One of my regulars, mindful of the forensic analysis I did on the Michael Brown autopsy photos last year, has asked me to comment on the Laquan McDonald shooting from my point of view as a pistol and self-defense instructor.javporn
The fast version: I would have said this was what cops call a “good shoot” if it had stopped at the first two bullets. It didn’t. I don’t think this was murder one, but it was at least criminally negligent homicide and those who covered it up should be prosecuted along with Van Dyke.
The key portion of the video starts at about 5:19. The blade is visible in McDonald’s right hand; he draws it and brandishes it at 5:25 while facing slightly to the right of a police car that has him in its headlights. At 5:30 you can see that an officer has lined up a pistol on him.
At 5:32 he begins to turn towards the officers. One shoots immediately; he spins and goes down. At that point the officers go out of frame, but we can see at least one dust puff from an incoming bullet at 5:35. We see him either trying to get up off the ground at 5:36 or having a convulsion that simulates the motion; his head and shoulders rise slightly. As late as 5:38 his hands seem to be still moving.
We know from the autopsy that two bullets hit him when he was up and another 14 when he was down (or 15; accounts are inconsistent, and some may be counting at least one round that clearly missed and caused the dust puff).
Now let’s consider this from the responder’s point of view.
The first thing to be clear on is that McDonald was behaving in a crazily aggressive way when he died. You don’t pull a knife and brandish it in the presence of two cop cars if you’re thinking at all sanely.
If I had been a cop on the scene I would immediately have thought “angel dust”, and in fact the autopsy revealed that McDonald was high on PCP. This drug induces violence, freak strength, and insensitivity to pain.
UPDATE: I should have been more specific about the tells here. You can see even in the poor-quality video that McDonald makes a big, rather jerky motion with the knife. A cop (or me) sees that, thinks “Impaired fine-motor control. Oh, shit.” Because at that point the odds on McDonald being fucked up on something like meth or bath salts or PCP rises to the point where you’d damn well better assume it in your planning.
(If you care about fine distinctions, urban black lowlife probably means PCP or bath salts. Rural white trash means meth.)
This is a situation that amply justifies drawing a weapon and preparing to shoot. From the video, McDonald was well inside the 21-foot close-engagement limit – he could have rushed an officer with that knife before the officer could draw on him and trust me that this is not a chance to take with someone you suspect might be on PCP.
If you are any of the cops you are going to be adrenaline-dumping by now. This is a dangerous situation even with your gun drawn; the thug could charge you, take several bullets and still stab you fatally before he goes down. It’s happened often enough before.
Now, he angles slightly away from the group of cops, but they have to be thinking that if he shows any sign of charging they must shoot before he kills them.
I want to impress on my readers that this was a completely justified reaction. Everything the police have visibly done up to this point is textbook procedure for this situation, including what happens next: he turns towards them and Van Dyke, the cop now charged with murder, shoots.
We are still in unquestionable legal and ethical territory until McDonald goes down. What the police have done so far – those first two bullets – is correct.
The next correct thing to do would have been to stop firing for long enough to assess whether McDonald was still a threat. One way this could have gone is: Van Dyke stops shooting, McDonald levers himself off the ground, Van Dyke resumes shooting until McDonald is down again. That would still have been a “good shoot” for which Van Dyke would be neither legally nor morally culpable.
But that does not appear to be what happened. It appears that Van Dyke kept firing continuously at McDonald on the ground. The police report avers that another officer stopped him from firing still more bullets after the 16 he put into McDonald’s semi-fetally-curled form.
It is not difficult to form a plausible theory of why Van Dyke kept firing. As a student of defensive violence I can tell you that under stress this kind of reaction is very common. He may simply have not registered that McDonald was no longer moving.
Matters are complicated by the fact that McDonald may in fact have been still trying to get off the ground and charge Van Dyke, even with several bullets in him. The video evidence is ambiguous on this point.
But even if so, Van Dyke was doing the wrong thing. What he should have done was stopped to assess, realized that even if McDonald was trying to get to his feet that was not going to happen fast enough to put anyone in imminent danger, and stopped firing unless and until McDonald again became immediately dangerous.
Lethal force is a terrible tool. People who use it, whether cops or civilians, must show restraint and good judgment. Van Dyke was, at best, lethally careless.
On the plain evidence of this video, what we have here is a criminally negligent homicide; manslaughter or possibly second-degree murder.
And if it is true that other cops conspired to cover it up, they should be prosecuted too. I can understand their reasoning – why let a cop who made a simple mistake under stress be ruined by the death of a drug-addict lowlife with a knife in his hand? But it was still wrong, because that habit of blue omerta covers up too much.
I do not think the charge of first-degree murder is justified. There is no evidence of premeditation, or reason to suspect it, here. It is certainly possible that the prosecutors know something that I don’t, but I suspect that the escalation of the charge is a purely political maneuver intended to appease those who have put a racial spin on this incident.
And that racial spin? Plain bullshit. Those cops were facing an angel-dusted thug brandishing a weapon; that was pretty much bound to end badly whether the thug was black, white, or purple polka-dotted. But the obsessive scab-pickers of our racial-grievance industry will doubtless attempt to to incite riots over this, and given the media’s usual enthusiastic help they might well succeed.
“insensitivity to plain” should be to pain of course.
Given the prevalence of such incidents in this drug-happy world, why are police not equipped appropriately to deal with them non-lethally?
Options include: running away until the drug wears off; throwing a net over the man (Roman-gladiator style); tasering; tear gas; water cannon (the guy’s a one-man riot, after all); tranquilliser darts; calling for (more professional) back-up; and I’m sure many other, better options than bullets-solve-everything.
>Given the prevalence of such incidents in this drug-happy world, why are police not equipped appropriately to deal with them non-lethally?
Some are. I read one account that claimed the cops called for backup with a Taser. But you can’t really count on those to put down someone on PC or bath salts.
As was pointed out on David Friedman’s G+, Illinois law does not require premeditation for a charge of first degree murder. All it requires is intentionally killing or committing acts that the person knows will kill or create great bodily harm, or that will create a strong probability of great bodily harm, or committing another felony besides murder.
Premeditation does escalate the crime to the level of the death penalty.
Here, a charge of first degree murder turns on whether Van Dyke kept shooting intentionally. A lawyer who can convince a jury that the shots after the second were committed in the heat of the moment, and that Van Dyke did not intend to kill, may succeed in getting an acquittal on the first degree murder charge.
Was Van Dyke only charged with first degree murder? Equally importantly, what charges will the jury be allowed to consider?
Off-topic :
Hey Eric. VD sent me here. Told me you and Rosario were working on an SJW-proof Code of Conduct. Any news on that? I would be interested in utilizing it.
>Told me you and Rosario were working on an SJW-proof Code of Conduct.
In progress, not done.
Over-charging is a common prosecution tactic used to induce suspects to plead out rather than go to trial.
The real crime here is that if a civilian had committed this attack, with this much video evidence, the DA would have been making an example of him in time for the evening news the next day, not waiting 13 months to announce charges. Instead, the city of Chicago has already settled with the family for $5M and Van Dyke will have the best defense that the police union can afford.
Was it a continuous string of fire, or did the cop shoot a couple times, drop the POS, pause firing, then resume shooting?
When the triggertime threshold is reached, you can empty a mag in 3 seconds. The number of rounds fired is not a good metric for judging these situations.
Nevertheless, expect the usual Internet blah blah blah
BTW, the autopsy doesn’t mention PCP, and the 3 substance screens all tested NEGATIVE (last page).
See http://static1.squarespace.com/static/5385f942e4b0f52de5677500/t/54dae56fe4b0abb71bab4e66/1423632332302/autopsy-laquan-mcdonald.pdf
>BTW, the autopsy doesn’t mention PCP
Hmmm. I wonder where this came from, then?
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/shot-laquan-mcdonald-emotionless-court-arrival-article-1.2445077
“An autopsy report showed that PCP, a hallucinogenic drug, was found in McDonald’s system.”
I’m pretty sure this went out in the wire-service report; the Daily News is not the first place I saw it.
@Geoffrey Tobin
Options include: running away until the drug wears off;
This would be a bad idea for an armed citizen, who has the option of doing so. The entire purpose of the police is to deal with things like this, running away leaves anyone else in the area vulnerable.
throwing a net over the man (Roman-gladiator style);
Might work, *if* you can get the net over and around him the first time, else you are back to square one.
tasering; tear gas;
What part of “This drug induces violence, freak strength, and insensitivity to plain. [sic]” did you not understand?
water cannon (the guy’s a one-man riot, after all);
Like the net, *might* work if you can keep him fully pinned with the stream of water. But I don’t know many cops who carry a fire truck in their back pocket.
tranquilliser darts;
Takes time to take effect. During that time you now have an enraged PCP addict inside the 21 foot line that you have to hold off. Have Fun.
calling for (more professional) back-up;
This has most of the problems of running away, and cn only work if you are *really* lucky and the backup can get there in time. We also learned this lesson with Columbine: waiting for backup gets innocent people slaughtered.
and I’m sure many other, better options than bullets-solve-everything.
Well, they sure solve a lot more than hoplophobes think they do.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/us/training-officers-to-shoot-first-and-he-will-answer-questions-later.html?_r=2
Police are trained to think they are in some kind of Steven King novel where everything and everyone is out to kill them. Laquan was a “zombie” that needed to be decapitated and dismembered for the officer to feel safe.
Before the two magic phrases were get out of jail free cards:
“I thought he had a gun”.
“I was in fear of my life”.
Some of those with the consultants in the above article can still sway juries, but not all.
There are totally non-racial incidents where police shoot people driving cars (I thought he was going to run me over – one in the article) when they are on the other side of a wide road, or they end up shooting sideways.
And there are the SWAT raids that injure or kill lots of innocent people to serve some kind of minor warrant or an “informant” said there was something bad. But keeping officers safe even if it means innocent civilian deaths takes priority.
SWATting shouldn’t work. It does because police are not diligent and are paranoid.
>Laquan was a “zombie” that needed to be decapitated and dismembered for the officer to feel safe.
McDonald was, in the flesh, the extreme scenario that actually justifies this mindset – a large man with a weapon, hopped up on a drug that induces violent psychotic behavior.
I should also reinforce the point that even if the wire-service report turns out to be wrong, a reasonable person would have been thinking PCP or bath salts at 5:25 when McDonald brandished the knife. That motion in that context was pure dangerous crazy and is exactly the sort of cue that cops or civilian first responders like myself are trained to watch for and fear.
Were all the police in their cars? If so, a knife is much less of a threat.
@Nancy – from what I could see in the vid, there were two officers on foot within the 21′ zone. Refusing to drop a weapon and then turning towards LEOs at that range is a poor life choice.
“From the video, McDonald was well inside the 21-foot close-engagement limit – he could have rushed an officer with that knife before the officer could draw on him”
They had already drawn on him though. But more than that, if it’s so dangerous to be near a man with a knife, why are they actively walking towards him when they don’t need to?
tz: “Police are trained to think they are in some kind of Steven King novel where everything and everyone is out to kill them.”
Tell that to, say, Deputy Darren Goforth. Or Officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu. Or Officer Brian Moore. Or any of the other cops ambushed and killed just for being cops in today’s grievance industry-driven society.
@Nancy Lebovitz – the police in the SUV in front seem to have gotten out of it, but only shortly before the shooting, and after they saw him. It’s unclear if they saw he had a knife before getting out of the car.
@ESR I suspect that the escalation of the charge is a purely political maneuver intended to appease those who have put a racial spin on this incident.
Is it possible that it may be reasonable to escalate the charge based on the fact that as trained police officers they should have known better and based on the tendency of cops to get away with things, even without a racial component? In other words, could “They were cops and he was a civilian” be considered an equally valid justification of such an escalation as the supposed race angle?
Those cops were facing an angel-dusted thug brandishing a weapon;
Particularly considering W. Craig Trader’s statement that the autopsy does not show he was in fact on PCP (I don’t know if you misread it or were reading some other document other than the autopsy), is it possible that his race may have contributed to their belief that he was?
>is it possible that his race may have contributed to their belief that he was?
Sure. They might very well have encountered other knife-waving black men on PCP.
I’m not being facetious. For a cop in Chicago this seems fairly likely.
“if it’s so dangerous to be near a man with a knife, why are they actively walking towards him when they don’t need to?”
They do need to. That’s what cops do. They assume that danger so the average citizen doesn’t have to.
They don’t need to approach at that exact moment. They don’t need to rush things so much.
> They do need to. That’s what cops do. They assume that danger so the average citizen doesn’t have to.
They could do it from 22 feet away, though. Or can’t they shoot straight enough to hit someone from that far?
@M.C. – Yep, they had their weapons drawn. This is the smart thing to do.
They were approaching him because that is their job – they are attempting to neutralize a threat.
Acting bizarro while brandishing a weapon is not permitted in a civil society. We have every right to stop such behavior. Push the limit too far, and deadly force is justified.
Anyway, The fact is, for all the movement we can see on the video, he’s walking away from them, and they’re walking towards him. He is not responsible for having closed the distance to less than 21 feet.
“they are attempting to neutralize a threat.”
I understand the police need to do something: contain the criminal, stop him from escaping. But at the exact moment they approach, do they really need to approach? Can they not take things slow?
The armchair quarterbacking begins…
> Yep, they had their weapons drawn. This is the smart thing to do.
The point is that having already had their weapons drawn, the 21-foot rule is irrelevant. What is the radius for being able to shoot someone you’ve already got your gun aimed at before they can reach you? Surely whatever study came up with “21 feet” has an answer for that.
“The armchair quarterbacking begins”
This is just a meta “stop sign” designed to shut down debate.
“…the 21-foot rule is irrelevant.”
Nonsense. Handguns are not the one-shot manstoppers that Hollytard movies portray them to be. A person can soak up multiple shots and still get into you within that range.
Please, share some more of your Internet wisdom about firearms and personal defense.
Nonsense. Handguns are not the one-shot manstoppers that Hollytard movies portray them to be. A person can soak up multiple shots and still get into you within that range.
The 21-foot rule includes all that plus drawing and aiming time. The distance for someone with their gun already drawn would naturally be proportionally shorter.
By “irrelevant”, I think he meant that, if 21 feet is the safe limit before drawing, some smaller distance must be the safe limit after drawing. I personally will agree that the police and the knife-wielder are close enough that, if he chose to charge, there would be real danger.
>I personally will agree that the police and the knife-wielder are close enough that, if he chose to charge, there would be real danger.
That is correct. At the time of the shooting, I estimate that McDonald was 10 to 12 feet from the nearest cop. Having gamed this kind of attack from both sides I can tell you that this is not a safe distance even if the bad guy is not on a powerful stimulant.
Plus, the fact that they had backup is also a relevant factor: with at least two cops both pointing their guns at him, the amount of time needed to put enough bullets in him to stop him (whatever that number may be) if he charges is cut in half.
>with at least two cops both pointing their guns at him, the amount of time needed to put enough bullets in him to stop him (whatever that
It would be deeply stupid to count on that. Someone’s gun might jam.
You also need to bear in mind that the rules of engagement they train for need to be simple enough that they can be executed correctly under extreme stress.
@Random – No. You don’t understand. It isn’t a formal ‘rule’ at all. It is an observation, based on real life experience, that illustrates how quickly somebody can get inside your space from a particular distance.
At 21′ it is a challenge to draw a weapon, present it and fire…not impossible by any means (it is a standard training drill)…however, even a fast operator would be smelling the opponent’s bad breath before getting a shot off. This is not a good situation to be in.
Even with a weapon drawn, the 21 foot ‘rule’ applies. There is a severe threat of injury/death even if you manage to score hits. You don’t allow the opponent to get ‘proportionally’ closer.
In the autopsy report that W. Craig Trader linked, he was only tested for “benzoylecgonine” (a cocaine metabolite), alcohol, and opiates. Maybe a more thorough test was done later outside the context of the autopsy.
“…This is just a meta “stop sign” designed to shut down debate.”
Nah. More like a meta ‘deer crossing’ sign ;)
esr, thanks for this. I appreciate your calm, experienced, and caveatted perspective.
I have to say this “inside the 21-foot close-engagement limit – he could have rushed an officer with that knife before the officer could draw on him” reminded me of the fantastic sequence from near the end of the tv series Justified, when one of the bad guys (who had been boasting about this all series) finally tried it. (Can’t find a utub link at the mo…)
Lest anyone doubt the effects of PCP, I’ll just note that I’ve seen one guy – not particularly large or beefy – throw six cops trying to restrain him around like matchsticks while on PCP. This isn’t hearsay. This is my experience as a paramedic.
There is no dealing nicely with someone on PCP. All you can do is throw lots of force at them and hope to overpower them.
If he wasn’t turned, and the gun was out with a round in the chamber, at 21 feet is it still necessary to shoot?
Is Chicago filled with PCP Ninjas? Somehow everyone holding a knife within 10 feet will have the will, the skill, the mental focus, and the impetus to use it? It is definitely threatening, but someone who is high usually doesn’t have as good motor skills. Few people are into martial arts so would more likely cut themselves (There is a similar problem with gun owners that don’t go to the range at least monthly).
What was the actual probability of harm or death? Not worst case. Worst case is ESR or someone like him is on the street and is probably CCW, so the cop should shoot him without warning so he doesn’t have a chance to use his gun. Billion to one, but is that reasonable? But is the PCP Ninja scenario a million to one? A thousand to one?
I expect police to be trained better than citizens. Including being able to suppress their adrenaline (and if not they shouldn’t be police – not everyone has the temperament to handle it, just as not everyone can be a good coder). Shouldn’t police be held to a higher standard than citizens?
So if an ordinary citizen sees anyone with a knife within 21 feet he is afraid of, he can pull out a gun and shoot immediately “just in case”? What is the standard for the untrained?
It goes further, there’s the six cops that fabricated their shootings:
https://photographyisnotacrime.com/2015/11/six-american-police-officers-fabricated-shootings-year/
If the police are going to divide so “Citizens are the enemy”, it is no longer policing, they are an occupying army, and being ambushed by insurgents is normal for war. If police call me “the enemy”, then I’m their enemy whether I want to be or not. War only takes one party to declare it, but both are then at war.
Part of giving honor to police is that they will be in danger and occasionally ambushed (similar to firemen who put their lives in danger). At some point the minimization of danger to them loses the honor – by increasing danger to innocent citizens. They become robots where Asimov’s third law overrides the first. Their own safety becomes foremost and becomes an excuse for negligence which rarely results in the same penalties to them if an ordinary citizen did the identical thing Consider if two ranchers shot a deputy – would it be slowly investigated?
http://www.inquisitr.com/2552597/idaho-rancher-killed-on-highway-i-saw-the-deputies-murder-my-husband/
The police know that except for a very unlucky few especially where there is video, they can kill – either properly, negligently, or even murder in cold blood and the blue omerta will prevent any consequences, or limit them to a paid vacation.
How many other murders do you know of where there was video took over a year to bring charges?
“A prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich” – but no indictment for Darren Wilson – so there will be no trial, no discovery, no testimony under oath, and no jury finding. Baltimore was an aberration. Some people are almost always indicted, but police are almost never indicted.
This is the problem. No one trusts or believes “Government” and the police are part of the government. They are held to the same standard of accountability has Hillary Clinton. They lie for each other, they cover up crimes, some are actually dirty, others just “look the other way”. And the bad apples drive out the good.
I think more citizens are dead in “mistakes” than police have been specifically targeted and killed.
I moved to a state where the police have the original “Peace Officer”, constable attitude. They aren’t looking to raise revenue, they aren’t looking to escalate, most wave to me and I wave back. I am unafraid of dialing 911, but I probably won’t need to.
The thing is with a gun (I’m in a Constitutional Carry state) I can defend myself. The police are nice to have around for some things, but they also have a different attitude here – they know most citizens are armed and are ok with it (some rookies need an embarrassing encounter to learn).
The police in Chicago, Baltimore, and many big and small cities are like the “Red Coats” – an occupying army of tax collectors. You’ve seen the woodcut – but John Adams defended and got a not guilty verdict (“Facts are stubborn things”) since it was a mob throwing rocks, some covered with snow, not a “peaceful protest”.
Our law enforcement officers are turning into those hated Red Coats in the same way and for the same reasons that the colonists learned to see them as oppressors instead of protectors.
The “21 foot rule” stinks of bullshit. It has all the marks (e.g., a suspiciously over-precise number when clearly both cops and perps are going to vary quite a lot in their reaction times).
Upon looking into it, the “rule” was apparently devised using one cop and one simulated “suspect” (though there was more than one trial). The “suspect” was charging the officer in attack mode, and the officer had his weapon holstered. Neither of those were the case here.
Also, even the guy who came up with the “rule” is on record decrying its misapplication. It was never intended as a justification for immediate deadly force.
Some discussion here:
http://www.policemag.com/channel/weapons/articles/2014/09/revisiting-the-21-foot-rule.aspx
The whole idea that there’s a specific distance at which it suddenly becomes okay to shoot in all situations seems nonsensical on its face. What if it’s Usain Bolt? What if it’s Stephen Hawking? What if he’s carrying a spork? What if he’s carrying a lance?
>The “21 foot rule” stinks of bullshit. It has all the marks (e.g., a suspiciously over-precise number when clearly both cops and perps are going to vary quite a lot in their reaction times).
You’re speaking as someone who has never trained in actual violent self-defense. I have actually been rushed while holding a simulated firearm and I can tell you from direct personal experience that you do not have enough time to count on making your shot at 21 feet. The article you cite describes some relevant variables.
In any case, what we should be discussing un the context of the Laquan McDonald shooting is more like a 12-foot rule.
@Doctor – I think I can agree with you to a point. The 21 foot ‘rule’ has been misunderstood and arguably misapplied. It is not – in and of itself – a justification for deadly force. It is simply intended to slap some serious defensive awareness into your mind – at that distance (or less) you are perilously exposed to a sudden physical attack. That understanding should then be used to inform your tactics, posture, focus etc. But it *does not* grant you legal absolution to hit the bang button whenever a person is within that radius.
>But [the 21-foot rule] *does not* grant you legal absolution to hit the bang button whenever a person is within that radius.
No, it doesn’t. If it happened to be me 21 feet away with a knife – well, I have cerebral palsy; I limp and do not move quickly. Part of your responsibility would be to assess that correctly and downgrade the threat level.
But Lacquan McDonald was, as I have pointed out before, nearly the worst case. Just twelve feet away, armed, viciously high. I wouldn’t have taken any chances if it looked like he was turning to charge; hell, I would have been wishing for a slug-loaded shotgun rather than my issue pistol.
The fault here lay not in the application of Tueller drill or the initial shooting, anyway, so arguing these is rather besides the point.
“You’re speaking as someone who has never trained in actual violent self-defense. ”
No, I’m speaking as someone who recognizes bullshit when he sees it.
