https://buy-zithromax.online buy kamagra usa https://antibiotics.top buy stromectol online https://deutschland-doxycycline.com https://ivermectin-apotheke.com kaufen cialis https://2-pharmaceuticals.com buy antibiotics online Online Pharmacy vermectin apotheke buy stromectol europe buy zithromax online https://kaufen-cialis.com levitra usa https://stromectol-apotheke.com buy doxycycline online https://buy-ivermectin.online https://stromectol-europe.com stromectol apotheke https://buyamoxil24x7.online deutschland doxycycline https://buy-stromectol.online https://doxycycline365.online https://levitra-usa.com buy ivermectin online buy amoxil online https://buykamagrausa.net

Category: Guns

On demolishing Columbine High School

The proposal seems driven part by safety, party by fear.

There is apparently very serious talk about tearing down Columbine HS, not all that far away from where I live. Though it’s been twenty years (!) since the mass shooting at the campus, it remains an icon of … admiration? … among some disturbed folk, and the idea is that tearing down the school will break that cycle by, um, removing it as a focal point, a pilgrimage site for folk unhealthily obsessed and admiring of the killings by the Klebold kids.

Except … yeah, not so much.

First, while the 1999 killings placed an indelible stain upon the name and site, the school itself has been in operation since 1973. That’s nearly a half-century (!) of students, whose heritage would be torn down — including the heritage of the last two decades of community coming back from something so awful.

Second … the proposal is acting by half-measures. The idea is to tear down almost all of the school, but leave the library, and then build a new school adjacent to that on the property, but still call it Columbine … and still have the memorial at the site.

Um … and this is going to somehow keep the whackadoodles from being attracted to the place … how now?

It’s not like we’re Pharaoh, ordering all evidence of Columbine HS to be eradicated. I mean, if you’re going to do this, you raze the whole place, sell the property to a commercial developer, build a new school someplace nearby, call it something different … and, yeah, you probably want to get rid of the memorial, too. You erase everything, and so there’s nothing there for the disturbed to relate to.

Conversely, third … why would you give the Klebold kids the final victory, destroying the place they wanted to make their violent heritage in shooting up?

When terrorists took down the World Trace Center, proposals to leave the site in a flattened condition were roundly, and rightly, rejected. Tearing down Columbine HS, under the proposal, is a halfway measure at best, and sends precisely the wrong message.

Ultimately, it’s not my decision. It’s the decision of the people of and around the school. I hope they choose wisely.

Do you want to know more?

Oversimplifying public policy debates doesn’t make them simpler (Guns Edition)

So. Guns. We do have a gun violence problem in this country — less, net-net, than in decades past, but with more notorious / spectacular instances (i.e., mass shootings). And the biggest problem I see about it is a desire for a Silver Bullet to Fix The Problem.

We need more guns! We need fewer guns! We need more gun laws! We need fewer gun laws! We need law enforcement to monitor all social media! We need more people to inform the police when someone is acting twitchy! We need to get rid of illegal immigrants! We need to more fiercely prosecute drug crimes! We need to legalize drugs! We need to arm everyone! We need to disarm everyone! We need to solve poverty! We need to solve mental health! We need to fully research and explore gun violence! We need to anonymize all shootings so that people don’t it for fame/infamy!

None of these things, by themselves, will solve this problem. Some of them, taken to extremes, will not only not solve the problem, but will introduce interesting new problems.

There are things we can do to nibble around the edges of the problem (or, more strictly speaking problemS … the gun violence by gangs in parts of Chicago has very limited connection mass murder in a Florida high school, for example). Some of the above ideas, in moderation, could have an impact. A holistic approach would almost certainly help.

But our modern political discourse — on pretty much everything, let alone guns — not only means that everyone feels their One Single Cause is their hill to die on, the only possible solution, but that anyone who disagrees is an agent of evil and anyone suggesting a more nuanced or complex approach is a compromising fool.

I don’t have the answer, by any means. I have some answers that I think would have an effect in some areas. That’s frustrating, but, generally speaking, the best you can hope for in a public policy arena. The real world is complex — guns (or poverty, or education, or geopolitics) don’t lend themselves to simple answers.

Anyone who says they can stop gun violence with one simple idea is … well, being simple. Or trying to sell you something.

View on Google+

On guns and responsibility

Jim Wright, once again, nails the matter on the head. If you own a device designed to kill, then you are responsible for making sure that doesn’t happen. (Heck, we have a legal framework of responsibility at that level for devices we own that aren’t designed to kill.)

