Obama asking for permission was seen as a concilatory gesture, one he was not at all required to make, and in fact limited the power of the President for future precedents.

The question of a stronger head executive is, interesting though.
Logged
The Age of Man is over. It is the Fire's turn now

Flying Dice

  • Bay Watcher
  • inveterate shitposter
    • View Profile
Re: FearfulJesuit's American Politics Megathread Two: Election Boogaloo
« Reply #2067 on: September 17, 2013, 09:33:49 pm »

The issue isn't whether this particular instance was allowed to proceed, it's the underlying mindset that casts the president as being above the law, of Congress interfering with presidential authority rather than checking and limiting it. The trend towards the strong executive has its roots during the Civil War (for admittedly valid reasons), and I don't think that any particular president has had malicious motivation in pursuing it, but the cumulative effect is that the structure of our political system has become increasingly lopsided, with the executive taking more and more authority, generally definable as the power to act in spite of the law. This is not how our government was meant to function. The inherent nature of a single individual as the heart of power in his branch as opposed to the nine Justices or numerous senators and congressmen makes it far easier for the president to consolidate and gather power than for either of the other branches to return it to where it should be, as well as allowing presidents to cast themselves as decisive actors while portraying any Congress that doesn't rubber-stamp them as useless and ineffectual.

The point is that, Constitutionally, the president does not have the authority to launch offensive military action without a Congressional vote of approval. In fact, we see the weakening of this core principle most commonly in times of looming war (the Civil War, the Second World War, and more recently with 9/11). Again, this is not done with the intention of the executive to damage the balance created by the constitution, but to make it easier for them to fulfill their own mandate as the executive. The issue is that in doing so they push further and further towards authoritarianism and the cult of the president as the sole head power of government. Just because something is so does not mean that it is just or legal. Nixon used the same excuse when breaking the law to support his own political efforts, the only difference being that that flouting of the Constitution was done for personal gain rather than in order to pursue the mandate of his branch of government. It is fundamentally wrong to allow any branch of government to destroy the balance of power, even if it does so for superficially good reasons. This is precisely why we have the system of checks and balances, because these well-meaning excesses were predictable, and the men who drafted the Constitution endeavored to prevent them from taking hold.
Logged


Aurora on small monitors:
1. Game Parameters -> Reduced Height Windows.
2. Lock taskbar to the right side of your desktop.
3. Run Resize Enable

Chaoswizkid

  • Bay Watcher
  • Bring on the Chaos
    • View Profile
    • Realms of Kar'Kaish New Site
Re: FearfulJesuit's American Politics Megathread Two: Election Boogaloo
« Reply #2068 on: September 17, 2013, 09:46:01 pm »

Chaos says hes read the staistics but I wonder where he is getting them from since everything Ive seen indicates they are wrong.

Time for an info dump. I'd like to know where you get your statistics, because I can't see how any of these disagree with my position.

First off, I'd like to state my sources. I will be using JustFacts.org for most of this. I check to make sure that the sources for wikipedia are legit (though I don't do background checks or anything) and that the sources for justfacts are legit. In the About section of JustFacts, they state:

Quote
In general parlance, we are conservative/libertarian in our viewpoints, but unlike many organizations and media outlets, this does not mean we give preference to facts that coincide with our opinions. Quite the contrary, we are committed to objectivity and will report any fact that meets the criteria below, regardless of the implications.

I've seen evidence of this in the data that they post and the conclusions they draw, but I wanted to be as forward about it as they are. Feel free to read the whole thing they are. Also, the data they take are from US government documents and published 3rd party studies. Stuff like that. It's pretty legit.

I'm only going to post data concerning firearm ownership as it pertains to homicides and suicides and data concerning gun control laws as it pertains to firearm ownership, homicides and suicides.


Have you looked at the statistics for how many burglaries are committed with the aim of stealing a firearm?  I'd seriously question whether having one deters thieves, considering how desirable a target for theft they themselves are.

I'll look for data about firearms theft later. Here's for the deterrence, though:

Quote from: JustFacts
A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."

Quote from: JustFacts
Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.

Quote from: JustFacts
A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."

Quote
A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.

Quote
A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:
• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"
• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"

Unfortunately, a lot of the above is likely incredibly outdated by now. Still, I don't believe it can be seriously dismissed. This also goes against the sources supplied by Mictlantecuhtli concerning self defense, as it certainly seems by the above that guns are indeed used millions of times a year in self-defense. Perhaps only one million times, though. Compare sources (from top to bottom as evidence supplied above):


I'll tackle the rest of Miclantecuhtli's Self-Defense Gun Use stuff in this spoiler, and the rest when I get to it.
Spoiler: Self-Defense (click to show/hide)

Time for gun control policies! I like this part, too, Mict. =)

Spoiler: Gun Control Policies (click to show/hide)

Man, by this point, I've spent like all day on this. I literally woke up, opened this thread and began researching all of the stuff Mict mentioned (but didn't link, that bastard, making me do the dirty work). Anyway, gotta keep going I guess.

Spoiler: Suicide (click to show/hide)

Guh. PLEASE link articles, people. Your arguments really shouldn't count if you don't link to them.

So, Women next I guess. Actually, no, you know what? Just provide the links for the articles. There's only 2 of them, and I need the articles to analyze and either agree with or refute.

The same goes for everything in the Homicide section. Burden of proof is on you, Mict, or whoever else wants to help Mict.

Fuck I'm tired.
Logged
Administrator of the Realms of Kar'Kaish Project.

misko27

  • Bay Watcher
  • Lawful Neutral; Prophet of Pestilence
    • View Profile
Re: FearfulJesuit's American Politics Megathread Two: Election Boogaloo
« Reply #2069 on: September 17, 2013, 09:54:25 pm »

How, constitutionalist of you. Would you hold the same opinion on a issue where the constitution was siding with the other side? I mean, say, Slavery? Suffrage, a better one? The Founders intended only propertied males could vote. The underpinning of what they saw as the fundamentals of our government wAS the Propertied class.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2013, 09:56:41 pm by misko27 »
Logged
The Age of Man is over. It is the Fire's turn now
Pages: 1 ... 136 137 [138] 139 140 ... 667