How does this work, anyway?
“I got a call for a dine-and-dash at Outback Steakhouse. When I entered, there were dozens of people with big-assed razor-sharp knives in their hands. So you see, Your Honor, I had no choice but to put them all down.”
Good luck with that.
@Doctor – OK…now you’re just being ad absurdum ridiculous. You’re beclowning yourself.
“nearly the worst case. Just twelve feet away, armed, viciously high”
I’ll stop posting now since I don’t want to repeat myself to the point of spam. But I do hope someone can explain why the police feel the need to immediately close the gap to the point where it’s dangerous, rather than taking things more slowly.
I’m willing to be convinced on this point but simply saying “it’s their job” isn’t quite adequate.
>But I do hope someone can explain why the police feel the need to immediately close the gap to the point where it’s dangerous, rather than taking things more slowly.
Cops are peace officers. Lacquan was a threat to civil order and any civilians who might be nearby. The fact that nobody else was in immediate danger is less relevant than you might think. Suppose a civilian came on the scene while they were “taking it slow”; would you want to be the cop who had to report that they could have stopped Lacquan before he killed, but did not?
I’m not theorizing in the abstract here. Police doctrine for dealing with this kind of situation is a difficult set of tradeoffs that has evolved under selective pressures that you will not even come close to fully understanding until you have trained as a first responder yourself.
Even I, as an armed civilian, would have felt a strong responsibility to stop Lacquan McDonald before more potential victims could be put at risk.
I also read that the guy had already banged on a cop car and stabbed its front tire. If this is true, and had been reported to responding officers, then there is no question that the correct response was a direct armed one.
I admit, I don’t really see much of a ‘lunge’ in the vid, but I’m not standing behind the actual LEOs eyeballs. He was within a very dangerous range, had been acting violently with a weapon, and so I’m not prepared to second-guess the initial decision to fire.
But…did the cop unleash a string of 16 shots to neutralize the threat, or were a few shots fired, dropping the target, and then a subsequent ‘execution’ string of fire unleashed?
The jury is going to have a tough time with this. Innocent or guilty, they will have the BLM shadow looming over them.
>But…did the cop unleash a string of 16 shots to neutralize the threat, or were a few shots fired, dropping the target, and then a subsequent ‘execution’ string of fire unleashed?
I agree that this is the real question at issue.
Memetics is driving new cultural and political attitudes which are rapidly changing the social landscape and may have played a role in this incident. In particular, mass media now promotes victimology whenever possible because it sells very well, and the flip side is that police have a growing sense of paranoia about being second-guessed. As a result, many police departments are now having difficulty recruiting good people.
That said, this type of incident is not that rare. Under the right set of circumstances, some police will react primally and pull the trigger until the magazine is empty. This is ancestral brain wiring and not easily overridden by training.
>That said, this type of incident is not that rare. Under the right set of circumstances, some police will react primally and pull the trigger until the magazine is empty. This is ancestral brain wiring and not easily overridden by training.
Everything you say here is correct. But it’s only an explanation, not an excuse.
It was precisely Van Dyke’s responsibility not to let his hindbrain run him. He failed it.
“many police departments are now having difficulty recruiting good people.”
I sure as hell wouldn’t go to work as a cop in today’s environment.
From the video I could not say if the target was spun around by the first shot or if he spun to charge or just turned around fast to mouth off. Reasonable doubt. I don’t especially care that the cop who shot the guy used 16 shots and tried for more- people in fights get excited. Wiggle a finger sixteen times- doesn’t take long, does it? No big deal. Police blotters are full of morally hosed swearing contests.
It is a HUGE deal if the cops are busted for fixing the evidence. Every cop who is proved to have fixed evidence must be fired, no pension, try for some jail. Every cop suspected of fixing evidence should be eased out. Fights are always random and messy. Cops will always be strongly tempted to lie. We must provide strong incentives against this strong temptation.
My concern with the original shots is simply that there doesn’t seem to be a point when he suddenly became more threatening. He was walking along and didn’t seem to turn toward the officers.
It is all too easy to armchair qb this thing, and if the guy had twitched in my direction, I would have shot too. But I am not entirely sure what prompted the guy from having him in his sights and actually pulling the trigger.
But just to be clear, the kid was probably one second away from knife in the cop’s chest. So that is a hell of a short time to make a decision and ensure that he is fully down.
Tough call on the continued shooting though. A cop should have been more disciplined to be able to stop, but that is easy to say when you can slow mo the video and don’t have a pound of adrenaline running through your veins.
BTW, the Chicago Tribune also said that the kid was high on PCP.
I think you can tell a lot about a supposed social injustice by the types of examples people are throwing up. Where are the examples of decent, law abiding black people being taken down like Bambi in the forest It is always dreadful thugs, punks and the scum of the earth who are getting shot.
How about this: instead of trying to fix the supposedly discriminatory police to prevent oneself from getting shot, how about not being a punk to prevent yourself from getting shot? I always worked for me.
I also want to say that Chicago cops are horrible. Just the worst I have ever encountered. I clearly remember seeing a couple of cops arresting a guy for, to quote the cops: “you think you can get away with disrespecting me?”
“…It was precisely Van Dyke’s responsibility not to let his hindbrain run him. He failed it.”
Perhaps. What is the lethal force training doctrine of the Chicago PD? Dump and reload? You fight as you train.
My training doctrine has always been “deliver fire until threat is neutralized”. That necessitates a feedback loop that allows you to break the string of fire when, frex, you register seeing the target collapse. There is a response delay even with that, however, so it is not indefensible to continue shooting someone when they’re [going] down…a few times. Even then, the weapon is a factor. If I see the target go down with a gun in hand, I keep firing until I see that weapon fall free or the weapon arm laying still. No perfect template.
I need to be able to look into my own heart, and perhaps explain to a jury, and be confident that I only used deadly force until I was as certain as I can be that the threat was over.
And, as you say, this is the central question for this incident. Did the use of deadly force extend into the criminal realm?
>Perhaps. What is the lethal force training doctrine of the Chicago PD? Dump and reload? You fight as you train.
I am not excluding the possibility that Van Dyke’s training was faulty. It is quite reasonable to suspect this. Still, the flip side of “you fight as your train” is that you are not simply a robot executing your training. Van Dyke was paid to exercise humane judgment, and (on the evidence) did not.
It’s called “contempt of cop”; though that’s not an actual offense and judges will laugh the cops out of court for bringing someone in for merely “disrespecting” them, officers will arrest you for “resisting arrest”, “disorderly conduct”, “disturbing the peace”, or similar. They will also testilie on the stand to paint a nice pretty picture of you as a criminal and themselves as feeling legitimately threatened and nine times out of ten the jury will believe the cops. And it happens all across this great nation of ours.
Near as I can tell it’s virtually unheard of in continental Europe.
As simply being arrested has severe consequences, may limit your job prospects, and requires thousands of dollars to pay for a lawyer to get expunged, a good rule of thumb is: if you’re fortunate enough to live in the land of the free and must interact with LEOs, shut the fuck up and do as you’re told. And be respectful.
@Jeff – it also explains the rise in ‘sousveillance’, especially now that so many folks have the ability to live stream from their mobile device.
Chicago has a homicide rate of 15 per 100.000 per year. To give a rough idea of what this number means, the nationwide rate for the US is ~4.5. Most Western countries such as France, Denmark and Switzerland are close to 1.0, and the highly developed Asian nations such as Japan, Korea and Singapore have homicide rates of about 0.3.
Since it’s somewhat unfair to compare a city to countries, some quick city-specific numbers are: New York 5.6 – Toronto 1.5 – Madrid 1.0 – Tokyo 0.4 .
So when Chicago cops seem a bit paramilitary, it might have something to do with Chicago’s homicide rate being more typical of Africa than peaceful civilization.
>So when Chicago cops seem a bit paramilitary, it might have something to do with Chicago’s homicide rate being more typical of Africa than peaceful civilization.
Recalls a point I have made several times on this blog, that criminologically the U.S. is divided into Switzerland and Swaziland. Or, more precisely, mostly one big Switzerland – white, very low crime rates – and a bunch of Swaziland-like enclaves, mostly black, with very high crime rates. Chicago is one of the Swazilands.
@ ESR – “it’s only an explanation, not an excuse.”
Agreed. My point was that the hard Left turn in society over the past few years has consequences; one of which is that its getting harder to recruit for quality in LEOs. Society’s deterioration is everyone’s loss.
Also, this story feeds the vicious cycle of political gamesmanship leading toward more victimology and dysfunctional law enforcement.
“Near as I can tell it’s virtually unheard of in continental Europe.”
If you want Europe, Jeff, you know where to find it.
“if you’re fortunate enough to live in the land of the free and must interact with LEOs, shut the fuck up and do as you’re told. And be respectful.”
This is the first sensible thing you’ve said in a long time.
Now, painu vittuun!
>U.S. is divided into Switzerland and Swaziland (…)
This blog was part of my inspiration for becoming fluent in homicide numbers. Conventional wisdom where I’m from is that Americans kill each other a lot because they have a lot of guns – a somewhat plausible explanation at the face of it, for someone entirely unfamiliar with gun culture, but one that doesn’t survive contact with the actual numbers.
For the unconvinced, I encourage you to look into the homicide rates of Iceland and Greenland.
I stumbled across this today and have several comments.
First, backup with tasers was called for. The people calling for the backup were told backup was on the way but not if the backup actually had tasers. In fact reporters now aren’t even clear if the backup had tasers.
Second, to the moron who suggested tranquilizer darts. Do you have any idea what PCP is? Yes it is an animal tranquilizer. It used to be used a loton horses, I don’t know if it still is. So you want to pump more into him?
Third. PCP is nasty stuff. I didn’t know people still took it. Back when they did I remember seeing some videos of guys strapped down on it. They would tear out the straps. If they lived later doctors would find shredded tendons, demolished muscles and even broken bones. The guys just don’t feel it and don’t have the awareness to stop.
Fourth, every news source I have seen is reporting PCP in his system. Perhaps that was a preliminary tox screen and not comprehensive. Like I said, I don’t know that people used it anymore so I guess it is not high on priorities.
Fifth, listening to SA Alverez’s press conference yesterday, the cops were called because MacDonald was trying to break into houses. While they were getting to that final scene, he slashed a tire on a cop car. So going into it, the cops already had to believe the guy was wild.
Sixth, The most ironic thing. If one of the first few bullets was fatal — the bullets that were justified, then the worst thing the cop is guilty of illegallty discharging his weapon. and possibly shooting a corpse. More to the point if there is any indication that a bullet fired justifiably might have killed MacDonald, then the cop must be found not guilty. It’s called reasonable doubt.
>Fourth, every news source I have seen is reporting PCP in his system.
And he was acting like it.
A detail I forgot to mention about the knife brandishing: even in poor-quality video you can tell that McDonald’s fine motor control was compromised. He made a big, crazy motion because his capacity to perform small ones was impaired.
This is one of the tells that you may well be dealing with someone dusted, or on bath salts, or on meth. Black trash in the city raises the prior on PCP somewhat; correspondingly, white trash in a rural area would raise the prior on meth.
>Fifth, listening to SA Alverez’s press conference yesterday, the cops were called because MacDonald was trying to break into houses. While they were getting to that final scene, he slashed a tire on a cop car. So going into it, the cops already had to believe the guy was wild.
Ah. I didn’t know this. That’s good; it reduces the odds that there will be an effort to outright canonize him a la Saint Trayvon of the Skittles. Also it’s a bit too early for Democrats to use his death as agitprop for the 2016 elections, so the media might actually report the story halfway honestly (but I’m not holding my breath).
Is there a legal or moral difference between unnecessary additional shots that are fired without real thought under the influence of fear and adrenalin, and “execution shots” which implies calculation and intent? If not, isn’t it rather dangerous for anyone who use a gun to defend himself or someone else, when no one really knows how he will react under the influence of fear and adrenalin in an unfamiliar situation.
>Is there a legal or moral difference between unnecessary additional shots that are fired without real thought under the influence of fear and adrenalin, and “execution shots” which implies calculation and intent?
In most jurisdictions, “additional shots that are fired without real thought under the influence of fear and adrenalin” would be negligent homicide or manslaughter. In relatively enlightened states (generally those with looser gun laws), successfully pleading imminent fear of death or grievous bodily harm can get you off that hook.
Supposing “calculation and intent” but without premeditation would usually be murder in the second degree; premeditation (Van Dyke specifically looking for McDonald to kill him) or certain kinds of aggravating circumstance such as killing during the commission of (another) felony jack it up to first degree.
These are generalities; there are various state-level exceptions, and the distinctions made in Illinois law are slightly unusual, though not enough so to be startling.
mdc: In this case, the difference would be the difference between some lesser offense and first degree murder, under Illinois law.
The post in slatestarcodex called “the toxoplasma of rage” argues that there’s a positive incentive leading people with an ideological agenda to overlook open-and-shut cases and focus on questionable ones. And by the standard he describes, this is a perfect candidate: it’s an edge case where an apparently dangerous and deranged person is subjected to apparently unnecessary degree of lethal force. It’s an opportunity to signal tribal membership by showing unambiguous and emphatic support of a weak position that favors the tribe, and since popular opinion will split on the case, there will be enough attention-getting debate to lend relevance to whatever opinion one might
display.
Yeah, I’m just glad I’m not on the jury for this one. I hate being forced to display 100% confidence in a 51% choice.
I am a military trained medical laboratory technician. Please read the last page of the coroners report. The deceased was not under the influence of the three drugs tested.
However, I don’t think that actually matters. His behavior was that of someone who could be dangerous, and he was far too close to allow time to figure that out. As you said, up to the first two shots, clearly a good shoot.
I did my residency in Houston and spent some time at Ben Taub, our public hospital.
Was in the ER when the cops and EMS brought in a man who was on PCP. Story was he began to assault his girlfriend in the apartment and she ran out and locked herself in the car. He proceeded to jump on the hood and beat on the windshield with his fists until they failed him. He then began to use his face.
Showed up handcuffed with his hands behind his back and tied to the backboard with duct tape. He is screaming like an animal, spraying blood mist everywhere (this was due to a completely deformed nose and Laforte 3 fracture of his face). No way to start an IV, and this was before the more common use of intraosseous lines. Finally gave him an IM injection of succinylcholine and did an emergency trach.
Took him to CT and found the Laforte along with a subdural hematoma. Took him to the OR. Evacuated the hematoma and plated the facial fractures. Turns out the reason that he stopped using his fists on the glass was that they were little more than bags of bone fragments. Both his forearms were fractured as well.
I bought my first handgun the following weekend.
Anyone who thinks a taser, a blow gun or net is a viable option is an idiot. I don’t know if the last 10 shots were necessary, but the first 5 or 6 probably sealed his fate anyway. Wave a knife at a cop, buy a bullet, you know, play stupid games, win stupid prizes. I know the taxpayers of Houston shelled out seven figures in “free” medical care. At least the citizens of Chiraq saved some for the producer class.
I did my paramedic clinical rotations at the Tub (Ben Taub). Got chewed out, impersonally, by Red Duke for not using a big enough IV one time. The Tub is not just Houston’s public hospital; it’s one of two Level I trauma centers in the area. (Or at least it was when I was in EMS.) If you’re in a world of hurt, with serious injuries and trying very hard to die, you want to go there. Even if the patient wards are often full of the indigent with all of the medical problems they tend to have, you’ll get some of the best trauma care on the planet in the Tub’s ER.
jfre’s story is entirely believable, and par for the course there.
http://projects.buffalonews.com/abusing-the-law/index.html
Unaccountability makes strange and nonconsensual bedfellows.
@jfre: Here in Poland in ER (according to what my sister, M.D. told me) they use quite generic detox injection if there is suspicion of drug use. But I don’t think there is much PCP use in Toru?, Poland…
@ jfre – “I bought my first handgun the following weekend.”
FWIW, modeling suggests that personal risk will increase significantly as a result of numerous adverse trends that are currently established and accelerating. Take the class and get your concealed carry license also. And then practice. And then carry often.
> Please read the last page of the coroners report. The deceased was not under the influence of the three drugs tested.
None of which were PCP. Either there’s another tox report out there, or the mainstream media has been deeply irresponsible in reporting this.
> My concern with the original shots is simply that there doesn’t seem to be a point when he suddenly became more threatening. He was walking along and didn’t seem to turn toward the officers.
I almost didn’t see it, and I’m still less sure than ESR, but there’s a very slight movement, right before he gets shot, that could have been him turning towards the cops. The gap between that movement and the shots seems narrow enough that it could have been that the cop was “waiting for an excuse”, and that may be the underlying basis for the first degree charge – to ask the Jury to make that analysis and determine it one way or the other.
>The gap between that movement and the shots seems narrow enough that it could have been that the cop was “waiting for an excuse”, and that may be the underlying basis for the first degree charge – to ask the Jury to make that analysis and determine it one way or the other.
I almost completely agree with this.
My disagreement is that I think “waiting for an excuse” may be unfair – probably is. “Waiting to be triggered” would probably be better.
I know from hand-to-hand and blade combat that one of the things you do in your mind is anticipate the opponent’s moves and pre-buffer responses in your head because you know that if particular trigger points are reached you’ll need to react faster than a conscious decision loop allows.
Here’s what I think I saw: Van Dyke preparing himself with the instructions “If he turns to charge I’ll shoot (but not otherwise).” McDonald, not knowing this, begins to turn towards the cops, either to charge them or to talk. Van Dyke is so adrenalized and primed that he sees the first few degrees of the turn and fires.
In this scenario, whether Van Dyke “intended” to shoot McDonald is an interesting definitional question. I think what he intended was to respond correctly according to his training – which he in fact continued to do until two bullets later.
@Jakub: There are specific antagonists available for certain drug categories like naloxone for opioids or flumazenil for Valium like drugs. Meth, ketamine, PCP, lots of others there really isn’t a reversal. For most, it is supportive care while they metabolize it out. Anti psychotics like haldol can help take the edge off as well.
The issue with the dude on PCP was with the facial fracture we had few non-surgical options for controlling the airway. With him thrashing around flinging blood all over, intravenous access with a central line was also problematic. The IM sux and a trach was the most expedient course.
@jay: The Tub is still level 1 and the place to go if you are trying to die from trauma. Have not been there in 2 decades but I am sure the clientèle has not changed.
As to the 7 yard rule, skip to the 7 minute mark of the video below to see what happens when an officer with a rifle (with 3 other officers on the scene) lets a skinny dude with a knife get too close. You may ask what is magic about 21 feet, but watch how fast the officer is killed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=75RTkGbiJpk
@TomA: Got the concealed carry. Range time twice a month at least, 200 – 300 rounds. Carry everywhere it is legal to do so all the time. Rifle in the backseat of the pickup and an XD45 in the cab. I agree with the trends. The US is getting poorer as a country. Average income is $40k per year and inflation is running at 10% per annum. We have a president who is a divider and pits class against class, group against group. All it would take to kick it all off would be for the EBT cards to not work for 3 days.
Look at Americans today. Fat, tatooed and vulgar. Compare that to the Americans in the bread lines during the great depression. They wore suits. They stood in line. They were humble. We have an entire generation of 350lb grain fed beauties that have never gone to bed hungry in decades. If for whatever reason the food stops being delivered to Kroger or Walmart or the Stop and Rob on the corner we are going to have an entire segment of the population that are going to do whatever it takes to stuff their faces. We have entire segments of the population that believe balls to bones that they are ENTITLED to the work of others and if you don’t cough it up they will take it. The fourth turning is upon us.
FWIW. I think the video @jfre posts pretty much seals the deal on the question as to whether the cop had justification for fearing for his life.
“OK…now you’re just being ad absurdum ridiculous. You’re beclowning yourself.”
No, the people who are beclowning themselves are the ones who believe there’s some “rule” that specifies a distance (not just a distance, but a very specific distance — 21 feet, forsooth) at which it automatically becomes proper to shoot someone.
In fact, you’re justified in using deadly force at any distance if you (or another person) are legitimately in danger, and not justified in using it at any distance if you’re not. Who decides whether you’re in real danger? You and perhaps a jury. That’s it. You can’t just apply some nonsensical “rule”.
To the extent that the “rule” is used as a substitute for thinking the situation through, it is pernicious bullshit. If you rely on the “rule” at all, you’re very likely to find yourself up on charges. I mean, when even the guy who came up with it says it was never intended to be used in this way, what more can you say?
I would strongly recommend not following any advice from whoever it was who taught you people this “rule”.
Sorry for the slightly off-topic post, but so you know, it’s pretty tough viewing embedded videos here such as @jfre ‘s on a mobile device; much of the right-hand side gets cut off. As I check what youtube offers as embed code when asked to share on a direct link, I see it’s a fixed-width iframe by default. May I thus recommend the jquery auto-resize code-snippet half-way down this handy page: https://css-tricks.com/NetMag/FluidWidthVideo/Article-FluidWidthVideo.php
>>”Or can’t they shoot straight enough to hit someone from that far?”
It’s easy to hit a target from 7 yards. It’s also surprisingly easy to miss. And that’s a stationary paper target. Seen a lot of cops and military guys do it. Add in a living, moving, obviously aggressive human being and your own physical reactions to the situation…and all that Hollywood shit goes right out the window.
Agree with esr that this was initially a clean shoot.
Eric, speaking from Southern White Trash Central, when bath salts were legal (or semi-legal), they were almost as universal as meth. Now they are unambiguously illegal in Florida, but still common.
And meth? Starting to fade as “rx heroin” (OxyContin, Percocet, etc) becomes even more common. These drugs are now being smuggled in, just like coke in the old days.
FWIW, here’s Andrew Branca’s view.
@Jessica Boxer
“I think you can tell a lot about a supposed social injustice by the types of examples people are throwing up. Where are the examples of decent, law abiding black people being taken down like Bambi in the forest It is always dreadful thugs, punks and the scum of the earth who are getting shot.”
Maybe Walter Scott comes close? The victim was 50 and his latest conviction seems to have been in 1991.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Walter_Scott
Note that without an eyewitness recording the incident on video, the police officer and his partner would have had it covered up without questions.
@Doctor Locketopus
I don’t think the videos that original pushed the 21-foot rule convincingly establish it, but it’s usefulness can be made into precise, testable statements. Its a strawman to say that its about getting to shoot anybody within a 21-foot radius.
Perhaps you should contact the authors of https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=175597 if you believe that its bullshit.
Also in the Estate of Larsen v. Denver the 21-foot rule was mentioned in a decision about use of force: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-10th-circuit/1089927.html
This article of Borelli, 2001 suggests that 21-foot rule is too close: https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/abstractdb/AbstractDBDetails.aspx?id=203269 where a motivated perpetrator could cover 32 feet in 2.5 seconds.
As long as there is pattern to the distance a perpetrator brandishing a weapon can cover in 2 seconds there can be meaningful distance-based guidelines that allow one to assess threats. Is that charge that its bullshit that you can’t test this? What am I missing?