That’s not a final, ultimate solution for gun violence, but, as Wright points out, drunk driving laws aren’t a final, ultimate solution for DUI fatalities — but nobody suggests that they are useless or should be abolished.




Bang Bang Crazy, Part 14: The Cowardice of Responsibility

View on Google+

Education These Days!

No, wait, the real cause of school shootings (per Fox News commentators) is … the Common Core curriculum?

“Something that I don’t think anybody has mentioned and it’s probably not going to be popular, but we have to look at this Common Core curriculum, which takes emotionally disturbed kids and learning disabled kids and mainstream them in to the general population of students where they really don’t get the kind of attention they need. And I don’t know that that’s the case here but it’s another aspect of this thing that we really have to take a look at.”

“The curriculum made me do it!”

We have nothing to fear but learning disabled kids. Who have access to their fathers’ guns.




Fox News guest suggests Common Core curriculum could be responsible for school shootings
HOWARD SAFIR: Something that I don’t think anybody has mentioned and it’s probably not going to be popular, but we have to look at this Common Core curriculum, which takes emotionally disturbe

View on Google+

Well, he certainly has, um, background in arms, guns, and ammo!

The NRA becomes even more of a farce of itself by appointing Oliver North — disgraced Marine Colonel, seller of (illegal) arms to Iran (!), and illegally providing the money to Nicaraguan rebels so that they could buy arms, too.

Sounds like perfect fit for a gun/ammo manufacturer lobbyist group.




Oliver North named new president of the NRA – CBS News
CEO Wayne LaPierre called North’s appointment “the most exciting news for our members since Charlton Heston became President of our Association”

View on Google+

Knocking while Black is apparently a shooting offense in some places

Because of course when a strange black teenager knocks on your front door you assume that it’s a home invasion / robbery / riot and scream for your husband to get his gun.

I am very glad this young man was not physically harmed.

I am gratified that the husband has been criminally charged for taking a shot. There are localities where he could simply claim he felt threatened on his own property and that would be the end of it.

Originally shared by +Irreverent Monk:

http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/local-news/black-teen-misses-bus-gets-shot-at-after-asking-for-directions-in-rochester-hills




Black teen misses bus, gets shot at after asking for directions in Rochester Hills
A 14-year-old missed his bus and it nearly cost him his life.

View on Google+

On a School Shooting in the 19th Century

A bit of history on violence at schools and past perspectives on it.

Anyone who believes that “everyone” has always believed one fixed way about gun rights in America is either historically ignorant or looking to sell you something (probably a gun).

True, gun control advocates are not always historically coherent, either, but the point is that social and judicial views of guns and gun ownership, before and after the Constitution were written, was never unanimous nor, today, inevitable and locked in stone.




The Lessons of a School Shooting—in 1853 – POLITICO Magazine

View on Google+

Rick Santorum Is a Dolt

I would never suggest kids shouldn’t learn CPR, but that’s beside the point. It’s not an either/or, of course, any more than “petition for a stop light at that dangerous intersection” and “learn defensive driving” are a binary choice.

And the suggestion that collective political action is useless, and in fact worthy of ridicule, is particularly pernicious from a former elected official.

Originally shared by +Kee Hinckley:

“How about kids instead of looking to someone else to solve their problem, do something about maybe taking CPR classes or trying to deal with situations that when there is a violent shooter that you can actually respond to that.”—Santorum Translation. “We’re going to let you get shot at, and if you die, it’s your fault.”




Rick Santorum: Students should learn CPR, not seek gun laws

View on Google+

Safety First!

Of course, this is not something that happens frequently. But it’s the sort of thing that can happen — even to ostensibly “trained” “professionals” who are acting with deliberate intent and with an eye toward safety.

Putting more guns on more teachers in more classrooms is hypothetically a way to possibly address one danger. But it clearly introduces a new one.

#guns




Gun-trained teacher ‘accidentally’ discharges firearm in Calif. classroom, officials say, injuring student – The Washington Post
One student was reportedly treated for injuries that were not life-threatening.

View on Google+

Guns and Nutters

I’m all in favor of getting people access to the mental health they need.

But what if they don’t want it?

We are, in this country, very sensitive to civil liberties. So in case it hasn’t escaped you, if The Power to Take Away Guns is the first step on the road to tyranny (as we keep being told), then The Power to Commit People To Mental Hospitals is right up there with it. You just have to look around the world and history to see that.