@Random832
A toxicology report came out two weeks ago which indicated that Laquan had PCP in his system, this was reported in the Chicago Tribune: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-police-shooting-16-shots-met-20150414-story.html
The March 31 report tested him for cocaine, heroin and alcohol all of which came back negative. I don’t think anybody is claiming that he had any of those three substances in his body.
@Jay Maynard
““Near as I can tell it’s virtually unheard of in continental Europe.”
If you want Europe, Jeff, you know where to find it.”
Does that mean you think it is right for cops to arrest people for “disrespect” and lie in court?
And how do you square the fact that Free Speech is not allowed when interacting with cops with Libertarianism?
I see its point, but I think that just raises more questions and arguably *worse* implications.
Originally, the coverage focus on Thuggy Thuggersons getting shot in near-edge-of-justifiable circumstances seemed to imply that there aren’t any definite innocent blacks being shot definitely unjustifiably, and the media is scraping the bottom of the barrel looking for black victims that they think have got to be there somewhere. In this explanation they’re merely deluded, and reaching.
The toxoplasma of rage explanation, to the degree it’s applied instead, appears to imply one of ESR’s prospiracies that 1) has virtually the entire mainstream media signed on to it, 2) has an ideological agenda of deliberately ignoring actual murders of innocents in favor of 3) stoking resentment and racial hatred while 4) running interference for thugs. All with a degree of repetition, persistence, wilfulness, etc. where mass jailing of journalists as a class starts to look justifiable. Initial draft of charges: negligence, misfeasance, incitement, libel, fabrication of evidence, and perverting the course of justice for the central perps; accessory to all the above for their managers, editors, etc.
I’m not saying this toxoplasma explanation is necessarily wrong for that reason, and I realize that argumentum ad consequentiam is a fallacy, but I think there’s a fine line between that and reductio ad absurdum.
@Erik
“I see its point, but I think that just raises more questions and arguably *worse* implications.”
Maybe a better explanation is that the readers of the media have reached a point that they do not like so many (black) men being killed by the police. And these readers have also reached the point that they do not buy the “blaming the victim” approach taken by the police. An approach also taken here. The work of the police is to ensure order, not to look for excuses to use force and violence. Finding excuses to shoot are, by the way, a theme in many of the comments I read.
In this Laquan McDonald case, it is clear that the killing was not necessary in any way. As was the case in many other incidents, e.g., Sean Bell, Eric Garner, Jonathan Sanders, Brenden Glenn, Walter Scott etc.. Then it is valid to demand that the police works to prevent such unnecessary deaths. And they must be seen to really work to prevent such deaths.
The most worrisome aspect is that the immediate response is to require more body cams. This shows a complete and utter distrust of police officers. The despicable behavior of the Ferguson police force in legal extortion of the population shows that this distrust is often well earned.
So, instead of shooting the messenger, the police should work on earning the trust of the population again.
>In this Laquan McDonald case, it is clear that the killing was not necessary in any way.
Actually, that’s not at all clear. There’s a sharp contrast between this and the murder of (for example) Eric Garner, another black man who really was killed unnecessarily and tyrannically; I condemned it in the strongest terms at the time it became public.
Lacquan McDonald was a knife-brandishing, drugged-up maniac just coming off a burglary spree. The first bullets, which might have killed him and quite possibly did kill him, were quite justified. It was Van Dyke’s failure to stop and assess before unnecessary additional lethal force that opens him up to a murder charge.
Re tasers, tear gas and suchlike, surely their primary purpose is not pain or even discomfort, but rather the disabling of motor or sensory systems, thus rendering the offender harmless, regardless of whether they feel pain or not.
A robot could be disabled by a taser.
What if the police are the bad guys, as in the UK when the police pursued an innocent Brazilian tourist, pinned him to the ground, then shot him to death before seeking any evidence of wrongdoing?
Winter, I’m not defending the American police. I’m questioning the toxoplasma explanation of this alleged phenomenon:
The default inference I’d make from such a phenomenon goes something like this: The types of examples of wrongful police homicide thrown up are the most unjustified ones and still exist on the border near justification, indicating that for the most part the police are doing a decent job of only shooting people who needed shooting. (While still possibly misbehaving in various less obvious, non-shooty ways.) The Laquan McDonald cases of the world are selected for being several standard deviations out from the average on a scale of “did not need shooting”, and it was still reasonable to shoot them the first X times but not the next Y times. Thus, the average person shot by the police really did need shooting.
The toxoplasma inference goes something like this: The Laquan McDonald cases of the world are selected for being near the border of what’s justified, not for being less justified than average. The average person who gets shot by the police in this explanation is somewhere much closer to Laquan McDonald. The police are also shooting people several standard deviations further in the direction of “did not need shooting”.
To quote Eric:
“He dindu nuffin” (didn’t do nothing) is a nasty joke and a propaganda victory for right-wingers precisely because of cases like this; the “dindu nuffins” of the world keep turning out to be angel-dusted thugs brandishing weapons or something of that order. The toxoplasma explanation of this implies that the media is deliberately, systematically, massively ignoring people who actually didn’t do anything in favor of reporting on angel-dusted thugs, painting the latter as pure innocent victims and secular martyrs, and inciting riots and racial grievances on false premises.
That’s a massive accusation to level at the media, and I wonder if the slatestarcodex set are willing to bite the bullet.
Your example of Walter Scott, OTOH, disputes the alleged phenomenon rather than the explanation, so I don’t think I have a quarrel with you.
Cynicism time: body cams might end up making it worse, according to Greg Ellifritz, who suggests that the police response to sousveillance will be mass dereliction of duty.
Peace officers? Or Peacekeepers from Farscape?
“the police response to sousveillance will be mass dereliction of duty.”
Remember that the legal duty of the police, according to the courts, is not to stop crime as it happens. It’s to catch criminals and make sure they are prosecuted. That cop stopping to be helpful? Not in his job description, according to the courts.
Remember that cops have no duty to respond to individual calls.
Dereliction of duty? No, rational response to an increasing and unreasonably hostile working environment.
Followed a link from @jfre vid
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_KJ1R2PCMM
Apologies….I did not intend for the vid to embed like that.
@esr
“The first bullets, which might have killed him and quite possibly did kill him, were quite justified.”
The first shots were justified given the circumstances (if the reports are correct), but I think there can be a long debate about whether the application of police force can be tailored to make shooting less necessary and when it is applied, less deadly. Then there will also be a long debate about the deadliness of these first shots. But this force could have been applied less deadly anyway (e.g., by better training, different gear). As it looks now, MacDonald would not have had to die and his death was unnecessary.
>But this force could have been applied less deadly anyway (e.g., by better training, different gear).
There’s a strong case for the demilitarization of U.S. police; I have argued it before and will again. But not this time, and not for this class of perp.
What you don’t seem to get that a armed man on a dissociative-anaesthetic high is about the absolute worst case of dangerous violence and near invulnerability to nonlethal subdual techniques. We’re talking about someone having a drug-induced psychotic break, freakishly strong, insensitive to pain, and often able to shrug off billy clubs and tasers and slug guns and pepper spray.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/09/08/shock-video-man-high-on-pcp-tasered-twice-hit-with-a-baton-and-pepper-sprayed-and-police-say-it-had-no-effect/
There really isn’t any reliable answer to a PCP high other than “shoot him”.
Look at how many people are shot by police annually in the USA. Now look at say, Germany, which used 85 rounds total, nationwide, in 2011. Germany’s crime numbers are lower than the USA’s, but not that much lower. The best conclusion that I can reach is that American cops are shooting lots of people who don’t need shooting. German cops manage to apprehend criminals with a minimum of gunfire.
And no, “if you want Europe, you know where to find it” is not a valid counter-argument. The USA used to be an exemplar for the world in terms of freedom and human rights. I’d like to see those days return. Plus the USA is the most powerful nation on earth; if it goes much further down the road of tyranny, it spells doom for everybody. And, 300 million people would benefit from improved conditions here.
How did you fail the reach the conclusion that the ‘work environment’ for the police is fundamentally different in cities like St. Louis, Detroit, Chicago and New Orleans, than anything which exists anywhere in Germany? Do you suggest that German style policing would bring about German style rates of homicide in a city like Detroit?
@ Erik re: the SSC toxoplasma of rage blog discussion
Fundamentals matter. As ESR has already mentioned, police operating in the sociological high crime environment of Chicago have adapted to the realities that they confront daily and consequently absorbed and internalized what can best be described as “street wisdom.” Spend a few years doing that job and you will be a changed person as well. It’s human nature to adapt in a high stress environment, and we are wired to look for and recognize risk patterns, and then behave in a way that minimizes that risk. A young black man acting erratically and wielding a knife on the street in Chicago is a distinct threat pattern. This reality is not diminished by liberal platitudes about abstract social equality.
Over the past 60 years, the US social/political welfare experiment has grown these high crime enclaves within liberal governed urban areas. Blaming cops for adapting to these environments is backwards. We should be blaming the politicians that destroyed the black family structure leading to the creation of these environments.
> That’s a massive accusation to level at the media, and I wonder if the slatestarcodex set are willing to bite the bullet.
I’m not sure you quite understand the toxoplasma explanation fully; your take on it is sufficient to explain what we see, but not necessary.
My read on the toxoplasma model goes more like this:
Local news outlets report on local news stories all the time. To stay topical, let’s consider the case of police shootings, and suppose for the sake of simplicity that they fall into two categories: Type M, where the evidence on whether it was just is juuuust ambiguous enough to allow people to attempt to jam the case into their preexisting worldviews, correctly or not, and Type G, where it was clearly an unjust killing.
When local news outlets report on a Type G, everyone more or less agrees that it was terrible. Follow-up stories are likely to be met with a weary sigh of “are we still talking about this, we all pretty much agree it was bad;” news media who live and die by advertising revenue thus have a strong incentive to let the story fizzle out.
Meanwhile, when they report on a Type M, arguments break out. Nobody is interested in dispassionately figuring out what the truth is; for the most part, everyone just wants the story to support their own personal model of how the world works, and by ghod they’re gonna make it do so. Someone shares the story on their MyFace+ page, a friend (soon to be former friend) argues that their read on the story is wrong, and things spread and balkanize from there. News media (not just local anymore), who live and die by advertising revenue, thus have a strong incentive to start the “Five Reasons Why You [Should/Should Not] Be Outraged” and “This One Weird Trick Will Let You Win Arguments Over The M Case With Your Dumb Relatives” parades to attract one of the clans like flies to shit.
The only time a Type G will rise to prominence will be in the aftermath of a Type M as additional fuel. It will be posted, at least initially, targeted toward one of the two clans in a “see, you were right all along” sort of way.
No conspiracy or even prospiracy among the media is required, just self-interest and a willingness to follow monetary incentive gradients. Of course, that does not exclude the possibility of such; as our host likes to say, all interesting behavior is overdetermined.
@Winter “In this Laquan McDonald case, it is clear that the killing was not necessary in any way”
The dude is on PCP, stabbed a police car tire and now is brandishing a knife at officers in a public space. What exactly should they have used? Harsh language?
You see from the videos above how deadly a knife can be and how quickly it can be brought to bear. What is the “correct” approach you endorse? Please explain.
@Geoffrey
Theoretically it is imaginable to develop weapons/tools that neutralize effectively without killing. My idea would be some kind of a remote and instant way to block the motor nervous system (but without suffocating the suspect). A real world Hold Person spell. Such technologies simply don’t exist yet. When they exist and when they are affordable, come back to ask the same question. I am not a gun expert, there are multiple gun experts in this thread, but my layman guesstimate is that the purpose of handguns is to effectively and instantly block the motor nervous system through a complicated chain of causality, like, hydrostatic shock? This is called “stopping power” ? The goal of self-defense or stopping is to fuck up the motor nervous system temporarily. Injury, permanent fuck-up, disability and death are side-effects of the currently most efficient way of doing so, i.e. the bullet. I am a tech-optimist, surely one day someone invents something that has the stopping power of a 9mm but the lethality of an ass slap, most probably by acting on the motor nerves directly. But that day is not today.
@esr
I have no experience myself, but I have been told that better training makes for less deadly shootings.
And the officer involved had a history of complains.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/11/26/cop-chicago-shooting-had-history-complaints/76411074/
American cops are trained to be paranoid and treat everyone as a potential threat. That breeds disrespect for the police and hence the law among the populace, who know they will be treated like criminals anyway, leading to an increase in crime, leading to police being trained to be even more aggressive and paranoid while on duty, etc.
When we liberals speak of a “cycle of violence”, we’re not just blowing smoke up your ass. It’s a problem that requires a solution. They’re not going to de-escalate in the ghetto. It’s up to police to take the lead in de-escalation by finding ways to maximize LE effectiveness and minimize bloodshed.
Germany’s crime numbers are lower than the USA’s, but not that much lower.
They’re a lot lower than Chicago’s, St Louis’s, or Baltimore’s.
The best conclusion that I can reach is that American cops are shooting lots of people who don’t need shooting.
Or that German cops are not shooting lots of people who do need it. Shooting someone who needs it is a good thing, not a bad one. It makes the world a better place.
That’s … interesting. Do you believe that the astonishing homicide rates in South Africa (31.0) and Jamaica (39.3) have similar explanations?
@winter
> And the officer involved had a history of complains.
And that is relevant exactly why? If people have complained about you as a cop, you somehow are now no longer allowed to defend yourself? For this officer to be concerned about his safety and that of the other cops was entirely justified given the circumstances. I am a little dubious on the step from “duly concerned” to “pulling a trigger”, but that is way too easy for me to say sitting in my nice comfortable chair.
And a couple of other things. Firstly, the fact that this kid was apparently attempting burglaries just further emphasizes how important it was for the cops to stop him. If he is breaking and entering people’s houses in that pcp-ed state there is a very realistic chance of entirely innocent people being murdered in their beds.
Secondly, it needs to be said that the death of this young man, while tragic in one respect probably as a whole made the world a better place. Most likely he would go on to a life of serious crime and in all probability his death here means that there are several people he would have killed in the future who won’t die. Not that that is a justification for killing him of course, but let’s not pretend the world is a worse place without him.
And thirdly, the call for Jeff Read to go to Europe — love it or leave it — is one which I totally repudiate. Thank god George Washington, or Martin Luther King, or Harriet Tubman didn’t leave it because they didn’t love it. If you love it despite its imperfections, then change it, and make it better.
@Jessica
“And that is relevant exactly why? If people have complained about you as a cop, you somehow are now no longer allowed to defend yourself? ”
No, it shows two things:
1) the officer had a problem with anger control
2) his superiors are not handling issues of violence among their ranks
In this case, the negligence of the force leadership in controlling the behavior of their ranks could well be responsible for placing a man that was unfit for his task in a dangerous situation.
It is also clear from the behavior (and lies) of the partners of the perpetrators in many of the incidents that the blue ommerta keeps people in the force that are a danger to the public.
I think Van Dyke was probably unfit for his task. I blame the police management for keeping him in the force which would have lead to serious incidents at some other time, if it hadn’t this time.
@anonymous
“That’s … interesting. Do you believe that the astonishing homicide rates in South Africa (31.0) and Jamaica (39.3) have similar explanations?”
If you want to say that the USA is more like a developing country than like Germany, I think Jeff will not complain.
Btw, criminals in Germany are much less likely to shoot than those in the USA.
One reason seems to be that they are less likely to be shot at. Also, there is a real difference in jail time when you are in the possession of a gun or even worse when you use a gun. So it always pays to use less violence. The benefits of using a gun are also much smaller.
@ Winter
You are attempting to micromanage one police officer in regard to one tragic incident that resulted in one death. You are utterly ignoring the underlying social pathology that is largely responsible for creating this environment and the inevitable collisions that will occur in these cauldrons of dysfunction. If you really want to make a tangible difference, you need to put an end to the political exploitation of urban blacks who are easily seduced into selling their integrity for a cheap election vote. Drug abuse is pain relief from low self respect; and sometimes it get you killed.
@esr:
“In most jurisdictions, “additional shots that are fired without real thought under the influence of fear and adrenalin” would be negligent homicide or manslaughter.”
I don’t think that is the case in the UK, which is not exactly known as a self-defence friendly jurisdiction. Provided that the initial decision to use deadly force was justified, it’s not required to precisely judge minimum force needed to incapacitate.
Now 16 bullets from a handgun probably means reloading at least once which makes a claim of lack of intent harder to sustain. But I am surprised to hear that one must be so precise in use of force in the US.
>Btw, criminals in Germany are much less likely to shoot than those in the USA.
It’s almost as if Germany has a different -kind- of criminals than the USA. The mind boggles.
> Now 16 bullets from a handgun probably means reloading at least once which makes a claim of lack of intent harder to sustain
There are handguns with 16+ bullet clips…
From the autopsy report. Numbering is from the report in order of head to feet, not order of shot (which no one will ever know). In reading the report I see 12 non-lethal wounds, 2 life threatening and 2 rapidly fatal. Understand that these findings are mine based on reading the autopsy report.
A copy of the report is at:
http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/11/laquana-mcdonald-video-simply-not-dispositive-of-police-misconduct/
Summary of wounds:
1. Left Scalp – Did not penetrate the skull. Small sub arachnoid hemorrhage. Non-lethal
2. Neck – Transected the trachea. The great vessels are in the area and while not mentioned were most likely damaged. This was most likely the kill shot
3. Left Chest – Did not perforate the chest cavity. Non-lethal
4. Right Chest – Perforates the right chest and shreds the right middle lobe of the lung. Most likely lethal, but not immediately
5. Left Elbow – Non-lethal
6. Right Upper Arm – Non-lethal
7. Left Forearm – Non-lethal
8. Right Upper Leg – Perforated the upper leg and pelvic floor. Potentially lethal if it tore up the iliac arteries or bladder. Was not mentioned. If lethal, it was not immediately.
9. Left upper Back – Did not penetrate the chest cavity. Non-lethal
10. Left Elbow – Non-lethal
11. Right Upper Arm – Non-lethal
12. Right Arm – Non-lethal
13. Right Forearm – Non-lethal
14. Right Hand – Non-lethal
15. Right Lower Back – Into the Sacrum and Abdomen. Certainly life threatening, but probably not lethal with medical attention.
16. Right Upper Leg – Non-lethal
Depending on the order of the shots, he could have been down for the count with the first round fired if it was to the neck or chest, or he could have been injured but not incapacitated if all the superficial shots occurred first.
@mdc: The Glock or Springfield XD come standard with 15 round magazines, so you can have 15 in the mag and 1 in the chamber. No reloading necessary. These are common weapons for cops to carry.
>>”When we liberals speak of a “cycle of violence”, we’re not just blowing smoke up your ass.”
Odd, considering that the previous paragraph reeks of it.
>>”They’re not going to de-escalate in the ghetto. It’s up to police to take the lead in de-escalation by finding ways to maximize LE effectiveness and minimize bloodshed.”
This is nonsense when you consider that the majority of violence and murder in certain “communities” don’t involve LE at all.
Typical weekend in Chiraq. These are all shootings, but none by police. Mostly blacks shooting at other blacks, but no #BlackLivesMatter outrage to be seen. Curious..
Friday 11/20
12:10p 6300 S Fairfield, Chicago Lawn, F/23
1:00p 800 N Central, Austin, M/23
2:15p 11600 S Morgan, West Pullman, M/20
4:30p 6600 S Claremont, Chicago Lawn, M/20
7:45p 7000 S Calumet, Grand Crossing, M/24 (FATAL)
Saturday 11/21
1:10a 1200 W 71st, Englewood, M/38 (FATAL)
1:35a 6500 S Maplewood, Chicago Lawn, M/26
4:15a 3300 W LeMoyne, Humboldt Park, M/20
10:30a Trolley Violence Leaves One Dead
3:00p Fire at the John Hancock Center
8:30p 6200 S Rockwell, Chicago Lawn, M/29 (FATAL)
Sunday 11/22
1:15a 1000 N Hamlin, Humboldt Park, F/40
3:10a 100 W 109th, Roseland, M/24
12:25p 7900 S Halsted, Auburn Gresham, M/42
1:25p 4100 W Roosevelt, North Lawndale, M/21
1:25p 4100 W Roosevelt, North Lawndale, M/22
1:25p 4100 W Roosevelt, North Lawndale, M/34
1:25p 4100 W Roosevelt, North Lawndale, F/45
2:50p 7100 S Morgan, Englewood, M/20 (FATAL)
5:40p 2900 W 54th, Gage Park, F/19
7:35p 5400 W Race, Austin, M/35 (FATAL)
8:00p 4500 W Maypole, Garfield Park, M/36
8:40p 5700 S Union, Englewood, M/19 (FATAL)
6 kills and 13 wounded. Obviously need to work on shot placement.
And that was from http://heyjackass.com/enlightening-commentary/
@esr:
>There really isn’t any reliable answer to a PCP high other than “shoot him”.
I don’t think this could be reliably done, but just out of curiosity, are there any bones you could break (presumably in the legs or hip area) that would render someone structurally incapable of continuing to stand, regardless of how much they might be overdriving muscles or ignoring pain?
>I don’t think this could be reliably done, but just out of curiosity, are there any bones you could break (presumably in the legs or hip area) that would render someone structurally incapable of continuing to stand, regardless of how much they might be overdriving muscles or ignoring pain?
I can think of several possibilities, but no reliable ones. Hitting bone in the limbs is difficult and chancy; this is exactly why police train for COM (center of mass) shots.
(If you care about fine distinctions, urban black lowlife probably means PCP or bath salts. Rural white trash means meth.)
I’ve seen a recent report that meth is currently very popular among young blacks in Los Angeles.
> There is no dealing nicely with someone on PCP. All you can do is throw lots of
> force at them and hope to overpower them.
This is not entirely true.
I have a friend (not a FOAF, a guy I routinely spent time with, went drinking with, flew half way across the country to go shooting with etc.) who was a LEO in California.
He was well known in his department for being The Guy Who Could Deal With PCP heads.
The thing is you have to get them calm, you have to avoid sending signals of *ANY* aggression, you have to not shine flashlights in their eyes, talk loud to them, or you set them off.
Now, once you (or anything) sets them off it’s Game On With A Vengeance, and you cannot get them to submit, you have to break shit, or use MASSIVE overwhelming force.
But the thing is that the very things that work reliably on “straight” folks, or even drunks/stoners/lsd users are UTTERLY contraindicated on PCPers. Establishing control and authority works in almost every other situation, but will backfire on PCP heads.
My friend was smart, and well trained enough, and is probably a bit of a well adjusted sociopath (BTW Eric, you met both of us @ a geeks with guns thing back in the early 2000s) such that he isn’t nervous about going hands on with someone like that, so he can appear relaxed and is in a head space to control his responses.