Unless someone has committed a demonstrable crime, it’s very, very hard to force them to start treatment, let alone continue treatment. And, honestly, while that’s sad, I’m not sure it’s the wrong course.

And let’s not even start with Trump (or his GOP cohorts), who’ve taken to talking a big game about mental health to deflect from the idea of gun restrictions:

After other mass shootings, Trump has suggested the need for mental health reform. But just this week, for the second year in a row, his budget proposed deep cuts to the nation’s mental health programs and programs meant to help prevent crime in schools and assist them in recovery from tragedies.

He has also proposed slashing billions of dollars from other social safety nets like Medicaid, which millions of Americans rely on to get mental health treatment, and he’s pushed the repeal of Obamacare, which includes coverage protections for those with mental illness.

And, of course, when presented with an opportunity to address the idea of potentially mentally ill people getting firearms, he was happy to throw the idea under the bus.

Policy experts and lawmakers have tried reforming the background check system to include more people, but Trump’s reversal of an Obama-era regulation did the opposite. The rule required the Social Security Administration to report people on disability insurance who had severe mental illness and required someone else to file for them, to the FBI’s background check system to prohibit them from purchasing a gun.

(Though that one’s a bit more nuanced, as the issue at hand is not mental illness per se, but violent mental illness. Needless to say, though, Trump’s action here was anything but nuanced.)

There are, as always, no quick and easy answers, and mass shootings of this sort are, themselves, statistical aberrations of the sort that make very poor public policy (as anyone who’s had to take off their shoes at the airport knows too well). But people calling for more proactive treatment of mental illness need to consider the implications of some of the suggestions they are making. And people calling for more care to be available to people with mental illness shouldn’t be implicitly be adding “… if they can afford it” to their policy statements.

 




How the alleged Florida shooter escaped years of warnings – POLITICO

View on Google+

Some interesting activity around gun legislation

The GOP in Congress are combining a gun control bill that has some bipartisan support — beefing up the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), that’s used to run background checks on gun purchases (in most, but not all, instances), while adding reciprocity between states for Concealed Carry permits (just as marriage licenses and drivers licenses are reciprocated).

The latter part, the concealed carry reciprocity looks to be crafted primarily to allow people going from one state to another not be worried that they are going to be arrested if they are passing through a state that doesn’t reciprocate on the conditions of such permits. The classic case given is of a woman with permit to concealed carry in Pennsylvania who was pulled over for a traffic stop in New Jersey, told the police she was carrying, and was arrested for not having a concealed carry permit that was recognized by New Jersey and served almost two months before being pardoned by the governor.

Under the law, states could still regulate how and where a person could concealed-carry a weapon, but couldn’t disallow permits issued from another state. That sounds moderately reasonable, except that the criteria for getting such permits vary widely — some states require special training classes and additional background checks, while others seem to hand them out like raffle tickets. And while we have the analogues for marriage licenses and drivers licenses, the purpose of firearms is quite a bit different than the purpose for marriages or driving. And I would not be at all surprised if some of the Republicans supporting the bill felt that marriage license reciprocity was not a good thing back when some states were issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples and others were not.

The other thing the bill does is allow concealed carry, regardless of state law, on federal property — in the National Park System, National Wildlife Refuge System, and on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, US Forest Service, the Army Corps of Engineers, and Bureau of Reclamation.

Still, given the opportunity to further strengthen the NICS (by incenting timely entry of data into the system by state and federal agencies, which might have averted the recent Texas church shooting) isn’t any small potatoes, and even if the NRA is gung-ho for the reciprocity thing (which makes me knee jerk against it), it might be a better compromise than it looks.

And, at the very least, it’s interesting that the GOP thinks that the reciprocity bill needs to have some element of compromise in order to get passed.




House to Vote on Concealed-Carry Gun Bill – The Atlantic
GOP leaders want to pass a bill that would treat concealed-carry permits like driver’s or marriage licenses. But to do so, they’re tacking on a bipartisan bill to tighten up the federal background-check system.

View on Google+

On physical safety, being liberal, and being conservative

I tend to be leery of articles that seem psychological or biological differentiation between “conservatives” and “liberals,” for a variety of reasons. First, such articles almost always show a bias as to which end of the spectrum is better. Second, “liberal” and “conservative” are so broad and slippery of labels that they tend to be difficult to make meaningful from a scientific standpoint.