The thing is, he’s in the 2nd standard deviation (or higher) for intelligence, is incredibly well read, and used to train in firearms and hand to hand *extensively* on his own time. Not something you’re going to be able to afford in most police officers, and when you show up on the scene with someone like that you’ve got to act immediately to control the scene. Most cops don’t have the skills–mental, emotional or physical–to do that.
And no, more training isn’t going to work. Police already have a TON of mandatory training they have to do on top of a rather tough/brutal 24×7 job (most departments rotate their police across around the shifts which is VERY rough on the cops, but you have to have round the clock coverage and the majority of folks don’t want to work the night shift). On top of their shifts and mandatory training they’ve got court dates and etc.
There’s just not enough time to fit “more” training in, so you’re going to have to bump something. What are you going to bump?
Sexual Harassment Training?
Diversity Awareness Training?
Drug and Alcohol anti-abuse Training?
Training in new legal/constitutional procedures?
Weapons and hand to hand training?
You’re not going to get the first four canceled, and if you further compromise the 5th you make the problem worse.
>The thing is you have to get them calm, you have to avoid sending signals of *ANY* aggression, you have to not shine flashlights in their eyes, talk loud to them, or you set them off.
That is very interesting. I’m not sure I’d want to try it myself – OK, maybe if the perp is unarmed. But it’s a good thing to have in the mental files.
ESR:
> I am not excluding the possibility that Van Dyke’s training was faulty. It is quite
> reasonable to suspect this. Still, the flip side of “you fight as your train” is that you
> are not simply a robot executing your training. Van Dyke was paid to exercise
> humane judgment, and (on the evidence) did not.
A police officer dumping 5 or more rounds into someone who’s down and not moving speaks to insufficient firearms training, at least FOR THAT ONE PERSON.
However the issue isn’t judgement, it’s self-control. He had target fixation. panicked and dumped his mag.
>However the issue isn’t judgement, it’s self-control. He had target fixation. panicked and dumped his mag.
Yes, I think that’s exactly what happened.
We’re seeing a mini-example of “the toxoplasma of rage” right here in this thread. Everyone is arguing over the justifiability of the shooting. Hardly anyone wants to touch the issues of blue omerta and a possible police cover-up, or of the cop getting special treatment compared to what an ordinary private person would be facing if he committed a similar shooting. Because one’s view on using lethal force in self-defense is a big tribal marker, but one’s view on allowing the police special privileges and immunities isn’t.
>Because one’s view on using lethal force in self-defense is a big tribal marker, but one’s view on allowing the police special privileges and immunities isn’t.
I don’t think that’s true. Libertarians are pretty consistent about both issues – and much less willing to grant the police privileges than other tribes. This is actually one of the more reliable ways to sort libertarians from conservatives.
winter
> I have no experience myself, but I have been told that better training makes for
> less deadly shootings.
Better training means the officers feel less threatened because they feel more competent to respond faster and with better response.
This is going to reduce the *number* of shootings and increase the lethality of what’s left.
So to if that’s what you meant, then yes.
However if you think for a second that better training makes *shootings* less deadly…
> And the officer involved had a history of complains
Every officer[1] who enforces the law gets “complains”. This goes double for those who enforce laws across race and culture, and triple for black cops who work in black neighborhoods.
[1] The only exception to this I’m aware of is one traffic officer out in LA County somewhere. All he does is enforce traffic regulations in an (apparently) middle to upper middle class area, and he does it with humor, a smile, and respect for the taxpayer’s he is pulling over. This is utterly different from doing social-service work with a gun and a badge in inner cities.
esr on 2015-11-25 at 11:56:12 said:
> Doctor Locketopus
> > The “21 foot rule” stinks of bullshit. It has all the marks (e.g., a suspiciously
> > over-precise number when clearly both cops and perps are going to vary quite
> > a lot in their reaction times).
The may vary a lot, but they do not vary significantly. And no this is not contradictory.
.1 is a LOT more than .01, but if we’re talking about the margin of error (in inches) at 100 feet it is not a *significant* difference.
The issue is that there is a certain amount of processing time (OODA Loop) to perceive action is required and decide that action. It is nothing at all to cover 21 feet in less time than it takes to draw and fire, much less fire accurately.
I’ve DONE this drill in training with airsoft, padded sticks and with people who think you’re a pussy if you DON’T hit them hard, and with people who practice drawing firing.
With relatively fast people who *know* what is about to happen (not getting caught by surprise) the best that anyone was able to do was to get the shot off at almost contact range, and it was a shot to center mass, not a head shot.
The “21 foot rule” is bullshit because it should be more like the “30 foot” rule.
Dan on 2015-11-25 at 11:56:16 said:
> That understanding should then be used to inform your tactics, posture, focus etc.
> But it *does not* grant you legal absolution to hit the bang button whenever a
> person is within that radius.
Doctor Locketopus
> > “You’re speaking as someone who has never trained in actual violent self-defense. ”
> No, I’m speaking as someone who recognizes bullshit when he sees it.
Really? You’ve taken defensive firearms training?
> How does this work, anyway?
> “I got a call for a dine-and-dash at Outback Steakhouse. When I entered, there
> were dozens of people with big-assed razor-sharp knives in their hands. So you see,
> Your Honor, I had no choice but to put them all down.”
Ah, I see, as a purveyor of a certain type of bullshit, you think that you are qualified to judge whether other writing falls into that category.
Well, you’re wrong.
Lemme ‘splain how the 21 foot rule plays into things.
When there is a “use of force” case –either police or civilian[1] there are three tests (at minimum) that must be met. These are “Means”, “Proximity” and “Intent”.
* Did the purported attacker have the means to severely injure or kill the defender.
* Was he CLOSE ENOUGH to do so USING THAT MEANS.
* Was there any evidence of intent to do so.
What the 21 foot rule establishes is a *minimum* danger close distance. It is something that has been tested over and over and over to show that at 21 feet, even if you’re expecting it, an attacker can get a blade on your person before you can shoot them down. It has been tested legally and has succeeded more than most. It doesn’t mean that you can ignore the other two tests, but it means that the courts have *generally* accepted that against an opponent with a knife that 21 feet or closer is CLEARLY close enough.
So no, walking into a steakhouse where there are lots of knives present doesn’t give you license to kill someone–but if the diner at the first table stands up with a knife in his hand and says says I’m going to f*king kill you in a threatening voice, well, play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
There are techniques to avoid getting stabbed/beaten, but they aren’t useful in stopping the fight, only in getting out of the way so you don’t get stabbed/beaten while you’re shooting the guy to the ground.
Now, if you’re in the states and would like to try/test this out, let me know what state you’re in (and what part of some of the reasonably sized states) and I can see if I can point you at some people who might be willing to work on a demonstration for you. No, this is not a threat, unless you’re in my area I’m not going to drive over and beat your ass, I just know a bunch of people who train in this shit, and they might be willing to help spread the love.
ESR:
> That is very interesting. I’m not sure I’d want to try it myself – OK, maybe if the
> perp is unarmed. But it’s a good thing to have in the mental files.
Yeah, the one thing is that he always had significant backup if things went wrong, which tended to make him more willing to try it.
And he had *no* hesitation about shooting someone who had put themselves in a position to need it (although the only time I know that he did that was in a war zone).
Jakub Narebski on 2015-11-26 at 16:22:37 said:
> > Now 16 bullets from a handgun probably means reloading at least once which makes a
> > claim of lack of intent harder to sustain
> There are handguns with 16+ bullet clips…
No, there are not. http://www.minutemanreview.com/2008/09/clip-vs-magazine-lesson-in-firearm.html
There are standard magazines for pistols that exceed 16 rounds. Both the Glock 17 and the Beretta 92 (both of which are on the approved list for Chicago police) have standard magazines that hold 17 rounds. With one in the chamber that’s 18.
I have 20 round magazines for my Beretta that do not stick out that far. I have 31 round magazines that significant effect the balance and handling of the weapon, but they work well in my CX4 storm.
No modern pistol uses “clips” nor does it have a shoulder thing that goes up.
Well, maybe one for rather stretched values of “modern” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grendel_Inc.
These are not “modern”:
http://www.a-human-right.com/clip-fed-pistols.html
I lived in Chicago as a student during the 1990s, which means I *usually* lived in crap neighborhoods. The amount of abuse that was tolerated in those neighborhoods was insane.
At least once every 18 months you’d read/hear in the news about some 1 bedroom/studio apartment with 10 or 12 kids, and a handful of adults, feeces everywhere, kids malnourished (or diseased). DCFS would take the kids for a while and because of RACISM they would give the kids back. Foster homes were full of black babies because RACIST whites wouldn’t adopt bla…no, that wasn’t it. Some infertile white couples would have been happy to. No, DCFS/Social Services would rather have black babies finger fucked in foster care than adopt them out to white families who want them and would raise them with white middle class values and standards.
Because that’s racist or something.
Note this bit in the article:
> McDonald, according to the Sun-Times, had a tragic life that included sexual
> abuse in foster homes and being removed from his family’s home by the state
> at least twice.
This sort of crap *fucks kids up*. Getting raped by an adult sucks. Getting raped by an adult the STATE has ordered you to stay with, that’s adding injury to injury.
That cop may have shot him, but DCFS is what killed him.
“If you love it despite its imperfections, then change it, and make it better.”
Jessica, the problem is that Jeff doesn’t ove America. He loves Europe. He wants to destroy America as it is and turn it into an extension of Europe.
There’s already a Europe. There is no other America.
Let’s get this straight.
Agree with the normative opinion here = “enlightened”.
Disagree, or put forward any other proposals = “moron” or “idiot”.
Yet you claim to be rational.
Perhaps we who don’t live in a country going to hell in a handbasket of its own volition are entitled to be puzzled by your trenchant attitudes.
0.2% inflation over the 12 months to October 2015.
So what does the 10% cited above refer to?
@Jeff Read
European cops are not yet fighting a civil war with a hostile ethnic group. This is the major difference. They reason Chicago cops are so mean largely because it is not law enforcement, it is trying to subdue a racial guerilla war by policing means, while it would call for military means. If all the militias – gangs – would be defeated, they could go back to normal policing. The situation in Berlin is simply not so dire yet, in some banlieus of Paris yet, but they approach it differently, instead of fighting the guerillas, they simply don’t go there at all, and just let them terrorize the local population.
The problem is, the US liberals are absolutely unwilling to admit the fact that a racial guerilla war is going on, and just expect cops to be able to deal with it as if it was normal crime. And, just to be clear, the gang militias are a tiny fraction of the US black population, and they do plenty of terrorizing blacks too, so you wouldn’t have to be very racist to use the military and shoot them, you just had to have some balls. After one military clean-up and the gang-bangers hanging from trees pour encourager les autres, normal, even _nice_ policing could be reinstated.
Violence escalation is largely a myth, it is only true in those ridiculous situations where the party that is MUCH stronger only escalates in proportion of how the enemy escalates. Yes, this happens all over from Iraq to US cities, but only because liberals are holding the stronger side back and not allowing the stronger side to escalate so hard that further resistance would be absolutely futile. The whole problem is that when the other side escalates, liberals hold the police or military back from ending the problem once and for all, they allow only “proportional” escalation which is a recipe for a never-ending bloodshed. The whole problem in Iraq is trying it too much “nicer” than post-WW2 occupations, and the whole problem of US inner cities is forgetting what King Ine knew: ” By “thieves” (Peofas) we mean men up to the number seven; by “a band” (hloo) from seven to thirty-five ; by “an army” (here) above thirty-five.” You confuse policing with guerilla suppression.
@Geoffrey Tobin you moved to Singapore? Or China? Maybe Russia? Great! Because all of the West is going to hell in a handbasket, it is obvious, for very similar reasons, inability to control internal enemies, even letting more and more in. In the US it looks like like a race-war scenario, in Europe more of a Houellebecq type scenario, but it both is ultimately about native Westerners being too squeamish about protecting countries that used to be theirs. And the reason is precisely as the reason behind your behavior: virtue-signalling, trying to look all holy and nice and tolerant because it buys one status / prestige points, it makes one look smart and good-hearted. And when this clashes with a bunch of barbarians who believe only in force, they win. End of story. But it looks like countries Singapore will survive. They have an awesomely rational refugee policy: NONE at all. No refugees, only work visas for the high skilled.
@TheDividualist
“Yes, this happens all over from Iraq to US cities, but only because liberals are holding the stronger side back and not allowing the stronger side to escalate so hard that further resistance would be absolutely futile.”
You do not get more liberal than Berlin, Copenhagen, or Amsterdam. Still, these cities with large minority populations (Berlin is called the second Turkish capital) have none of these war-zones that the US or France have. That is not because they are on a fast track to civil war, there is none of that too, but because they do not see crime as a civil war that has to be won at all costs, but as a social problem that has to be solved using social policies.
Given the results, they have ample proof that they are right.
And before you start, the ethnic problems with blacks have been created and are maintained by the US itself. Black communities have lived in the US for centuries. If they have not integrated it is because the non-black community did not want them to integrate.
@TheDividualist
“But it looks like countries Singapore will survive.”
Singapore is a city state. It is an isolated city that can only exist by virtue of countries around it that supply it with literally everything, including a work-force.
@TheDividualist
“And when this clashes with a bunch of barbarians who believe only in force, they win. End of story.”
Promises, promises, but never deliver.
I have heard that story for almost half a century myself, and have read historical accounts for centuries back. This is brought up with every “wave” of immigrants, even internal immigrants.
I have seen Dutch texts from the 18th century where you could change every occurrence of the word “Catholic” to “Muslim” and publish it right away in a newspaper. You could easily have used these texts for Jews before WWII and for Communists during the cold war.
Until 1488, there was another nation living the American Dream: the economy was based on commerce, government was not centralized, citizens were equal under the law (private property was particularly strongly protected), they were fiercely independent and often eccentric individuals, to outsiders it seemed that everyone was both rich and armed to the gills.
The nation was Brittany, and after 1105 years’ thriving despite all that was thrown at it, it eventually fell due to a combination of adverse factors, including corruption, internal division and an invasion from a newly powerful neighbour that employed massed artillery to terrorise the population.
Russia’s heading down what is shaping up as a similar road, despite the lack of “liberal” influence in high places. Russians aren’t populating, so they import workers from rapidly growing hostile populations, the government tries to defend its frontiers and suppress its internal conflicts by military force, but it’s not working.
@Geoffrey Tobin
“The nation was Brittany, and after 1105 years’ thriving despite all that was thrown at it, it eventually fell due to a combination of adverse factors, including corruption, internal division and an invasion from a newly powerful neighbour that employed massed artillery to terrorise the population.”
The Romans left only in the fifth century, after which Britain was run over by Germans. After a few hundred years there was an influx of Vikings. So, these 1105 years of paradise are rather a stretch.
But, the devils advocate could say “this is what happens when you do not have a centralized state: You get overrun by people who are better organized.”
I see that a knee-jerk reaction is determining some responses to my remarks and suggestions: there’s an underlying erroneous assumption that I buy into what Americans call “liberal” thinking.
In fact, I see that crime is a deep-seated problem that must be eradicated by the most effective means. It’s clear that many countries, not only or even especially the USA, are trying various means that have failed. So I’m looking for solutions, not partisan responses.
The root issue, as I see it, is education. Not just in-school education, but in-street education and in-prison education.
What do criminals learn in jail? How to be more vicious criminals! Why? Because the prison system allows the worst of criminals to imbue the others with their toxic attitudes and cunning ways. This must stop. A convict who is seen or heard to indoctrinate anyone in this way must be placed into a solitary, soundproof cell in perpetuity.
Brittany, not Britain. In the 500s, Gildas bemoaned that the flower of Britain’s youth (its military) had left its shores, never to return. They left to found Brittany and other states in Gaul, and Britonia in Galicia in Spain. Britonia resisted the Moors, and yard-by-yard drove them out. Brittany resisted the Visigoths and Franks.
The main reason why France became a great power is because Arthur III of Richmond, brother to Duke John V of Brittany and step-brother to Henry V of England, forcefully reformed the French military and financial systems along Breton lines, and personally led the forces that liberated France from English occupation.
Richmond here refers to Richmond castle in North Yorkshire, to which all the Richmonds in the world ultimately owe their name.
Alan Rufus, founder of said castle, established a free-trade economy inside feudal England. Many of the institutions and ideas that we now cherish are products of his unstinting efforts to improve the government and wealth of his adopted nation. Parliament, the census, a rational tax system, the jury system, separation of military and civil powers, the radical ideas that came out of Cambridge and from the great port that he had built at Boston (Lincolnshire), either were, or built on, his work.
The feudal system made Alan very wealthy, but he was smart enough to realise that greater wealth could be obtained by providing an environment in which those willing to undertake investment and commerce were encouraged.
This proto-capitalist was, contrary to some modern prejudices, very popular, because he listened much more than he talked, and made no moral distinction between the personal conduct of kings and paupers: he reprimanded both William I and William II when they were tyrannical, to the shock of many contemporaries.
@Geoffrey you are really overcomplicating it. What do you want to educate? That beating up or shooting people is unethical? If people don’t learn it in their homes or figure out themselves, they will not listen to a teacher preaching. There are plenty of historically tested crime control methods, they usually involve bodily harm and publicity, in order to get the message across. from public whippings to public hangings.
I mean, what is your basic model? That ethical behavior is some sort of a technique like math, that could be taught? How do you make people who have absolutely no interest whatsoever in behaving ethically, do it?
I mean, unless you are willing to believe everybody is born good or with a blank sheet, you have to have some sort of a model. You should perhaps first ask yourself why you yourself aren’t robbing houses and extrapolate from there. I think in my case it was my parents, who conveyed basic ethics to my, mostly by example, not preaching. Also, being middle-class and too much to lose. Finally, I am not very impulsive, most crime is impulsivity. If it is similar for you, try to work from something like this. How to reduce impulsivity, how to have parents and decent ones, how to have enough to lose.
I’d start crime control with cutting single mom welfare, ensuring the need for a dad or stepdad who is willing to spank a 9 year old boy at the first shoplifting.
@Winter you are calling it social problems only because you refuse to accept that people of different ethnicity can behave differently. It matters a lot of immigrants are Turkish or Algerians, they are very different people, due to reasons like Kemal Ataturk’s secularization policies etc.
Geoffrey: “Because the prison system allows the worst of criminals to imbue the others with their toxic attitudes and cunning ways. This must stop. A convict who is seen or heard to indoctrinate anyone in this way must be placed into a solitary, soundproof cell in perpetuity.”
You mean like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson?
>You do not get more liberal than Berlin, Copenhagen, or Amsterdam. Still, these cities with large minority populations (Berlin is called the second Turkish capital) have none of these war-zones that the US or France have.
There are only three ways to make a comparison this stunningly misguided. You are either blissfully unaware of the facts; or you have no idea which facts are relevant; or you don’t mind selling snake oil.
Berlin is a city of 3 million people, of which roughly 1 million are immigrants. 100k of these are Turks; the other ten largest minority groups are in order Poles, Italians, Serbs, Russians, Bulgarians, French, Americans, Vietnamese and Brits.
In addition to Turks, the only -troublesome- minorities listed are Bosnians, Lebanese, Iranians, Kosovoians (?) and Syrians. These groups, including Turks, total roughly 125k (4%). None of them are black; some are European Muslims and some are from the MIddle East.
There is not a single city in the US with a problem of rampant violence caused by any of these groups of people.
—
New Orelans, the homicide capital of the US, is 60% Black and has a homicide rate of 58 (!). Berlin is 2% Black and has a homicide rate of 1.8 (one point eight).
@Anonymous
“Berlin is a city of 3 million people, of which roughly 1 million are immigrants. 100k of these are Turks; the other ten largest minority groups are in order Poles, Italians, Serbs, Russians, Bulgarians, French, Americans, Vietnamese and Brits.”
200k Turks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turks_in_Berlin
But you were talking about ethnic tensions. With 30% immigrants and a lot of Muslims, where are the tensions?
@Anonymous
“None of them are black; some are European Muslims and some are from the MIddle East.”
So “ethnic” has become an euphemism for Blacks.
Amsterdam has ~700k inhabitants of which around 70k are black (from Suriname, our former colony in South America). They are also concentrated in certain neighborhoods. Amsterdam has none of the problems of US cities.
” It’s happened often enough before.” The 20 foot theory is a theory but I look forward to seeing your evidence. Please provide your references.
>” It’s happened often enough before.” The 20 foot theory is a theory but I look forward to seeing your evidence. Please provide your references.
I think jfre’s video of an armed cop being knifed to death is pretty good evidence.
@TheDividualist
“@Winter you are calling it social problems only because you refuse to accept that people of different ethnicity can behave differently. It matters a lot of immigrants are Turkish or Algerians, they are very different people, due to reasons like Kemal Ataturk’s secularization policies etc.”
Which is another way of saying that these are social problems. Moreover, the Algerians and other Maghreb people in Western Europe are predominantly Berber people, not Arabs.
Turks and Iranians are rarely a problem in Europe. South European native Muslims (Albanians, Bosnians) could bring some of their crime problems from home to us, but rarely Jihadism.
And our local black population from South America is also well integrated.
All this is evidence that the crime problems the US experiences is a social problem purely of their own making.
Wikipedia’s article on the demographics of Berlin gives the different figure. It depends on whether you consider immigrants or immigrant ancestry, and how you count partial ancestry.
I haven’t talked about ethnic tensions at all. Maybe someone else did. I merely object to ridiculous comparisons between a city like Berlin and a city like Chicago.
With its 10% Black population, assuming your numbers are right, it comes as no surprise to me that Amsterdam has a homicide rate of 4.4 (!), roughly three times that of comparable European cities. Berlin, which bears repeating, has a 2% Black population and a homicide rate of 1.8. The US overall has a 13% Black population, and a nationwide homicide rate of 4.7 .
It almost seems like Amsterdam has -exactly- the same problem as the US has, with exactly the same group of people. The mind, again, boggles. Where is the liberal magic?
Indeed, going by UNODC data:
“Amsterdam tops the list of homicide rates in Western Europe with 4.4 murders per 100,000 people.”
What a fantastic way of shooting your own argument in the foot.
@William O. B’Livion
> The “21 foot rule” is bullshit because it should be more like the “30 foot” rule.
You know William I am positively inclined toward your position and Eric’s, but a couple of points here. First of all, I have watched the video over and over again and I see nothing in the kid’s movement that would indicate a turn toward the cop just before the first shot goes off. On the contrary, what I see is:
1. The kid walking in a diagonal largely away from the cops (though not by much) with his left shoulder pointed toward the shooter.
2. His right shoulder is seen turning away as if he has been hit there,
3. Immediately afterward a full spin of his body away from the shooter, again presumably because he has been hit.
4. He briefly faces the cop and presumably another shot hits him.
5. Then the kid goes down (and an odd thing is that is legs are unnaturally held together, not sure why, but I am assuming some sort of leg injury at this point.