The experiment (and background experiments) discussed in this article, though, is fascinating and, beyond the clickbait headline (which, mercifully, G+’s current treatment of WaPo articles obscures) takes a relatively straightforward approach, and in a way that rings true, drawing a correlation between a sense of physical safety (or fear of physical danger) and one’s conservative vs liberal bent.

All of which makes sense, and maybe even just a truism. Conservative political leaders and pundits often take a fearful view of the world (rapist Mexican immigrants, gun-toting narco-gangs, molesters in the public restrooms, ISIL terrorists sneaking in as refugees, tyrannical big government coming to take your guns and freedom, etc.). Regardless of whether this is realistic, (let alone whether this is fearmongering to garner or even create votes, vs sincerely held beliefs), the identification of conservatism with a sense of fear for the physical safety of oneself and one’s loved ones lines up all too well.

What makes the experiment described so interesting is that by creating a sense of safety, of immunity to physical harm, the researchers were able to get Republicans in the study to answer questions on a number of “fearful” topics in a way that was consistent with how Democrats answered, least for a period of time. That indicates that such attitudes can be shifted (presumably in either direction), and that they are less ideologically based than they are emotionally based.

Again, this is broad-based stuff. Liberal politicians often dabble in fear-mongering, too, though not perhaps of an explicitly physical nature. But understanding the whys and wherefores of ideological differences may make us more aware of how our own emotions are driving what we think are intellectually sound belief systems, and how to approach people who believe very differently from us in a way that is effective, and not targeting the wrong root of their beliefs.




washingtonpost

View on Google+

On “Thoughts and Prayers” in the aftermath of tragedy

I’ve often heard that the point of prayer is not to invoke a change in reality — a magic spell to cause God to make things all better — but to invoke a change in the pray-er: to clarify needs and wants, to gain inspiration of what to do toward the end being sought, to derive strength for action.

And that comes out, in the Bible, time and time again, particularly in the New Testament, where prayer without action to back it up, prayer for the sake of praying (or, worse, for being seen to be praying), is roundly condemned.

What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, and one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. (James 2:14-18)

The “thoughts and prayers” of politicians in response to disasters and heartbreak — most visibly of late following mass shootings — are nice to see, but are only meaningful if they are followed up by action. Looking to have the grieving comforted? What are you doing to comfort them? Looking to prevent such things from happening again? What are you doing to stop it?

That’s not to advocate a particular legislative agenda — but, for example, the tragedy of gun deaths has been discussed and debated and lots and lots of ideas have been floated to help address it, from gun regulation to better mental health care to more mental health interventions to better study of the issue to simply coming to accept that piles of bodies are the Moloch-like sacrifice we must make to ensure our freedom. Whatever. This is to advocate grabbing onto one of those agendas, or more than one, and fight for it. Act on it, or be open about your inaction as the wisest course.

Prayer is not a “Get Out of Moral Obligation Free” card. In fact, it’s the precise opposite, because it shows an awareness of a need, and so calls on the pray-er to do something to meet it more than offer up pious thoughts.

 




‘Thoughts and Prayers’ Could Be Exactly What America Needs
Gandhi called prayer “the most potent instrument of action.” But will politicians follow through?

View on Google+

As the nation continues to sink into madness (Vegas Conspiracy Edition)

Because of course the Las Vegas mass shooting was all a government hoax, and the people whom you’ve seen speaking about it were all “crisis actors” hired by the government to justify [insert paranoid lunatic conspiracy rants here], and therefore definitely should receive death threats.

(Facepalm)

My only hope for our society is that this is simply the fractional percentage of lunatics who have always existed but who never before have had the social media reach that they can have today, and that this isn’t simply a spreading sign of something worse.

Though it sure the hell isn’t helped by our Chief Executive spending his days ranting about “fake media” all the time.




‘I hope someone truly shoots you’: online conspiracy theorists harass Vegas victims | US news | The Guardian

View on Google+

Guns and escalation and the dangers of quickly available lethal force

One major problem with guns is that they allow for very fast, very easy, potentially lethal escalation of a situation.

We see this all the time — the domestic dispute that gets out of hand, the suicidal impulse that has an effective solution in reach, the cop who feels endangered, all those kinds of scenarios. Having a handgun makes it so easy to turn to it when the adrenaline kicks in or something else happens to impair judgment.