6. Then as he is about to hit the deck you see a puff of dust as another round hits him and goes through.
7. Then as he is lying there moving a very little for a second or so, he pushes his knife hand out toward the cops but entirely on the ground. Then you see another puff of dust by his head, when presumably the cop hits his head.
8. Then another cop kicks the knife away.
So although the situation was extremely dangerous and hot, I see no specific action that provoked the cop to start shooting. I would like to, but I just don’t see it.
Now in regards to the 21 foot rule, I am no expert so I will defer to you for sure. However, the point needs to be made is that again and again people have stated here that this is the time to draw, aim, fire and shoot.
However, this situation is different. Here the cop had already drawn and had the guy in his sights. He just had to pull the trigger. That is a much shorter time. Now granted the distance was much less that 21 feet, and as I said earlier if he had twitched in my direction I would have put a couple of rounds in him (assuming I had the responsibility to deal with him.) However, I don’t believe the 21 foot rule would apply here.
I don’t believe that the third rule you cite — a specific intention to harm — is at all clear from the video. Of course there is no audio, so perhaps there were verbal threats that we don’t hear, and maybe they would be enough.
>First of all, I have watched the video over and over again and I see nothing in the kid’s movement that would indicate a turn toward the cop just before the first shot goes off.
It’s easy to miss, because the first shot happens only a fraction of a second later; that’s why I think Van Dyke had pre-instructed himself with “If he turns, I shoot”
A good technique for catching these subtleties is stop-go viewing. That is, click the pause/play button at about half-second intervals. This prevents your visual-processing machinery from motion-smoothing.
@Aninymous
“Amsterdam tops the list of homicide rates in Western Europe with 4.4 murders per 100,000 people.”
Except that it is not the black people that are involved in most crimes. Maybe it is a spiritual thing?
I guess you missed this question to you from further up the thread:
@Winter “In this Laquan McDonald case, it is clear that the killing was not necessary in any way”
The dude is on PCP, stabbed a police car tire and now is brandishing a knife at officers in a public space. What exactly should they have used? Harsh language?
You see from the videos above how deadly a knife can be and how quickly it can be brought to bear. What is the “correct” approach you endorse? Please explain.
>Except that it is not the black people that are involved in most crimes. Maybe it is a spiritual thing?
Excerpts from Homicide in the Netherlands (Gangpat, Liem):
>Homicide perpetrators show a similar ethnic representation: individuals of Dutch descent run
a risk of 0.7 per 100,000 of becoming a homicide perpetrator, whereas for those of Antillean descent this risk is 14.3 per 100,000. Individuals of Surinamese origin run a risk of 5.5 per 100,000, for those of Turkish origin, the risk is 6.0 and for individuals of Moroccan descent the risk is 5.0 per 100.000.
The first thing to notice here is that Dutch themselves are exactly as homicidal as expected for W.Europeans. The second thing to notice is that the Antilleans are 20 times as homicidal as the Dutch, while various other minorities are roughly 10 times as homicidal. The only surprise, really, is the Dutch Turks being remarkably homicidal. Correcting, as social scientists say when they fudge the numbers, for age/sex-demographics of the respective groups isn’t sufficient to make this go away.
Also, from UNODC sources, the homicide rate for Suriname is 6.1 – remarkably close to the rate of Surinamese (?) in the Netherlands. Who would have thought?
I couldn’t find specific numbers for blacks in Amsterdam, because this is Europe and wanting to collect or even inspect such numbers is unspeakably racist, but it doesn’t seem like Dutch integration is quite working out.
>From the video, McDonald was well inside
>the 21-foot close-engagement limit…
>…This is a dangerous situation even with your gun drawn;
>the thug could charge you, take several bullets and
>still stab you fatally before he goes down. It’s happened
>often enough before.
I’ve heard the claim before that having someone <21' away means they can pose a lethal threat even if you're armed and ready. I can readily believe it, but "it's happened often enough before" is a much more concrete claim. Can someone point out specific cases where a perp was at, say, 20' and managed to rush and fatally stab a cop before being stopped by gunfire?
Having such cites to refer to might help to sway at least a few of the people who are aghast at the shooting of perps who weren't actively running toward the shooter (but were within that hazard radius).
@Mitch – jfre’s first [horrific] vid was a realtime example showing just how deadly a close assailant can be. Doesn’t get any more ‘concrete’ than that.
@Dan (et al.), apologies – rather than read all of the comments, I did a search for a few key words (obviously not the right ones) and didn’t find what I was looking for. jfre’s video will do nicely, thanks.
There is a tendency to over-analyze these types of incidents because of the video evidence, i.e. lots of additional visual information that would not normally be available when evaluating an occurrence in which you were not personally present at the scene. More information means more cerebral activity and prolonged reasoning. Biologically, this leads to deeper level pattern matching and begins to introduce memory based bias into mix. This doesn’t necessarily lead to better (e.g. more effective) reasoning, but it does aid you in terms of absorbing the lesson for future use in your personal life. In others words, Laquan McDonald’s death is more of a life lesson than an ethical drama.
“A good technique for catching these subtleties is stop-go viewing. That is, click the pause/play button at about half-second intervals. This prevents your visual-processing machinery from motion-smoothing.”
Right. Much like deleting points from a plot lets you fit the curve you want.
The cover-up was not by the police, but by the mayor’s office. Emanuel was then up for re-election, and was under pressure. He got only 45% in the first round, and won the run-off by a relatively modest margin (56%-44%). The main challenger was a Hispanic, and Emanuel won by holding most of the black vote.
If the McDonald case had been opened then, Emanuel might easily have lost.
As to why the State’s Attorney filed Murder One – she’s up for re-election next year, and will be challenged in the primary. I doubt if it was orders from the mayor; as an elected county official, she’s not under his thumb. Another possibility is that the overcharge intentionally sets up an acquittal: it will be very hard to prove the mens rea for murder.
“Another possibility is that the overcharge intentionally sets up an acquittal: it will be very hard to prove the mens rea for murder.”
This may only be true if Illinois law does not allow juries to consider lesser charges, or if the state’s attorney moves to let them do so and the judge denies the motion.
@Jay
There’s the recent acquittal of Dante Servin, a Chicago cop found not guilty of involuntary manslaughter because the judge (in the bench trial) ruled that Servin was not “reckless” in shooting Rekia Boyd but instead had intentionally shot her. Since the prosecution didn’t bring a more serious homicide charge, Servin walked away, and can’t be charged again because that would be double jeopardy.
A cynic might suspect that this wasn’t an error on the prosecution’s part, but rather a case of the fix being in. Likewise a cynic might suspect an intentional overcharge in the Van Dyke case to set up an acquittal. As you point out, this would require that the jury (or judge, if it’s a bench trial) not be allowed to consider lesser charges – but given how the Servin case turned out, that’s a live possibility.
@Rich Rostrom:
Possible, but extremely doubtful in this particular instance.
Why? Because last April, Dante Servin was the first Chicago cop to be prosecuted for homicide in 15 years. In that case, whether because of mendacity or timidity, the charge was for manslaughter, but not murder.
The judge acquitted on the basis that, while what Servin did may have been murder, it certainly wasn’t manslaughter, because whether it was murder or not would depend on his justification for his actions, which wasn’t an element of the trial.
Double-jeopardy means he’s a free man. (Although he was finally fired a few days ago, that has absolutely nothing to do with the current trial about the killing of Laquan McDonald.)
In any case, since prosecutor Alvarez was accused of deliberately throwing the case against Servin a mere seven months ago, it’s probably fresh enough in the memories of all the players that she’s going to have to come up with a different way to fuck this one up.
Or if, as you say, she’s up for election soon, who knows what’s going to happen? Obviously it has to look good, and if it’s too good and one cop has to go down for her reelection, that might be a small enough price that she and the cops can still do business.
@Deep Lurker:
I should have refreshed my browser before posting :-)
@Everybody else:
The link I posted at simplejustice is still an excellent read:
http://blog.simplejustice.us/2015/04/23/the-pointed-gun-and-mens-rea/
One additional point about handguns. Most people, including police, are not very accurate with handguns in real situations. According to this article, one expert says that nationwide statistics find people missing 47% at contact range and down to about 20% at 7 yards. Of hits, almost 70% go into extremities (presumably not rapidly disabling) and not center of mass.
Van Dyke managed to hit with every shot and 6 out of 16 were torso, head or neck.
Jay Maynard on 2015-11-27 at 07:11:15 said:
> Geoffrey:
> > “A convict who is seen or heard to indoctrinate anyone in this way must be placed
> > into a solitary, soundproof cell in perpetuity.”
> You mean like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFdHHl6MD8k
TheDividualist: I agree with everything you say about education in the home from role model parents.
My proposal was that we remove those who teach people to behave more criminally. That is, by isolating the worst role models, not only from the community at large, but also from other prisoners.
Note that we already isolate prisoners who are erratically violent. These are often mass murderers who are addicted to self-harm.
What I’m proposing is that we extend that treatment, from those who are physically violent, to those who incite violent behaviours in others.
Now 16 bullets from a handgun probably means reloading at least once
My own preferred target shooting pistol holds 16 rounds.
It just so happens to be the same maker and model that is most commonly carried by police officers.
So when the article says “16 rounds”, all that says to me is that the shooter had the very understandable and very not uncommon reaction of emptying out.
Eric is the expert here, and god knows I am not a fan of murdering cops, but if I was on a jury, my firm belief is that if the first shot was legal, then emptying the entire clip is.
>Eric is the expert here, and god knows I am not a fan of murdering cops, but if I was on a jury, my firm belief is that if the first shot was legal, then emptying the entire clip is.
Asserting that this should be the standard is not in my opinion crazy or unreasonable, and it is within the competence of a jury to find not guilty on those grounds. But it’s not the side U.S. case law has generally come down on.
Supposing it were, I would remain troubled by the ethics of not stopping to assess after McDonald fell to the ground. Users of force in general, and lethal force in particular, have a duty to use the least force required to mitigate threats. This does not mean retreating to half-measures or neglecting the protection of self or others – but when you see a man with a knife fall and know that he can no longer reach you before you have time to pause and assess, I think you have a duty to pause and assess.
Mark: “my firm belief is that if the first shot was legal, then emptying the entire clip is.”
I’m of two minds about this. On the one hand, being justified in using deadly force means just that: the guy you’re shooting is presumed to be legally justified in dying at your hands. If he didn’t want to die, he shouldn’t have threatened you in such a way as to create a reasonable fear for your life. On the other, you’re only justified in shooting until the threat ends. Once the threat clearly is ended, your justification for using lethal force ends with it.
There’s another part of this, though, that nobody’s exploring (because it’s an unsolvable hypothetical): Was McDonald killed by the shots Van Dyke was legally justified in firing? There are at least two shots that had that effect. As jfre points out, we cannot know when they were fired. That does, however, create reasonable doubt, to me: if McDonald was dead, or had received the fatal injuries, after the first two shots (that nobody here, at least, is arguing Van Dyke was not justified in firing), then the other 14 shots are not relevant.
Jay — It’s at least possible to be guilty of attempted murder or manslaughter if you believed you were shooting a still live human being. See this: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/archives/p_dlugash.htm
(it’s a New York case from the 70’s with a history of the doctrine…Illinois case law may be different.).
Mark – if you were on a jury, I presume you would follow the law as the judge gave it to you. And he would not tell you that. If you’ve shot someone in self defense, and the person goes down and is no longer a threat to you, please do not believe that you can “finish him off” because you were legally justified in shooting him in the first place. Even Soldiers in combat can’t keep shooting someone who is hors de combat from wounds.
Joseph: “if you were on a jury, I presume you would follow the law as the judge gave it to you.”
It’s settled American law that the jury may reach its verdict as it chooses. See the concept of “jury nullification”. This was first used in the libel case of John Peter Zenger. Ever hear of him?
Jay — “Jury nullification” is not a legal doctrine and it is not “settled doctrine in American courts.” I read a case (don’t recall the name, but it was in Joshua Dressler’s criminal law casebook) where the defense tried to have the judge instruct the jury on the power to “nullify,” and the court properly refused. Before you get selected for a jury, as part of the selection process, you have to promise that you will follow the law as the judge gives it to you. People can break their oaths just as they can break the law…but it is not “settled doctrine” that they have the right to do so.
I had not heard about Zenger before, but according to William E. Nelson’s Americanization of the Common Law, juries in the 18th century had power to decide the law, as they do not anymore. I have my copy open in front of me:
“It is difficult to comprehend how greatly the legal system of prerevolutionary Massachusetts differed from that of modern America. The most important difference was that Massachusetts juries during the fifteen years preceding the War of Independence possessed far greater power than juries do now. Like those in twentieth-century America, they had substantial power to resolve factual issues in the cases they heard. But whereas modern juries must follow the law as stated to them by the court, juries in prerevolutionary Massachusetts could ignore judges’ instructions on the law and decide the law by themselves in both civil and criminal cases..”
I will add that in the 18th century, we still had “common law crimes”…criminal acts and defenses defined by judges rather than by statute…but I don’t see them in modern law.
The wiki on Zenger suggests that his lawyers raised a legal defense, but that the jury may have “interpreted” the law because the man he allegedly libeled was unpopular. Regardless…”nullification” was not the law then and is not the law now.
(Jay – my response to you is in moderation for the moment, not sure why.)
and the person goes down and is no longer a threat to you, please do not believe that you can “finish him off” because you were legally justified in shooting him in the first place.
You misunderstand. This has nothing to do with thinking “finish him off”.
Let’s go back, again, to my own preferred target shooting pistol, the one that hold 16 rounds, and is the same make and model as the one typically carried by US cops. I am hardly a expert marksman, and I practice only a couple of times a year.
However, I can put 16 holes in a silhouette target 21 feet away in 5 seconds, and that still feels slow and deliberate when I do it. I could go faster, with a significant loss in accuracy, but my range monitors get upset about uncontrolled fire. I fully expect more serious practitioners can go faster without the accuracy loss.
In a life or death situation, I can completely see someone emptying out, and then even dry firing several times, in the time between the two rational thoughts of “fire” and “I’m empty”.
I don’t know what happened in this case. Maybe the cop did stop after the legal shots, formed another coherent thought, and then fired a dozen illegal shots. But a prosecutor is going to have a hard time overcoming my reasonable doubt.
So, again, as long as it’s a sustained burst of fire, my opinion is if the 1st shot is legal, so is the rest of the clip.
Mark – I’m glad to hear I misunderstood you on that point.
Your view, then, is that you can treat the full clip as “burst fire”…like squeezing the trigger once when your weapon is set to burst. I’ve never run into that argument before but will save it for future use!
and the person goes down and is no longer a threat to you
And on a related issue, a person does not “go down” after just 3 shots, unless one of them is a well-placed headshot, which you are not likely to get when aiming at COM, unless a miss turns into a lucky hit, which is not the way to bet. Yes, 3 shots COM can very well kill, but in the time it takes for them to go into shock and fall down, they can still take enough running steps to reach you with their fists or a knife. Especially if they are enraged, with or without chemical help.
One problem I have with the whole “if the first 2/3 shots were fatal then the rest of the shots are unjustifiable” is that you would surely have a devil of a time proving that the cop knew his first 2/3 shots had neutralized the threat.
Again, I circle around to my query over whether it was a continuous 16 shot string of fire.
I’m experiencing rising dread about the psychological impact these cases are having on the motivations of LEOs.
>One problem I have with the whole “if the first 2/3 shots were fatal then the rest of the shots are unjustifiable” is that you would surely have a devil of a time proving that the cop knew his first 2/3 shots had neutralized the threat.
Fair, in general. But in this case, what probably happened is that one of the first two or three shots dropped McDonald, at which point Van Dyke’s threat assessment both could have and should have changed dramatically.
We’ll never know, of course, but the way McDonald spun and then dropped like a puppet with its strings cut hints to me that he was gravely or fatally wounded by the first couple of bullets.
> but my range monitors get upset about uncontrolled fire.
If you are firing multiple times at a (presumed) live target without thinking between them about whether he is a threat, I would argue that is “uncontrolled fire”.
Joseph: “”nullification” was not the law then and is not the law now.”
A Google Scholar search disagrees with you.
For an overview, see this article at the University of Kansas City-Missouri website on the Zenger trial, including this quote:
The article goes on to argue that the right to nullify is in question, but only says that courts are not required to instruct juries of their power. The power itself is not in question.
Jury nullification dates way back over the pond to Scotland, where the jury would be able to defend the people against capricious royal decrees.
There’s quite a history behind this power.
I would argue that the right to nullify – by use of that power – is an extension of our right to free conscience, and an ultimate bulwark against bad law.
…We’ll never know, of course, but the way McDonald spun and then dropped like a puppet with its strings cut hints to me that he was gravely or fatally wounded by the first couple of bullets…
Agreed. I was very surprised to read the coroner report and not read of one shot scoring a brain or spine hit.
>Agreed. I was very surprised to read the coroner report and not read of one shot scoring a brain or spine hit.
jfre posted a shot list earlier that included this: “2. Neck – Transected the trachea. The great vessels are in the area and while not mentioned were most likely damaged. This was most likely the kill shot”. If I had to bet money on an exact reconstruction, it would have the following features:
1. Yes, this was the kill shot.
2. It was one of the first 2 or 3 bullets fired.
3. Hydrostatic shock from even limb shots has been shown to cause CNS trauma. The pressure wave from this one, close to the brainstem, fucked up McDonald’s motor control at least temporarily well before extravasation through the wound channel killed him.
I wish I knew what Van Dyke was actually shooting. Most likely 40 S&W – in my opinion a big bullet (bigger than 9mm) would raise the prior on this theory. If it were .45ACP, still higher.
> but when you see a man with a knife fall and know that he can no longer reach you before you have time to pause and assess
On the other hand, can you know this without having paused and assessed?
>On the other hand, can you know this without having paused and assessed?
That is a fair question.
Look at the way Van Dyke took a textbook isosceles stance well before the first shot. To a shooter, it’s obvious from the video that he acquired a positive sight picture well before firing, and his accuracy was such that he must have maintained it properly until his mag was empty. From the distribution of shots it is equally clear that he was firing at COM.
Now, let’s assume the worst case: Van Dyke is hyperadrenalized to the point of tunnel vision and partial disassociation. Still, he could hardly have avoided noticing when McDonald fell clear of his point of aim.
If jury nullification is something you know about or believe strongly in the use of, good luck getting selected for an American jury.
What is the goal of dissecting this incident? Is there an expectation that “truth” will arise from the synergy of group analysis and discussion? Is it intended to aid in a personal learning exercise in order to be better prepared should you ever find yourself in this situation? Is it part of a process leading to a judgement of some sort (who gets the blame, if any)? Is it just mental entertainment?
Regardless of the above, this story will be exploited by media and politicians to influence pubic opinion and alter society’s meme set. Laquan is dead and Van Dyke will soon become an ex-cop, but the most damaging impact may well be that it pushes the body politic farther to the left. If this drift eventually leads to a tipping point, then we will have a truly significant problem on our hands.
>What is the goal of dissecting this incident?
I was asked to by email. In light of my previous forensics on the Michael Brown autopsy report this seemed eminently reasonable. Additionally, I knew the process of pursing the analysis would develop and clarify my own thinking about the rights and wrongs of the case, so I could respond better during the inevitable public furore.
@esr
> We’ll never know, of course, but the way McDonald spun and then dropped like a puppet with its strings cut hints to me that he was gravely or fatally wounded by the first couple of bullets.
Right. It is hard to see most of the shots, however, there are three that are clearly visible. The first causes his body to rotate (time index 5:33), the way he moves I think perhaps two shots, but the body movement indicates at least one.
Two seconds later (5:35) one that hits him approximately in the upper midsection and bounces off causing a puff of dust just at the point he is about to hit the ground.
Then a second puff of dust near his head, time index 5:48. This puff of dust is a full FIFTEEN seconds after the initial hit.
That is a long time to think about what you are doing. If the cop was just panicky, adrenaline dumping his mag it would take him less than half that time. Essentially it looks like a second set of shots that seems to be precipitated by the kid pushing the knife forward along the ground (which happens just before that shot.) That does not seem particularly threatening to me.
However, I still can’t see any movement that would have precipitated the first shot. The kid was plainly a serious danger then, but lying on the ground fifteen seconds later? No so much.
Couple of other things from the autopsy. Based on my reading:
1. Six shots were recording as back to front.
2. Six shots where recorded as having no, or only slight back to front or front to back movement
3. One the front to back direction was undetermined
4. Three are recorded as front to back
This is interesting data for a couple of reasons. If you look at the video the only time there was a chance for back to front shots is right at the very beginning when he is spinning, this is the only time the kid presented his back or his side to the cop. This accounts for twelve out of the shots.
The undetermined one was at the scalp and I would speculate that that was the one that we see fifteen seconds later, since that seems to be the location of the shot.
Another piece of data.According to the NY Times the charging documents indicate that the cop reloaded: see here
Given this evidence what I’d say happened is that the cop emptied his mag very quickly at the spinning kid, mostly hitting him in the back and side. You see the kid rotating and briefly presenting his front while standing before going down, then another shot as he hits the ground. He lies on the ground with his front facing the cop.
The cops seems to then have reloaded, paused, and when he saw the kid present the knife forward in a plainly non threatening manner fired off a couple more shots including a head shot.
That is my interpretation of the data. I’d be open to a different analysis. If that is the case, I think Eric’s analysis seems right on. Kid was threatening (though again, I can’t see a precipitating move), so the cop puts a dozen rounds in him very quickly. Then fifteen seconds later when the kid is down he makes a movement that seems non particularly threatening, and a second volley comes, possibly after a reload.
The first volley is arguably justifiable, the second most certainly not, and, given the it was a head shot, could well have been the fatal one.
However, I’m not forensic scientist.
>The cops seems to then have reloaded, paused, and when he saw the kid present the knife forward in a plainly non threatening manner fired off a couple more shots including a head shot.
Knowing that Van Dyke had time for a reload is very significant, and in my view greatly increases his culpability. If he had time for even a maximum-speed tactical reload, he had time to pause and reassess, and either (a) failed to do so, (b) did so and grossly mis-assessed the threat level, or (c) acted maliciously.
The information on shot direction is also very interesting. It actually increases the odds on my most-probable reconstruction in which the neck and shoulder shots were are or near the beginning of the string. Here’s what I now think most likely:
1. The kill shot (neck) was one of the first two or three. Probably the thoracic shot that took out a lung was, too. McDonald was mortally wounded before he hit the ground.
2. McDonald, motor control temporarily taken out by hydrostatic shock to spine and CNS, began to spin and drop.
3. Van Dyke emptied his mag into McDonald as he spun around. Probably an 8-round mag, and on that basis I’m going to guess he was shooting a single-stack .40 – double-stack .40s are usually 16 rounds, single-stack .45s normally top at 7, any 9mm would be much more.
4. McDonald drops to the pavement, but begins to regain partial motor control. Because he’s full of a disassociative anesthetic, he’s not completely incapacitated by the pain and shock.
5. Meanwhile, Van Dyke is performing a tac reload. (At, I should add, impressive speed – his threat assessment might have been faulty but his gun handling was impeccable.)
6. McDonald makes what Van Dyke interprets as a threatening motion.
7. Van Dyke empties another 8-round mag into him.
In my opinion, the first mag was justified. The second was not.
I wrote “3. Van Dyke emptied his mag into McDonald as he spun around.”
I should note that the way I have trained myself to respond in this situation is not to dump my mag – aside from the minimum-effective-force issue, the bad guy might have buddies.
In a situation like this where I had a few seconds to plan the engagement before the trigger point, facing someone dusted, this is how I would instruct myself:
1. Fire conditionally on aggression.
2. Three-shot burst, two to COM, one to the head.
3. Stop and assess.
My point is that this is both the ethical and the practical minimax. You never assume that the first guy you pop is going to be the last into the fight, even if you can’t see other belligerents. Not if you want to go home to your family.
I doubt the military and ex-military guys here will advise anything different. (My trainers have been a mix of former SpecOps and LEOs. I find SpecOps doctrine suits my tastes and combat psychology better.)
I’m not disagreeing with your doctrine, but I don’t merely do the failure drill, reassess, act…too many moving parts to risk breaking up a string of fire.
Since I’m focused on frontsightfrontsightfrontsight, the target is blurry. When a string of fire commences, I do not know if the target is collapsing out of my original line of sight (even more complex if target is moving) due to injury or because they are ducking for cover. For this reason, I will follow them down while maintaining fire, until I register a cessation in their activity…at which point – reassess.
This is why I am not so ready to condemn the cop simply because he shot an a guy on the ground.
btw – Jessica….I think I know the later ‘puff’ you’re referring to…fwiw, I thought that was an expiring exhalation on a cold night.
A thought… How about…
The adrenaline is pumping and part of the cop’s mind is going (not necessarily in language): “The hand with the weapon is still moving – he can still shoot”. Now, the weapon is a knife, so the guy on the ground is relatively harmless. Of course, the cop should have made this distinction, but perhaps part of his mind didn’t.
ESR Doesn’t Like Black People.
Some people think your anti-SJW article is mysoginist and anti-Semitic.
>Some people think your anti-SJW article is mysoginist and anti-Semitic.
The technical term for those people is “idiots”.
“I should note that the way I have trained myself to respond in this situation is not to dump my mag – aside from the minimum-effective-force issue, the bad guy might have buddies.”
Basically “Black males travel in packs, much like animals”
THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.
“Sometimes they need to be put down, humanely”
!!!!!
>Basically “Black males travel in packs, much like animals”
Huh? Humans travel in packs. I learned that bit of doctrine from an ex-SOCOM trainer; I can assure you that they didn’t have South Side gangbangers specifically in mind.
Jeff Read: Jury nullification is the reason that Libel requires the statement be false in the United States of Minority Hate!
This is not a common law requirement (and still isn’t in England).
ESR SHOULD COPS AND CIVILLIANS CARRY FULLY AUTOMATIC PISTOLS WITH 90 ROUND QUAD STACKED MAGAZINES (double stacked within the grip)????
MAYBE 16 ROUNDS IS WHAT IS NEEDED SOMETIMES????!
Jay: I’m not acquainted with Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson, but I do not particularly care whether it’s Mr. Shining Beacon or Gerry X. Lowlife who does the inciting. It simply must stop.
From what I’ve been reading here, the perfect murder is to slip PCP into the target’s drink at a nightclub or a birthday party or a wedding, with the assurance that the victim’s behaviour will not only get him/herself killed but s/he will cop all the odium for it as well.
TomA: what do you mean by “push the body politic further to the left”? Haven’t you been following the congressional elections? The Republicans control both houses, and barring a series of major stumbles, they’ll soon have the presidency as well.
So, unless the Tea Party is too leftist for your liking, I don’t see what you’re afraid of.
Since the Servin case evaded international notoriety, I have only just heard of it. If the Wikipedia article has its facts straight, this was a blatant miscarriage of justice all round. Shame on judge, prosecutor, and the campaigners who didn’t care because the murdered woman was (1) innocent and (2) female.
How the judge could claim that shooting into a crowd was “not reckless” defies all comprehension.
If I were that judge, I’d avoid crowds myself for fear of my own life, because the argument given just gave carte blanche for every judge-hating redneck or hoodlum to do the same as Servin did.
How the judge
In fact, the judge should avoid being in public altogether.
If the feminists ever get gun-happy, I wouldn’t want to be Servin either.
Anonymous: given the figures you cite, would you argue that Colin Powell, from notoriously crime-ridden Jamaica, should never have been given so much responsibility for the US military?
>given the figures you cite, would you argue that Colin Powell, from notoriously crime-ridden Jamaica, should never have been given so much responsibility for the US military?
I have no qualms about generalizing about race or sex. Refusing to make statistical inferences about a select few sacred categories is for idiots. That said, if you want to know how tall someone is, you don’t go looking up the average height for his race, you bring out the tape measure.
Awww…how cute. *squeee*
ESR has a widdle baby troll to play wiv.
Some people think your anti-SJW article is mysoginist and anti-Semitic.
Ok, I can see how they would twist it into misogyny, stupid, but I can see it.
But how in shit-for-brains of infinite entropy does someone get anti-semitic out of that?
>But how in shit-for-brains of infinite entropy does someone get anti-semitic out of that?
You fail to grasp SJW logic. ESR opposes SJW entryism, therefore ESR is a bad person; ESR is a bad person, anti-Semites are bad people, therefore ESR is an anti-Semite. Furthermore, any denials by ESR that he is anti-Semitic are evidence of covert (perhaps unconscious) anti-Semitism.
@ Geoffrey Tobin – ‘what do you mean by “push the body politic further to the left”?’
Our evolutionary ancestors were the survivors of an environmental gauntlet of great hardship and existential threat. As such, they provided us with a heritage of strength, mobility, flexibility, and resilience; plus intelligence, complex language skill, and the ability to modify our mental programming after birth. The successful archetype of our species is an individual who is innovative, resourceful, productive, and able to pass wisdom and skills to their progeny via memetics. And when we behave this way, nature has provided a reinforcing feedback mechanism that rewards us with high self esteem (we feel good about ourselves).
However, we are now in the process of straying from that historical path. Memetics is being used to reprogram large cohorts of our population toward anti-evolutionary behaviors; specifically entitlement addiction, dependence, lethargy, hive mentality, and parasitism. Individuals infected in this way always have a chip on their shoulder because these behaviors lead to low self esteem (no one likes to be endlessly dependent on others).
My guess is that Laquan McDonald did PCP because it offered him some relief from feeling bad about himself. He then committed burglaries in order to fund his drug habit, and eventually those behaviors led him into a bad situation. And now his genes are not going back into the gene pool.
None of the above is about political parties, and the adverse memetics are not going to go away after the next election.
@TomA:
> nature has provided a reinforcing feedback mechanism that rewards us with high self esteem…
FWIW, recent research shows that bullies typically have high self-esteem, and that people with low self-esteem are more conformant, e.g. probably much less likely to engage with a cop like that (unless the desired result is suicide-by-cop).
ESR Hater said: “SHOULD COPS AND CIVILLIANS (sic) CARRY FULLY AUTOMATIC PISTOLS WITH 90 ROUND QUAD STACKED MAGAZINES”
Never seen a “quad stacked magazine” in a subgun, but it sounds pretty cool. I would certainly take a couple.
As for the cops in the US, they already have access to subguns, and in walking around Europe you see a number actively deployed there in every day use. What is your point? The officer in this case put 16 rounds down range with a semi-auto just fine.
@Jessica Boxer
>Right. It is hard to see most of the shots, however, there are three that are clearly visible. The first causes his body to rotate (time index 5:33), the way he moves I think perhaps two shots, but the body movement indicates at least one.
You worded this somewhat ambiguously, so I’d like to expand on it by saying that it probably wasn’t the impact of the bullet that spun McDonald around. My guess is that McDonald was in a similar state of mind as the man in the video esr posted above: not situationally aware, shambling to get out of the bright lights (this explains why he was walking at the angle he was, facing away from the police cruisers but not directly moving away from the cops), and he spun around in reaction to the sound of the gun firing (sudden loud noise outside of his field of view). He likely didn’t feel the impact of the first bullet.
>he spun around in reaction to the sound of the gun firing (sudden loud noise outside of his field of view).
Hm. That is possible. If so, this really was murder one.
@ Patrick Maupin – “FWIW, recent research shows that bullies typically have high self-esteem”
I am unaware of any research indicating what you suggest, but perhaps you are confusing arrogance with high self esteem. Arrogance is a fundamental element of bullying, and bullies use this form of posturing to intimidate others.
>perhaps you are confusing arrogance with high self esteem
*snrk*
While I grant the theoretical possibility that “arrogance” might be something other than high self-esteem as seen by hostile others, I have yet to encounter evidence for same.
@TomA:
One of the more recent studies is paywalled, but it is easy to find references to it, e.g.:
http://www.zmescience.com/science/psychology-science/bullies-genetics-4234254/
@esr:
> I have yet to encounter evidence for same.
Most of the people trying to make a distinction do a lot of hand-waving based on “of course, self-esteem is good! So if it’s bad it must not be self-esteem!”
Case in point is this SJW-esque redefinition of self-esteem:
I’ve watched that video numerous times now. I just don’t see McDonald make any kind of a threatening move toward the cops. In his strange walk he was angling away from them. That odd spin does not look like a threatening move. If he intended to lunge toward the cops it appears he spun the wrong way, and his upper body was leaning away from the cops not toward them. It looks comically more like the kind of move that precedes a bunch of trash-talk, not an I’m-gonna-klll-you death charge.
The continued shooting once he was down is surreal. It looks far too deliberate to be just robotic mag-dumping. The shots are too far apart, almost timed.
I wouldn’t want to be Van Dyke right now.
@Michael Hipp:
> I wouldn’t want to be Van Dyke right now.
Meh. Anita Alvarez is intent on delivering the acquittal; otherwise she’d find the missing Burger King video problematic.
http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Alvarez-Addresses-Missing-Minutes-From-Security-Video-in-Laquan-McDonald-Case-353209051.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3337563/Chicago-Burger-King-manager-says-police-wiped-Laquan-McDonald-death-footage.html
Maybe my audio is faulty, but I can’t actually hear the string of fire in the vid.
It looks to me that the shots are all within the first 5-6 seconds. A steady mag dump.
@Jessica identified a puff at around the 15 second mark. I don’t know if that is a shot or an exhalation.
I’m certainly not prepared to call “murder one” on this…
@ ESR @ Patrick Maupin
My definition of bully is someone who proactively and habitually attempts to intimidate others so as to assert control or obtain obeisance. Arrogant posturing is often used to obtain this end result.
I suppose that a bully who has had long term success with this behavior may come to regard himself as highly competent at intimidation (and hence possess some artificial sense of high self-esteem), but the usual context for high self-esteem is someone who is broadly competent and self-reliant (e.g. does not need to exploit others for personal gain).
An example case would SEALs and special forces military personnel with exceptionally high competence at asserting themselves to overcome obstacles (including people), but do so as a duty rather than for personal ego reasons. If you need to feed your ego at the expense of others, then that is not self-reliance and not a solid basis for self-esteem.
@TomA:
> My definition of bully…
Combines behavior with motive. It’s useful to analyze why bullies bully, but thinking you have it figured out and then adding the “why” back into the definition will produce some seriously circular reasoning.
> the usual context for high self-esteem…
You’ve fallen for the narrative. Self-esteem tests measure how people feel about themselves, not whether it is warranted or not.
@TomA:
FWIW, there is some basis to this — psychologists separate self-esteem into two kinds — contingent and non-contingent, but that discussion may still be completely orthogonal to bullying.
If bullying works as that link I posted says it does, then it works — it provides status and sexual opportunities. It’s Red-Pilling for middle-schoolers, which is why the article is full of so much hand-wringing about what to do about it.
ESR
I listen to Rush Limbaugh at work, on Internet radio. The corporate firewalls only let certain websites through, and Fox Talk Radio is one of them. I have grown fond of Rush’s radio show, especially with a lack of much else, and with repeated exposure. I don’t think you’re going to like this, but you and Rush are for the most part in agreement on this particular issue. (As an FYI, “bath salts” is synonymous with methamphetamine, and methamphetamine isn’t a substance used exclusively by poor white people.) Anyway, I am with you and Rush. I hope you are familiar enough with me as a commenter on your blog to realize that I am not a troll.
>you and Rush are for the most part in agreement on this particular issue.
I’m surprised Limbaugh is willing to see Van Dyke go down on a negligent homicide or murder second degree charge – conservatives of his stripe are usually reflexively pro-cop even in killings this bad.
@ Patrick Maupin – “Combines behavior with motive . . . will produce some seriously circular reasoning . . . it provides status and sexual opportunities”
So you are combining the behavior of bullying with the motive of improving sexual opportunities. I would suggest to you that a bully would attempt to intimidate women into easy sex, not impress them into acquiescence with their manliness. Bullying is more like coercion rather than extreme persuasion.
P.S. I just read all the (MANY!) comments. I laughed at the one about ESR being anti-Semitic based on this post. Troll’s user ID was amusing, “ESR Hates Black People”. Troll misspelled misogynist too. One “y”, not two ;)
Jessica, for once, I agree with all your comments.
Jay Maynard, you are so sweet and friendly! I have not forgotten that you came to my aid regarding MVS/TSO. You are right about commenter Jeff not liking America, or rather, wanting to turn it into Europe, or somewhere else.
ESR
Ooops, sorry! You’re right, but I wasn’t clear. As of the last time I heard Rush mention this case, the police officer hadn’t been charged with first-degree murder. Rush said that the deceased youth had tested positive for PCP and had a history of violence, and that everyone shouldn’t be in a rush to judge the policeman.
Hannity said that Mayor Rahm Emanuel of Chicago looks like death warmed over, specifically, that he has a blue-ish tinge, which happens to be true, see here for a livid photo. Actually, that belongs to a nice man whose acquaintance I made on Twitter. He wrote this article, which makes some decent points about rioting in the wake of recent news on the case: The System Worked, So Why The Protests In Chicago? Note in particular the last three paragraphs. That is beyond the scope of your blog post, but is a related matter of concern.
“conservatives of his stripe are usually reflexively pro-cop even in killings this bad.”
Harrumph.
Duckspeakers don’t think, they just bellyfeel.
> As for the cops in the US, they already have access to subguns, and in walking around Europe you see a number actively deployed there in every day use.
I wouldn’t mind cops having full-auto M16s or Thompson submachine guns or the like as long as they are also readily available to Joe and Jane Private Citizen. But I do mind cops having handcuffs when Joe and Jane are forbidden by law from possessing them (as in NYC). It isn’t a matter of the nastiness of the guns or other gear, but of cops getting special treatment. Of “We need more rights than you, Citizen!” That is something that need to die the death, with the ground it sprang from sown with toxic radioactive salts so that it will never return.
@TomA:
That’s a terrible mis-quote of the two comments starting here where I explained that there are problems with your definition of bullying because it conflates behavior and motive. In that same comment, I explained that attempting to analyze the causes was worthwhile, and in a comment earlier than yours I described that other people had done some interesting analysis. In this “rebuttal” you attempt to equate my behavior with yours, when (a) I didn’t conflate motive with behavior in the definition of the behavior; and (b) I’m not even the one who came up with the motive — unlike you, I provided an article that had a few links to research in it.
So you didn’t read the article.
And no female ever is impressed by seeing a guy project obvious power over other guys. Whatever. Just in case you missed the article I pointed you at the first time, here are a couple of bits from it:
The first PDF link in that blockquote gives the definition that “Bullying is a specific form of aggression that is characterized by an imbalance of power whereby a more powerful individual repeatedly and intentionally causes harm to a weaker individual.”
Personally, I think that is a fine definition, and it’s made without reference to the reasons for the behavior.
TomA on 2015-11-29 at 20:40:42 said:
> So you are combining the behavior of bullying with the motive of improving sexual opportunities. I would suggest to you that a bully would attempt to intimidate women into easy sex, not impress them into acquiescence with their manliness.
I am asshole. And I guarantee that successfully bullying some poor random innocent totally turns women on.
Of course, blowback is possible. And if you fear there might be blowback, it is hard to hold frame. Your nervousness will show. So, to minimize the risk of blowback, it helps if you appear to bully someone you have previously tipped rather well.
Directly intimidating women into easy sex is tricky, because you still have to build comfort.. Some effective tactics could be described as directly intimidating women, but are perhaps more accurately described as passing shit tests, or compliance testing. The kind of pressure one applies is too subtle to be called bullying or intimidation, except by the kind of people who worry about microaggressions.
I have on occasion used such direct and forceful pressure as “Do as you are told!”, or to a girl who was physically resisting sex, “Go home!”.
She went home, but after a few days, wanted to come back. She came back, but sex did not ensue, because she was on the rag and was embarrassed by the mess, so I asked to tie her up (using actual words that could in principle be recorded by a notary public). She consented to being tied up, again using actual words, and once she was tied up everything went smoothly, no further words being required.
I don’t necessarily recommend such methods. They are tricky to carry out successfully, and may well be indicative of my incompetence as a seducer, rather than my skill. Generally better to bully some person who is complicit in being bullied, rather than the girl herself.
Not only do you risk pissing off the girl causing her to leave and not come back, but worse, far worse, you are likely to lose frame and reveal that you are worrying about pissing off the girl causing her to leave and not come back.
When I told that girl “Go home” it was because I realized I had slipped and lost frame, so sent her away to cover my slip. It was not a clever seducer’s move, but rather my recovery from ham fisted incompetence, in that I had put too much physical pressure on the girl to put out, and then lost frame by revealing my fear of losing her.
Getting girls into the sack by bullying, or appearing to bully, someone else, is much safer and more effective. And it is just easier to carry out without losing frame and appearing needy.
Objection your honor — assumes facts not in evidence, to wit: SJWs don’t use logic. More likely the internal narrative goes like:
ESR write stuff me not grok. Me has sadz. Must give ESR my sadz. ESR bad racist. Me better than ESR racist. Me has no more sadz!
This doesn’t sound “reflexively pro-cop” to me:
“My natural predisposition is to not believe the media. I also do not believe Al Sharpton, and I do not initially believe the Reverend Jackson. I know that there are examples of both. There are bad cops, and there are black criminals. There are also innocent cops and innocent black individuals who encounter the cops, left and right.”
Reference: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/05/11/liberals_lie_about_police_cases_to_advance_their_agenda
Limbaugh misrepresented what the caller Chris said. He claimed that Chris said “right wing” but not “left wing”. In fact Chris said both “left” and “right”, but didn’t say “wing”.
Also, this nonsense that the US media, owned as they are by wealthy cartels, are “left wing”, is proof only that those who hold this viewpoint are so right wing that they no longer recognise other right wing people as such.
Geoffrey, you really should read Professor Tim Groseclose’s Left Turns. It’s an exhaustively researched book that demonstrates that the media in the US is indeed much farther left than the populace as a whole, and that it pulls the political discourse in this country well to the left.
Just because the MSM in the US is owned by those nasty eeeeevil corporations does not mean that they espouse the nasty eeeeevil corporatist line. See, for example, Dan Rather and Mary Mapes, who are still pushing the “fake but accurate” line 11 years after their partisan hit piece on George W. Bush was thoroughly, totally debunked.
>Geoffrey, you really should read Professor Tim Groseclose’s Left Turns. It’s an exhaustively researched book that demonstrates that the media in the US is indeed much farther left than the populace as a whole, and that it pulls the political discourse in this country well to the left.
And Groceclose isn’t some isolated crank. Similar results show up repeatedly in psephological surveys by the Pew Foundation.
@ESR it is also possible to invert that approach: define “the left” as simply whatever intellectuals/professors/media types etc. preach. Otherwise it would be hard to to figure out the strange correlation between trigger warnings and Toyota Priuses, Whole Foods and gun control, “ethical buddhism” and welfare. Logically, there isn’t much relationship. But if you define the left not primarily as an ideology, but as a group, who then generates an ideology, their own “fiction absolute”: http://www.neh.gov/about/awards/jefferson-lecture/tom-wolfe-lecture then you may understand the phenomenon better.
>>”Also, this nonsense that the US media, owned as they are by wealthy cartels, are “left wing”, is proof.”
The only way this makes sense is if you conflate “wealth” with ‘right wing’. Of course this is a demonstrably stupid proposition. I’m shocked you didn’t reflexively type “Faux News” in there somewhere.
@ JAD
I have no doubt that some women are attracted to men that bully others as a show of dominance, and that some men take advantage of this proclivity in women in order to obtain easy sex from them. Some men even fuck sheep and goats because that is even an easier conquest. To each his own.
As for me, I am most attracted to highly intelligent women and have not run into this phenomenon in my personal life. But then, most of the women I know can hold their own both physically and intellectually, and prefer sport over games. That fake dominance shit isn’t likely to impress a woman who can free climb a half dome on a 5.9 route.
@Ellie Kesselman
> (As an FYI, “bath salts” is synonymous with methamphetamine, and methamphetamine isn’t a substance used exclusively by poor white people.)
No, “bath salts” refers to synthetic designer drugs meant to get around the law [to varying degrees of actual success] by A) not being exactly a known illegal substance, and B) being labeled for sale as a non-drug (hence “bath salts”).
They are often purported to be synthetic marijuana substitutes specifically.
>[Bath salts] are often purported to be synthetic marijuana substitutes specifically.
While this may have been occasionally true in the past, that kind of “bath salt” wouldn’t be psychotogenic a la PCP and (justifiably) frighten street cops. Today’s “bath salts” are usually synthetic cathinones (such as mephedrone) an unusual class of amphetamines related to the naturally occurring intoxicant in the khat plant.
These are nasty drugs, much more dangerous than synthetic cannabis. Not quite as bad as PCP but there’s plenty of street evidence that they can induce psychotic breaks, especially when taken with alcohol or the user has a prior history of mental illness.
Plain “meth”, the rural-white-trash drug, is methamphetamine (N-methyl-alpha-methylphenethylamine) or a mixture with its its enantiomers dextromethamphetamine and levomethamphetamine. It’s different from cathinones in that the synthesis method is simpler, though dangerous and involving explosion risks. It is also highly addictive and neurotoxic.
I know that the City and County cops in my area are trained to finish their clip after they fire the first shot. No stopping, no thinking, just quickly empty the gun into the perp. So no way does the cop get charged in my jurisdiction.
I’m not saying that is right or wrong, just saying.
And the real danger to meth is after users have been up for days, having fallen into paranoia and hallucinations.