Like, for example, when you’re in a crazy tug-of-war over a school notebook when shopping for supplies for the young-uns.

In this case, the gun wasn’t fired, but that the gun was even pulled (by a woman with a concealed weapons permit) shows the danger.

I don’t have an easy answer here. Just the observation that while easy access to lethal firepower means you can potentially protect yourself in case of imminent danger, a lot depends on having solid judgment about what constitutes danger and what’s an appropriate response. With great power comes great responsibility, as the man said. And because humans sometimes act stoooopid (as demonstrated by getting into a tussle over a freaking school notebook), the consequences of such power when misapplied can so easily become tragic.




Woman pulls gun in fight over school supplies
A woman pulled out a gun during a fight over a notebook at a Walmart in Novi, Mich. on Aug. 28.

View on Google+

When the NRA seems to be talking rationally, watch out

By partially deflecting to the bump-stock questions, the NRA (and its supporters in Congress) dodges people raising other gun control-related suggestions. Indeed, a look at the NRA’s support doesn’t even explicitly call for banning bump-stocks, just to have BATFE re-examine the law to see if they’re actually legal.

Lengthy but interesting article.




How the NRA and the far-right are quietly mobilizing to kill gun safety reform after Vegas
If you’re talking about bump stocks, you don’t have to talk about assault rifles.

View on Google+

Guns and Myth

Even as the number of gun owners (and hunters) declines in the US, guns continue to be a hot commodity, with a small fraction of the population buying up ever-increasing weapons for … well, for all sorts of reasons, including some ever-escalating fear-mongering from the unofficial lobbyists for the gun and ammo manufacturers of America, the NRA.

While reading about the NRA’s rhetoric is fascinating (and maddening), the numbers cited in the article are also worth a look-at, as we continue to debate the role of guns in our society.

But over the past few decades, Americans have lost their taste for hunting. Only 15 percent of us now say we ever hunt, less than half as many as in the 1970s. In any given year, maybe a third of those hunters among us, 5 percent of Americans, actually slog through fields and forests with rifles and shotguns.

In fact, fewer of us now own any kind of gun for any reason—even as the number of guns has increased phenomenally. In the 1970s about half of Americans had a gun, and it was almost always just a gun, one on average. Today only about a quarter of Americans own guns—but the average owner has three or four. Fewer than 8 million people, only 3 percent of all American adults, own roughly half the guns. Members of that tiny minority of superenthusiasts own an average of 17 guns apiece.

Fewer people, with more guns. I’m not sure that sounds healthy. Especially when they’re being told they have to buy them or else face death at the hands of terrorists and tyrants.




America’s Gun Zealots Are Preparing for a Violent Showdown That Exists Only in Their Minds
Just 3 percent of the nation owns half its firearms. They’re preparing to live out a twisted fantasy.

View on Google+

Who needs gun control? We just need to duck and cover!

Senator John Thune thinks mass shootings are inevitable in a free society. So why even try and stop them?

I think people are going to have to take steps in their own lives to take precautions to protect themselves. And in situations like that, you know, try to stay safe. As somebody said — get small.

Well, thank you, Senator Thune, for that brave leadership, innovative thinking, and reassuring suggestions. It takes a big man to suggest that if someone starts shooting, we should “get small.”




Senator’s Strategy to Combat Gun Violence: ‘Get Small’

View on Google+

Things DO change after mass shootings. Gun laws get loosened

In Republican-controlled states, laws explicitly making it easier to obtain or tote about firearms are more common after a mass shooting has taken place. Reducing or eliminating waiting periods, expanding open or concealed carry, you name it, such laws are apparently easier to get passed when a mass shooting occurs.

Perhaps it’s because folk are scared by what’s happened and feel that MORE GUNS will make everyone safer. Perhaps it’s because folk find the discussion of gun restrictions that tries to start up after such incidents demands instead a counter-response.

Remember that the next time pro-gun folk say, “No, it’s too soon to discuss gun control.” [1] They won’t be sitting around and waiting.

——

[1] As the White House has said and others have satirized.




After a Shooting, Gun Laws Are Loosened – The Atlantic
The most probable policy response to the atrocity in Las Vegas will be new laws allowing more guns to be carried into more places.

View on Google+

The NRA has the solution to the North Korea problem!

A fully nuclear world is a polite world! Amirite?

[via Boing-Boing]

View on Google+