> While this may have been occasionally true in the past
Well, synthetic cannabinoids are nothing to screw around with either, but my larger point is that the entire point of being called bath salts, regardless of what they supposedly or actually are analogs of, is that they’re designer drugs trying to get around the law by being sold as a different product, rather than being a named well-known controlled substance.
Wow, lots of activity since I last checked in!
@Foghorn Leghorn aka James Donald aka Jim blog of the NRx maybe altright:
I’m not sure why you are sharing your seduction tips on this particular post. Most of what you have said about women doesn’t automatically imply that you are a misogynist. Rather, you are willing to go to significant lengths (and expenditures of time and effort) thinking about women because you like consensual sex rather than rape. Drilling down further in your comment: Telling a man to “Go home” works as a strategy to get what one wants, as a woman, whether it is sex or something else. You think about women with enough empathy to realize that menstruation is embarrassing and messy to us. You aren’t repulsed by it or use it for purposes of shaming. That’s good! Sometimes, it is easier to let a man insist on sex or a particular sexual act because it would be embarrassing to initiate it oneself; by having the man suggest or urge it, feelings of guilt, fear of rejection or worse yet, ridicule are avoided as a possible outcome. As long as sex is consensual, and I don’t mean the strange legalistic permissioning system that is so popular among college students in coastal enclaves of liberal progressivism, a woman is not “violated”. It is especially peculiar in this era of supposedly enlightened women and feminism that timeless male seduction tricks are perceived as dangerous and evil.
@Joshua You’re correct about methamphetamine usage. I don’t know where @Winter gets his information. He is caught up in the designer drug fear-mongering. There have been stories of the havoc that designer drugs will bring since the early 1990s. Designer drugs and exotic synthetic hallucinogens remain the preserve of nerdy Erowid (Eurowid?) readers, Burning Man attendees and sub-redditors. Cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine account for the overwhelming majority of illegal drug use, and especially ruinously destructive illegal drug use. I haven’t read anything about “bath salts” in the media in ages, let alone PCP! How many arrests for designer drug usage do you think there are Winter? The police don’t spend a huge amount of time trying to prosecute legal analogs that are marginally different chemically from controlled substances thus legal. I understand what you are saying, but it isn’t a big or even small problem, and is NOT something that policemen on patrol in slummy neighbors and public housing projects in Chicago worry about.
Ah crud! @Winter I am sorry! I was wrong in haranguing you. All of that should have been directed at @Random832 not at you
While I am here though…
@Paralell Thank you for mentioning Rush Limbaugh in a positive light, and at length!
@Geoffrey Tobin You need to read what @gmmay said. Please realize that a lot of the media is owned by wealthy LEFT-WING people. These days, being left-wing and advocating socialist or even communist ideologies is something that I primarily associate with a small number of extremely wealthy people. Every hedge fund portfolio manager, Silicon Valley venture capitalist and scion of privilege/inherited wealth that I can think of is a staunch Democrat or liberal progressive. They might be against something that affects them directly, (e.g. a Tobin tax on financial transactions) but in every other way, are pro-Hillary and Obama, fear gluten and Big Pharma, praise atheism, ridicule American culture, idolize multiculturalism etc. Most of the supposed libertarians seem to have vanished now that they actually have a presidential candidate to potentially represent them! Finally, and most substantive of all, please do note that donations by individuals to Democrat political candidates have exceeded donations to Republicans, based on FEC data, the Sunlight Foundation and other watchdog groups. The Left is not the persecuted underdog anymore, if it ever truly was; interestingly, income inequality and racial polarization has only worsened during the Left’s ascendancy. As for women’s rights, there are currently fewer women studying and working in what were considered male-dominated fields than in the bad old days. “Rape culture” is an endemic problem in the USA while the Muslim theocracies are remarkably immune to oppression by The Patriarchy, according to mainstream media’s dominant narrative and most of Western academia. I am being sarcastic now, but that was probably obvious.
@Jay Maynard
;o)
Groupthink classifies people by abstract groupings. Intellectuals/professors/media types also include Ayn Rand/Geoffrey Blainey (anti-immigration historian)/Rupert Murdoch.
If you’re happy to classify those three individuals as left wing, then I’m out of here!
Ellie, I would have thought there are a significant number of staunchly atheist libertarians, even among the contributors to this blog. Yes/no?
US media doesn’t seem at all left wing from an Australian perspective, and people here generally vote conservative.
My home town, Melbourne, is also Rupert Murdoch’s; his father was Managing Director of the largest newspaper company in Australia, the Herald and Weekly Times group, which always trenchantly supported the conservatives, regardless.
The elder Murdoch was a renowned WW1 war correspondent. Internal rivalries in the HWT led to his downfall, and Rupert never forgave those responsible for this.
The HWT owned the 7 TV network, to which the only significant rivals were the 9 network, which also was strongly conservative, and the 10 network, which was likewise, even before Murdoch bought it.
Due to his rivalry with the HWT, the young and fast-rising Murdoch had a brief dalliance with progressive politics, which lasted all of 18 months.
Murdoch created Australia’s first national newspaper, The Australian, bought the News of the World, the Sun and the Times in England, and eventually became powerful enough to buy a majority shareholding in the HWT.
Right wing commentators have always had prominent airtime on Radio and TV here, whereas left wingers have rarely had a platform, and that temporarily and begrudgingly or for amusement value.
We don’t have the equivalent of a Jon Stewart who lives by lampooning the politics of the right, or a Stephen Colbert who pretends to be right wing.
What we do have are comedians who make fun of all politicians’ absurdities and inconsistencies, and a thriving community of cartoonists who are all over the political spectrum, plus some who are so eccentric as to defy classification.
The Fairfax media organisation, which Murdoch and co would have us believe is left of centre, usually recommend a conservative vote, and they own the 2GB and 3AW radio stations which consistently promote strong conservative, free market, messages, and are invariably hostile to all leftish opinions.
> Right wing commentators have always had prominent airtime on Radio and TV here, whereas left wingers have rarely had a platform, and that temporarily and begrudgingly or for amusement value.
Oh come on. The Australian media campaigns loudly and non stop for unlimited illegal immigration, a policy that pretty much everyone in Australia opposes and has been repeatedly demonstrated to be political suicide.. Australian media announce imminent climate doom day and night. Australian media continually tells white Australians they are horrid evil hateful racists. Australian media continually celebrate supposed Australian aboriginals, frequently Australian aboriginals who some how look entirely white – similar to so many prominent “native Americans”. Australian media campaigns for gay marriage and presents gays as normal family men. http://winteryknight.com/2013/07/01/why-two-dads-are-better-than-one-pro-gay-adoption-abc-profile-of-convicted-pedophile-mark-newton/
All of these positions are far to the left of the vast majority of Australians who are being bullied into enduring them.
Geoffrey, in the context of American politics, the US MSM is unabashedly well left of center. Professor Groseclose quantified this. On a scale of 1 to 100, where 1 is left and 100 is right, the US MSM is about 25…and the outlet the Left moves to hate, Fox News, is 48!
That the US MSM isn’t to the left when taken in context of Australian politics matters not even a little bit.
And Aussies may vote conservative by their own lights, but they’re leftist by American standards.
@Ellie Kesselman –
I made no comment on how common they were, I was just pointing out that “bath salts” is not synonymous with methamphetamine as you had asserted it was.
@Geoffrey Tobin
> Ellie, I would have thought there are a significant number of staunchly atheist libertarians, even among the contributors to this blog. Yes/no?
Yes, I imagine so Geoffrey. Certainly I am both libertarian and atheist. However, it did make me think: is there any research on the %ages. Googling I found this:
Atheist Conservatives and Libertarians are not Rare
This really asks the wrong question: how many atheists are libertarians rather than how many libertarians are atheists. However, it did make me think. Why are atheists very often liberal? After all, one of the consequences of atheism is that morality is a human construct, and liberalism very much projects itself as a moral play.
Two causes strike me.
1. Religious people tend toward conservatism since conservatism is almost required for religion. “Take it on faith” for example requires a body of unchanging beliefs that are to be accepted irrespective of (note I say irrespective, not without) examination. This requires a degree of unchanging continuity. So consequently, here politics follows religion.
2. Humans seem to have a built in need for religion. We need some meaning outside of ourselves, and some clear definition of what is wrong and right (since creating your own is so hard and so dangerous.) So in the absence of a spiritual religion they seek a secular religion such as liberalism.
BTW, the second point could also be applied to libertarians too. That this is the case can be seen in the zeal and blinkered thinking of people when it comes to politics. “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still” is doubly true of politics and religion.
@ Jessica re: religion/faith
As a species, we developed complex language skill about 200,000 years ago and thereafter acquired the ability to pass wisdom from generation-to-generation via memetic reprogramming after birth. During the past few millennia, this cultural trait has manifest as religion (of many types) and the mental practice of faith has emerged as a successful technique to both mitigate unknowns and assure conformity. As such, religion and faith exist because they “work” in the sense that these cultural traits have aided our specie’s ability to survive and thrive.
Even the characteristic of an non-falsifiable God is an evolved feature of successful religions; as presumably, religions centered around falsifiable gods have long since become extinct.
> As such, religion and faith exist because they “work” in the sense that these cultural traits have aided our specie’s ability to survive and thrive.
Unless you’re going to contend that there were other intelligent species that existed contemporary with humans that died out because of their lack of religion, there simply hasn’t been enough of a competition “arena” to make statements like that, any more than you can about the common cold. It’s “aided” its own ability to survive and thrive, not humanity’s.
>Unless you’re going to contend that there were other intelligent species that existed contemporary with humans that died out because of their lack of religion, there simply hasn’t been enough of a competition “arena” to make statements like that, (…)
Women have large breasts*, not to look more attractive than dogs, baboons and giraffes, but to look more attractive than other women. Selection pressures can work within a single species as well as between different species. His argument, while not one I am very sympathetic with, is that less religious humans have become evolutionary dead-ends. This can have happened both on an individual basis (within tribe) and on a group level (between tribes).
*Substitute women and breasts for peacocks and tails, respectively, if this example is too controversial.
> Selection pressures can work within a single species as well as between different species.
Right, but the assertion that some traits “have aided our specie’s ability to survive and thrive” isn’t talking about selection within a species.
I doubt the arena is even large enough, considering different cultures as competing with each other, to not be confounded by other factors such as some culture with a trait that would be disadvantageous in a vacuum outcompeting its neighbors due to a geographic advantage or some other advantageous cultural practice that it also happens to have.
Anyway, my suggestion that his claim was equivalent to claiming a literal virus’s success implies that the virus has contributed to the success of the host’s species was actually drawing an intentional parallel to the idea of a “memetic virus”.
@ Random832
I wasn’t trying to go off-topic, but merely adding perspective to Jessica’s comment.
Complex language skill is unique to present day Homo sapiens and is the basis of a robust memetic evolutionary process that parallels traditional DNA-based evolution. Just as genetic evolution has provided us with physical traits such bipedalism, bicameral vision, and opposable thumbs; memetic evolution has conferred us with behavioral traits that also function to reinforce our ability to survive and thrive. Although each of these psychological traits operates at the individual level, they tend to spread and persist via cultural mechanisms; of which, religion is a prominent example.
Cultural evolution is most often studied anthropologically, but the advent of computer-based simulation modeling has provided additional tools for studying these effects. Game theory predicts the rise and success of religious cultural mechanisms is simulated social populations.
>Right, but the assertion that some traits “have aided our specie’s ability to survive and thrive” isn’t talking about selection within a species.
Large breasts provide individual women an advantage, by increasing their sexual capital. Simultaneously, by virtue of being a health marker – functionally amplifying the selection pressures from infections, scarcity of food, etc on women, by carrying these over to sexual selection – they can (hypothetically) contribute to the -species’ ability to survive and thrive-.
You must be watching SBS, the “all employees must be gay” channel.
Seriously, have you ever read a HWT or Murdoch paper, or listened to Alan Jones or watched the Bolt Report? There are and always have been multitudes of these people on the most prominent platforms incessantly. They have the support of the media barons and the politicians’ ears.
If you’re complaining that people exist who express other opinions, and that some of them are loud enough to be heard, then that’s freedom of speech. Build a bridge, and get over it.
The present government is preparing to institute measures to restrict the intake of refugees to bona fide Christians and other minorities that are at risk from Muslim extremism. The objections to this were more muted than might be expected if the country were run by some left wing media con- or pro- spiracy.
If that policy is not good enough for you, then lay out your plan for the public benefit. Whether it’s good or half-baked, if you’re strident or it strikes raw nerves on left, right or centre, it will get an airing.
Jay, that’s a remarkably presumptuous take on Australian politics. Just because John Howard restricted gun ownership because he was afraid his own supporters might shoot him, is does not make him a leftist.
Contrary to what you might imagine, there are plenty of right wing conservatives now, as there were in 1775, who see public ownership of firearms as a potential threat to their lives and authority.
If you disagree, then train and arm all the lefties in America, then tell me how safe you feel.
Jay, again re Australian conservative politics, they are in practice and motive indistinguishable from conservative Republicans, only more devious.
The US involvement in the Vietnam war, which so damaged the US economy, was caused not by US policy, but by an appeal to the ANZUS treaty by the Australian conservative PM, Robert Menzies, who had fabricated a document from the South Vietnamese government requesting military aid from Australia.
Menzies did this because in 1961 his policies had caused a recession that nearly cost him government, and he knew that deceitful calls to patriotism and fear-mongering about “the yellow peril” and “the red menace” had always won votes. It worked a treat this time too: Menzies and his party won the 1963 and 1966 elections very easily, while oblivious American soldiers died in multitudes.
The US government learnt its lesson: when Indonesia was sabre-rattling and the Australian government discreetly enquired whether, in the event of an Indonesian invasion, the US would honour the treaty and protect us, the US government went public with a resounding “NO!”
Jay, I must have overlooked a glossary entry: what’s “MSM”?
I was wondering: what are people’s views here on the Sovereign Citizen movement?
Allodial title for private landowners sounds good to me. It does work, as we know from legal cases in 800s Brittany, where lords were convicted of trespassing on peasants’ land.
Regarding existential competition between human belief systems, it is reasonable to posit that those that encourage child-bearing will inexorably overwhelm those that do not.
Families who have many healthy children will almost inevitably greatly outnumber those who are pro-abortion and those who see children as only a burden.
Geoffrey: “If you disagree, then train and arm all the lefties in America, then tell me how safe you feel.”
Sign me up.
I do not, unlike hoplophobes everywhere, assume that handing someone a gun and teaching them how to use it automatically turns them into a deranged killer. A gun is a tool, nothing more, nothing less.
“MSM” is short for “mainstream media”, and refers, in the main, to traditional mass media outlets like NBC, CBS, ABC,
Pravda-on-the-Hudsonthe New York Times, the Washington Post, and so on…basically, everyone but Fox News, who gets excluded by general agreement.I’m not sure I know enough about Sovereign Citizen to have a fully valid opinion, but what I’ve heard of them tells me they’re a bunch of loonies hanging their entire worldview on one thin strand that I’m not at all sure bears put o scrutiny. Certainly those who do things like file trillion-dollar liens against judges are out and out kooks.
And blaming the Australian government for the Vietnam War is a stretch. We’d have jumped into that one with both feet even absent Menzies’s appeal – and note that the average American does not know that story. I’m taking your word for it, but this is the first I’ve heard of it.
It’s not clear to me how software could model the spontaneous emergence of any belief system, least of all an essentially transcendental one.
If you could do this, you could create a true artificial intelligence. There’d be no need for scripted interactions in computer games, as the characters would respond intelligently and innovative lay on their own.
In Australia we have a 30 year rule, whereby most federal cabinet documents become public after that lapse of time. This is when we discover what our governments were really up to, and discern more about the real personalities of our politicians.
Menzies was one of those “butter won’t melt in my mouth, and I’ve got a plum in each cheek, and I so love the Queen that I don’t care how much it embarrasses her” type conservatives in public.
In cabinet, as transpired, he swore like a trooper, though he never served in any arm of the military when he had the opportunity.
I have little to no respect for politicians who send others to war when they’ve literally dodged that bullet themselves.
It’s evident that both left and right wear filters that perceive bias only when it’s against them.
It’s fanciful to lump all of Australia’s media (sans Murdoch) into one camp.
For a start, most of those journos who critique the right for absurd or unjust policies also lambast the left for their ridiculously ill-thought-out and unaffordable proposals.
Imagine for a week that you’re even a little left of centre, then picture how the media’s savaging of beleaguered left-of-centre politicians looks.
It’s pretty sad, whoever the victim is. Hewson was on the receiving end of this, as were Gorton and MacMahon. So we’re many on the Labor side.
Basically, the most creatively vicious demagogue always wins the debate, so far as the media wolves are concerned. Policy is nothing, personality and blood sports are everything.
As for policy, remember that most of the nationalisations were undertaken by conservative governments in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, whereas Labor in the 80s and 90s privatised numerous government assets such as the Commonwealth Bank, Qantas and Telstra.
Left and right are not rigid demarcations. Parties change, under media and lobbyist influence, quicker than the public does, because of proximity.
Geoffrey Tobin: “Ayn Rand/Geoffrey Blainey (anti-immigration historian)/Rupert Murdoch”.
Rand has been dead for 33 years. Blainey is unknown outside Australia, and is 85 years old. Murdoch is such an extreme right-winger that he supported Tony Blair and raised funds for Hillary Clinton.
You notice conservatives in the media such as Andrew Bolt. That’s because they stand out against the solid background of leftists.
Incidentally, while there seems to be a lot talk about Murdoch, there is no mention of the billion AUS$ elephant in the room: the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
> > As such, religion and faith exist because they “work” in the sense that these cultural traits have aided our specie’s ability to survive and thrive.
> there simply hasn’t been enough of a competition “arena” to make statements like that, any more than you can about the common cold. It’s “aided” its own ability to survive and thrive, not humanity’s.
If a faith spreads primarily through evangelism, (“cults”) or primarily through armed conquest, like Islam, then the faith likely survives at the expense of its adherents.
If, however, a faith is primarily propagated from father to son then it had to co-evolve with its host, and is likely beneficial to the host’s survival and reproduction, for example forbidding stupid, evil, and self destructive behavior such as homosexuality, (notice that not very many gays survive to be old) and commanding the community to enforce pro survival practices like enforcing the traditional marriage contract.
(Faiths propagated from mother to daughter are unstable and do not propagate with fidelity)
Every faith that is older than a few centuries favors reproduction, if only by favoring marital stability and commanding sex within marriage, because those that did not, are not around any more.
Most people watch the commercial channels and listen to commercial radio, not to the ABC.
TV and radio are about a lot more than politics. I certainly don’t follow them for that: the internet is much more immediate and diverse.
Why does Murdoch sometimes support not-obviously right wing pollies?
Murdoch despises the unions, especially in print media, for historic reasons that are well documented.
He’s not a moral conservative: he believes in whatever turns the biggest profit. His own mother was on public record criticising him for a deficiency in scruples.
Murdoch is very hands on and makes his opinions very clear to his staff right down the chain. When the News of the World broke surveillance laws, they were following what they believed to be his expectations.
He will support politicians who support him. It happens that the majority of these are conservatives.
What is Tony Blair’s politics? He’s a Roman Catholic and was the most enthusiastic non-US supporter of George W. Bush’s Iraq policies, for which he remains unapologetic.
Blair practised typical conservative behaviours such as knighthoods as a quid pro quo.
James, I am unaware of any faith other than Judaism that specifies a maternal identity.
Historically, that’s because a non-believing mother was found to lead her children astray. (Solomon’s pagan wives were an object lesson that the prohibitions strictly applied by Ezra were designed to deal with.)
> And he would not tell you that. If you’ve shot someone in self defense, and the person
> goes down and is no longer a threat to you, please do not believe that you can
> “finish him off” because you were legally justified in shooting him in the first place.
> Even Soldiers in combat can’t keep shooting someone who is hors de combat
> from wounds.
There are three ways that shooting someone (or even just shooting someone) stops a fight:
1) Psychological. The person being shot at realized that “Shit got Real” and doesn’t want to play anymore. They surrender, raise their hands, whatever. This includes any hit that isn’t immediately disabling (hits which are disabling but not lethal RARELY happens with a pistol). This includes people who realize a minute or two later that they’ve been shot and stop. It is how pistol fights usually end–with one party quitting. Pistol shots are notoriously non-lethal.
2) Central Nervous System hit. A shot to the brain or upper spine are generally immediately lethal.
3) Reduction in inter-cranial blood pressure. As someone takes hits and the blood leaks out blood pressure and volume drop. At some point there isn’t enough of either (volume or pressure), the brain starts to shut down and the target falls down.
Note, this isn’t about how they *die*, but why they stop fighting. Either they give up, you shoot them in the head, or they bleed out.
I don’t know how many read the book “Lone Survivor” by Marcus Luttrell, or remember just a few pages in the book (IDK if it showed up in the movie) where Luttrell and the army went back to get the bodies of the rest of his team. One of his teammates that Luttrell had seen shot to get the ground with rifle fire had gotten up and started fighting again. They found him (IIRC) 50 or so meters away with a trail of bodies and 9mm brass between where he fell the first time and where he finally died.
It is very rare that someone will give up and then get back in the fight. It is even rarer that someone takes a hit to the brain[1] and gets back up.
However, if someone has stopped fighting and fallen down because their inter-cranial blood pressure fell, if they *fall down* their brain is now at the same level as the rest of their body, and sometimes there will be sufficient oxygenated blood to restore the person to consciousness. Now usually in this case they are not going to get back in the fight. Most people, once they are shot to the ground stay there.
So to the poster’s point, *generally* speaking he’s right. Legally you are not allowed an “anchoring” shot. If someone tries to mug you on the street, if someone breaks into your house and you are in a position where shooting is legally justified, once the *threat* is over–once they have gone to the ground–you pretty much need to stop shooting UNLESS they have a firearm they are still trying to bring into play–then they are still in the fight and still a threat.
This is the situation with Van Dyke and Mr. Angel Dust. This is the situation with MOST shootings.
There are, however, corner cases, so while it’s a general principle that one does not issue the coup de grace, if you think the person carrying an AK and yelling about Hawaiian Snack bars you just shot is wearing a vest? Shoot him in the head until you see grey matter, then go shoot his buddies.
The real world is not binary, it is not either-or. The Logic 101 case of “it is either raining or not raining” is bullshit. Yeah, in the comfort of a classroom in a modern heated building you can come up with an arbitrary line between raining and not, but in the real world it’s not so clear cut.
Thus it is with violence. It’s easy to sit in an arm chair and pontificate about it. It’s a lot different when you’re standing there shaking with adrenaline.
Okay, I’ve got to ask…Hawaiian snack bars?
Aloha akbar?
That’s what I get for asking…
@Geoffrey Tobin:
Admittedly, I’ve never met anyone espousing this nonsense IRL or online, and wouldn’t give one cent for any of their literature either. As a result, my understanding comes not from direct study, but from news about their trials, almost universally for tax evasion, where even if they were right (performing the
magicallegal incantations they provide will sever your ties to the government) they are still wrong (stateless and foreign persons are still subject to tax law in whatever jurisdiction they work/reside). The fact that the entire movement sells itself on the above basis (“learn the secrets that will prevent you from ever having to pay taxes!”) means the entire movement reeks of fraud and insanity to me.> Imagine for a week that you’re even a little left of centre, then picture how the media’s savaging of beleaguered left-of-centre politicians looks
Someone in Australia who is “a little left of center” wants to illegal immigration stopped, wants to deport any illegals that make it, is vaguely against “climate change” provided stopping climate change does not cost him anything. He is white, and vaguely against racism, but does not believe he is a hateful evil racist and gets pissed with anyone who tells him that he is.
So someone who is a little left of center in Australia is likely to get the impression that the media is completely controlled by hostile aliens who hate him for being insufficiently left wing.
To get the impression that the Australian or American media is right wing, you have to believe in unrestricted illegal immigration, imminent climate catastrophe, that blacks and women are held back by powerful pervasive racism and sexism, and that there is a rape epidemic in America of rapes committed by white middle class students, and a partner abuse epidemic in Australia where large numbers of white middle class husbands are murdering their spouses.
That position is not “a little left wing”. That position is frothing at the mouth and screaming for blood left wing.
the boats, and doe
Geoffrey Tobin:
> What is Tony Blair’s politics? He’s a Roman Catholic and was the most enthusiastic
> non-US supporter of George W. Bush’s Iraq policies, for which he remains unapologetic.
> Blair practised typical conservative behaviours such as knighthoods as a quid pro quo.
Now see, this is the collision between European Conservative and American Conservative.
No one in America[1] would have considered Blair a “Conservative” because other than the War he was essentially some variant of Social Democrat/Progressive/Socialist.
No American Conservative[2] would consider knighthood a “conservative” thing, nor would “being” a RC make one a “Conservative”. Nancy Pelosi claims to be RC despite being on the opposite side of every historical church position/doctrine. Well, prior to the takeover of the church by marxists in the form of “Liberation Theology”.
[1] No rational ones anyway. If you’ve got 300m+ people to talk to *someone* is going to have the opinion you want to broadcast.
[2] Some more knowledgeable and educated conservatives would, but not in the context of America as we’ve never had it, and it is antithetical to our culture and way of life.
Geoffrey Tobin:
> Jay, again re Australian conservative politics, they are in practice and motive
> indistinguishable from conservative Republicans, only more devious.
The closest thing to Conservatives I met when I lived there (Alice Springs) would be considered moderates here.
Admittedly most of them I met at the gun range–a really nice range built with federal money that was INCREDIBLY under utilized, and every one of them talked not about figuring out how to get more people to the range to get more money in club/range fees, but how to get grant proposals written up so they could get more money. From the government.
Australians out there were always looking for a grant from the Government to do stuff. The YMCA had a climbing wall that they got a grant to redo, so they took it down and ran out of money half way through. So it sat there like that for 9 or 10 months. Until the next grant came through. In the US they’d never had gotten any money in the first place for something like that, but if they did they either would have gotten it in under budget or hit up local businesses for donations.
They claimed to want a smaller government, or at least a less expensive one, but they were much more interested in government services than your typical US conservative (Social Security excluded because most Conservatives are of the opinion that since they’ve been forced to pay in, they should get back what they paid.).
Heck, they had a *gorgeous* club house with a decent view, and could have run a pretty nice restaurant out if it for dinner without compromising their shooting activities during the day.
> The US involvement in the Vietnam war, which so damaged the US economy, was
The people who were pushing/running the Vietnam war would have argued this with you. See also “Broken Window” economic fallacy. The Vietnam war got rid of a reasonable number of overproductive people and gave the USG the excuse to continue to pour money into the military and the defense industries, which found it’s way back to the politicians. That pretty much IS the definition of a “good economy”, right?
> caused not by US policy, but by an appeal to the ANZUS treaty by the Australian
> conservative PM, Robert Menzies, who had fabricated a document from the
> South Vietnamese government requesting military aid from Australia.
That took place in 1965, by which time both the US and Australia were embroiled in Vietnam.
> Menzies did this because in 1961 his policies had caused a recession that nearly cost
> him government, and he knew that deceitful calls to patriotism and fear-mongering about
> “the yellow peril” and “the red menace” had always won votes. It worked a treat this time too:
How many people died in Cambodia, in Vietnamese re-education facilities, in
Menzies and his party won the 1963 and 1966 elections very easily, while oblivious American soldiers died in multitudes.
The US government learnt its lesson: when Indonesia was sabre-rattling and the Australian government discreetly enquired whether, in the event of an Indonesian invasion, the US would honour the treaty and protect us, the US government went public with a resounding “NO!”
Hit Post too fast, sorry:
> Menzies did this because in 1961 his policies had caused a recession that nearly cost
> him government, and he knew that deceitful calls to patriotism and fear-mongering about
> “the yellow peril” and “the red menace” had always won votes. It worked a treat this time too:
How many people died in Cambodia, in Vietnamese re-education facilities? How many people did the communists murder (Communists “run” from N. Vietnam) in Laos?
> Menzies and his party won the 1963 and 1966 elections very easily, while oblivious American soldiers died in multitudes.
In the early 1960s the US asked Australia for help with training S. Vietnamese soldiers because the Diggers had experience helping the British in the jungles of Malaya during the “Emergency” there, so the US reached out to request cross training.
So basically, no.
> The US government learnt its lesson: when Indonesia was sabre-rattling and
> the Australian government discreetly enquired whether, in the event of an Indonesian
> invasion, the US would honour the treaty and protect us, the US government went
> public with a resounding “NO!”
Site please. Or at least year.
I know a bit about US/AU military relations having worked in one of the joint facilities, and the US would *not* have allowed that to be compromised. OTOH, if they asked Obama…
William: Yet, on the other hand, the 19th century Republican government passed anti-trust legislation which is stricter than anything Australian parties are willing to introduce. So, in our minds, that was radical.
Have Americans moved to the right since then?
@Geoffrey Tobin: the 19th century Republican government
In the 19th century, the Republicans were further left than the Democrats in the US. The Republicans only became the “right-wing” party when the Democrats were taken over by the progressives in the early to mid 20th century (basically from Woodrow Wilson to FDR), because the progressives got tired of the Republicans not being progressive enough.
Geoffrey Tobin on 2015-12-02 at 23:33:53 said:
> William: Yet, on the other hand, the 19th century Republican government
Very late 19th century. In fact most of the relevant legislation was early 20th, and was mostly bi-partisan.
> passed anti-trust legislation which is stricter than anything Australian parties
> are willing to introduce. So, in our minds, that was radical.
Anti-trust isn’t seen as particularly socialist or progressive by contemporary Americans, it is seen as protecting small business and the consumer. Note that I don’t particularly agree with that position, but that’s my perception of what people around me think.
> Have Americans moved to the right since then?
American’s haven’t, we’ve always been that way. But the political landscape has changed significantly, and in some ways (not always good) politicians are more responsive to the electorate (the direct election of senators for one)
We (conservatives) have also learned that Government, especially the federal government tends to correct things *slower* than the market (for example by the time most of the anti-trust laws were enacted the specific companies that triggered their creation were already in decline).
Government also tends to create the very problems it wants legislation to fix. Many of the railroads in the US were built with significant government intervention (I can’t recall how much if any government financing) but this was done in favor of the politically connected (much like Diane Fienstein’s husband is a very wealth “contractor” and real estate broker in California).
In fact many of the larger corporations couldn’t have gotten as big as they are, or maintained their size without significant government intervention.
Governments have miserable records when it comes to telling their people what to do, and they really have a tendency to do things in favor of the politically connected.
Tobin:
> For a start, most of those journos who critique the right for absurd or unjust policies
> also lambast the left for their ridiculously ill-thought-out and unaffordable proposals.
No, they do not. At least not here in the US (I did not pay much attention to national politics when I lived in AU, so I can’t comment there).
Joseph W. on 2015-12-02 at 12:55:56 said:
> That’s what I get for asking…
http://www.vocativ.com/news/257229/second-suspect-identified-in-san-bernardino-shooting
It’s still early, and I’m not 100 percent trusting of that report.
>It’s still early, and I’m not 100 percent trusting of that report.
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/2015/12/3/police-chief-san-bernardino-shooting-well-planned-wasnt-spontaneous
San Bernardino police chief says (a) shooting well-planned, not spontaneous, (b) two shooters, husband and wife, (c) both Islamic (this is my shocked face), (d) pipe bombs were found at the scene.
Doubtless the Obama administration will classify this as “workplace violence”, because that totally fits with the ski masks and pipe bombs. No word yet on whether the happy couple was screaming “Allahu akbar!” as they murdered.
SF 8 cops v.s. 1 knife, v.s. how they do it in canada and europe videos.
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/public-execution-firing-squad-video-shows-10-cops-unload-single-man-knife/
Apparently in Europe they don’t assume everyone is an urban ninja that can slaughter them from 21 feet away even if they have gun drawn and pointed at the perp but don’t immediately pull the trigger.
Rules of engagement ought to be different for soldiers in a war zone.
But today the militarization of police make them like an enemy occupying army – lets keep escalating until we have no liberty or are all dead.
Government also tends to create the very problems it wants legislation to fix. Many of the railroads in the US were built with significant government intervention (I can’t recall how much if any government financing) but this was done in favor of the politically connected
The railroad companies were given huge tracts of government land, I think about 1-2 miles on each side of the tracks, for building the lines. They made a huge amount of money selling this land after the homesteading tapered off.
>Apparently in Europe they don’t assume everyone is an urban ninja that can slaughter them from 21 feet away even if they have gun drawn and pointed at the perp but don’t immediately pull the trigger. >Rules of engagement ought to be different for soldiers in a war zone.
For law enforcement purposes, Chicago is a lot like a war zone. Its homicide rate is 10 (ten) times as high as a not very peaceful city like London, and 50 times that of Tokyo.
Note that direct comparisons of homicide rates are somewhat misleading, because Chicago doesn’t have fifty times as many homicides of all kinds. Generally, the lower the homicide rate, the larger the -proportion- of them are crimes like people poisoning their partners, strangling their infants and killing people with can openers because they hear voices.
For very high rates of homicide, like what you see in Chicago, the homicide rates are dominated by proto-civil war like conditions in the streets – executions within gangs; war-like hostilities between gangs; and strangers being assaulted. The level of -street violence- in Chicago is probably in the ballpark of 500 times that of Tokyo.
If you take away paramilitary law enforcement, what you get is Detroit, where gangs rule the inner city, productive citizens feel so unsafe that they leave, and civilization completely breaks down.
[See also my exchange with Winter regarding Amsterdam.]
>For law enforcement purposes, Chicago is a lot like a war zone. Its homicide rate is 10 (ten) times as high as a not very peaceful city like London, and 50 times that of Tokyo.
And well over a hundred times that of the unremarkable exurban borough where I live, where there’s been one murder in the last six years and that was due to a drug deal having gone bad. When I say that the U.S. is criminologically a handful of Swazilands surrounded by Switzerland this is what I mean.
> The railroad companies were given huge tracts of government land, I think about 1-2 miles on each side of the tracks, for building the lines.
The railroad companies were given an enormous amount of land land – Half of all the land (in a one-mile checkerboard pattern) within either 10 or 20 miles (depending on era) of the railroad path, specifically for the purpose of selling to fund the construction of the railroads.
Some of them were even larger – the Northern Pacific land grants, for example (through North Dakota and Montana), extended 50 miles from the tracks, covering (at half density) nearly the entire southern half of North Dakota.
@esr
“And well over a hundred times that of the unremarkable exurban borough where I live, where there’s been one murder in the last six years and that was due to a drug deal having gone bad. When I say that the U.S. is criminologically a handful of Swazilands surrounded by Switzerland this is what I mean.”
That is an interesting real life experiment. You yourself live in an area where the state has full control and all its services are in working order due to a good tax basis for the delivery of public goods. This has very low crime rates.
Then there are inner city areas where the US state has effectively withdrawn. The people living there have basically very little intervention from the powers of the state. Neither police nor tax man will come visiting them. So we can now see how the US would look like when the Citizens have to organize themselves. This must be the Libertarian Valhalla: No state, no taxes, free guns. These inner city areas are Libertarianism at work.
What we see in the US inner cities is also in line with what we see in every corner of the world where the state has fallen apart.
More about the subject of abandoned USA inner cities:
The Formation of the U.S. Racialized Urban Ghetto
http://www.cusag.umd.edu/documents/workingpapers/rugone.pdf
@ Winter – “inner city areas where the US state has effectively withdrawn . . . This must be the Libertarian Valhalla”
Not so. These are the areas where the productive have been driven out en masse by the tyranny of liberal government and usurious taxation. And all that remain are the parasites living off meager welfare entitlements and leading bitter lives of disappointment and despair. These are enclaves of socialism not Libertarianism; and this the future you would condemn all of us to having in your lust for evermore government domination.
Winter
> Then there are inner city areas where the US state has effectively withdrawn. The people living there have basically very little intervention from the powers of the state. Neither police nor tax man will come visiting them.
You are completely ignorant of the realities of America. When East Palo Alto had the highest murder rate in America in was swarming with police and social workers. I am told the police were corrupt and the social workers uncaring, but a white man could not drive into East Palo Alto without being stopped by cops, and every family had a social worker like ever normal white family has an uncle or aunt.
What finally dropped the murder rate in East Palo Alto was a colonialist imperialist invasion of white cops from West Palo Alto, followed by Mestizo colonization. The Mestizos killed off the most badly behaved blacks. I am not sure who restored order to East Palo Alto, white cops or Mexican gangs, but the place was never short of black cops or social workers.
>You are completely ignorant of the realities of America.
Worse yet, he is completely ignorant of the realities of Amsterdam.
@Anonymous et al.
“>You are completely ignorant of the realities of America.”
I know, therefore I use your own words:
“For very high rates of homicide, like what you see in Chicago, the homicide rates are dominated by proto-civil war like conditions in the streets – executions within gangs; war-like hostilities between gangs; and strangers being assaulted.”
“If you take away paramilitary law enforcement, what you get is Detroit, where gangs rule the inner city, productive citizens feel so unsafe that they leave, and civilization completely breaks down.”
How is this different from “the state has withdrawn from these neighborhoods” or “the inhabitants rule their own neighborhoods”. It is actually the same situation as in Islamic State. The people are even armed. The police drives through once a week.
@TomA
“These are the areas where the productive have been driven out en masse by the tyranny of liberal government and usurious taxation. And all that remain are the parasites living off meager welfare entitlements and leading bitter lives of disappointment and despair.”
I know, Libertarianism only works when the right people (euphemism for white protestants) start under the right circumstances (most powerful army in the world to protect them).
So the question remains, why do the productive people move out when the state “oppression” weakens and Libertarian self rule is on the horizon?
@Anonymous et al.
“Worse yet, he is completely ignorant of the realities of Amsterdam.”
“[See also my exchange with Winter regarding Amsterdam.]”
Yep, you were correlating the murder rates in Berlin and Amsterdam with the black population, without bothering to look whether the black populations was even involved in these murders, and what exactly is the definition or background of the “blacks” (different continents, different parts of these continents, different crime statistics). In short, you did not need information to know for sure that a black skin is all you need to explain crime rates.
It is my experience that racism is a faith not sensitive to statistics. So why bother?
esr:
Your analysis is rubbish. The kind of twisted logic that only exists in white America’s psycotic and deranged mind.
>> You don’t pull a knife and brandish it in the presence of two cop cars if you’re thinking at all sanely
That is BS. First, we don’t know that he saw the cops or that he processed that cops were around. Or that he brandished his knives to threaten the cops or “charge at them”. The idea that he was a threat to multiple fully armed cops in the area is ridiculous. It’s some black kid, high on drugs, walking in the middle of street. The measured response is either to leave him alone or arrest him. Multiple officers in the area could easily do that.
>> This is a situation that amply justifies drawing a weapon and preparing to shoot. From the video, McDonald was well inside the 21-foot close-engagement limit – he could have rushed an officer with that knife before the officer could draw on him and trust me that this is not a chance to take with someone you suspect might be on PCP.
No it does not. It justifies being alert, maybe getting his hand on his gun and preparing to draw, while moving away from the kid. The kid was moving away from the cops not towards them and was no danger to anybody. Anymore than someone doing those same drugs in the privacy of their home being a danger to their neighbors
>> If you are any of the cops you are going to be adrenaline-dumping by now. This is a dangerous situation even with your gun drawn; the thug could charge you, take several bullets and still stab you fatally before he goes down. It’s happened often enough before.
Yes indeed! The 3in blade of his knife is as dangerous as as a 3man samurai sword that could have sliced Van Dyke and his fellow officer in one fell swoop
>That is BS. First, we don’t know that he saw the cops or that he processed that cops were around.
He was less than 20 feet from them and directly facing them when he brandished the knife.
>The kid was moving away from the cops not towards them and was no danger to anybody.
My self-defense training tells me differently. So does jfre’s video of a cop being stabbed to death by an assailant who rushed him at similar range.
>Yes indeed! The 3in blade of his knife is as dangerous as as a 3man samurai sword
Even I am potentially lethal at that range with a three-inch blade, and I’m slow on my feet and not possessed of berserk strength. You grossly underestimate the danger here.
Not that I think that justifies Van Dyke’s perseveration.. He should certainly have stopped firing once McDonald was down.
>How is this different from “the state has withdrawn from these neighborhoods” or “the inhabitants rule their own neighborhoods”. It is actually the same situation as in Islamic State. The people are even armed. The police drives through once a week.
The error in your thinking is as ridiculous as entering a hospital, observing that most people there are sick, and concluding that medical care is the cause of their sickness. The truth is that people in hospitals are sick because of a selection process.
Similarly, the Detroits of America are not exceptional in that they are libertarian – which isn’t even a good description in the first place. These cities are exceptional in that extreme levels of crime and social dysfunction have caused decent people to leave. Crucially, this flight was brought about by socialism and demographics, -not- libertarianism or anything even resembling it.
>Yep, you were correlating the murder rates in Berlin and Amsterdam with the black population, without bothering to look whether the black populations was even involved in these murders, and what exactly is the definition or background of the “blacks” (different continents, different parts of these continents, different crime statistics). In short, you did not need information to know for sure that a black skin is all you need to explain crime rates. >It is my experience that racism is a faith not sensitive to statistics. So why bother?
The -only- statistics on homicide in the Netherlands in this thread have been posted by me. You, on the other hand, have been throwing around vague assertions. The correlation between ethnicity and homicide is a worldwide and remarkably consistent trend – this I know from throwing off one and a half decades of socialist schooling and looking at the actual numbers.
Let me summarize my thinking on the point of homicide and Amsterdam. You brought up the following:
>Amsterdam has ~700k inhabitants of which around 70k are black (from Suriname, our former colony in South America). They are also concentrated in certain neighborhoods. Amsterdam has none of the problems of US cities.
I have mostly studied homicide rates on a national level, except in the US. But from what I have seen, there is very little special about cities and homicide – insofar as they are special, criminologically, it is because they are special, demographically. [This might not be true in less civilized parts of the world, like South Africa.]
I didn’t know anything about homicide in Amsterdam in advance. But immediately on hearing that it has a 10% black population, I looked up -the statistics-. This was actually an exciting moment for me – I knew that the Netherlands are peaceful overall, and if Amsterdam had very low levels of homicide despite its demography, it would be a very interesting counterpoint to the worldwide trend.
But as it turns out, Amsterdam is not peaceful, it is a -uniquely- violent city in a Western European context. I will just repeat myself on this point, where I realize that Amsterdam fits -perfectly- in the trend that I have already observed on a global level for years.
>With its 10% Black population, assuming your numbers are right, it comes as no surprise to me that Amsterdam has a homicide rate of 4.4 (!), roughly three times that of comparable European cities. Berlin, which bears repeating, has a 2% Black population and a homicide rate of 1.8. The US overall has a 13% Black population, and a nationwide homicide rate of 4.7 .
Contrast and compare to your claim: >Amsterdam has none of the problems of US cities.
None of the problems, indeed, except people being murdered, but who cares about that?
Now, it -could- of course be true that Amsterdam’s demographical and criminological features are entirely unrelated coincidences. But I know where I would place my bets. You could call this racism and prejudice, if it helps you sleep at night, but it’s the sort of intuition that you will inevitably develop once you become familiar with the actual numbers.
As an aside, I would like to point you towards the UNODC numbers for Taiwan – it is given as 3.0, ten times that of Japan, Korea and Singapore, and three times that of China. I was -so- surprised by this number, that I simply refused to believe it.
To make a long story short, I downloaded the 100MB official Taiwanese report on causes of death for the same year (2012), a 400-page document practically -rife- with statistics. It turned out – as always – that demographics trumps all, and the UNODC number for Taiwan is wrong. If you calculate homicides for Taiwan for 2012, not from criminological, but from medical numbers – counting people dead, rather than people convicted – you get a homicide rate of 0.8, which fits perfectly with what you would expect, given that Taiwan is a more highly developed country full of Chinese people. The Chinese rate is 1.0.
Contrast and compare: >It is my experience that racism is a faith not sensitive to statistics.
Ironic, isn’t it?
So, when you say that >Except that it is not the black people that are involved in most crimes , I -know- you are wrong. But I can’t expect anybody to trust me on this point, and I have to be somewhat humble about this, seeing as you are presumably Dutch and ought to know better than I do. So in a previous post, I actually went through the trouble of confirming my suspicions as best as I could. It seems you might have missed this post; the key excerpt is here (from Homicide in the Netherlands (Gangpat, Liem)):
>Homicide perpetrators show a similar ethnic representation: individuals of Dutch descent run
a risk of 0.7 per 100,000 of becoming a homicide perpetrator, whereas for those of Antillean descent this risk is 14.3 per 100,000. Individuals of Surinamese origin run a risk of 5.5 per 100,000, for those of Turkish origin, the risk is 6.0 and for individuals of Moroccan descent the risk is 5.0 per 100.000.
If you search for the word -Antillean-, you can find my post with additional comments.
So there you have my statistical work. Everything I have been able to uncover points towards the Netherlands falling in line with demographical trends, and Amsterdam having a very serious problem with homicidal immigrants.
Yet, you have the nerve to imply that I am a statistically ignorant racist. The second part I can live with, but the first is nothing but a gratuitous insult. Now, what statistics do you have, to go with your statist indoctrination and accusations of crimethink?
@Anonymous
“individuals of Dutch descent run
a risk of 0.7 per 100,000 of becoming a homicide perpetrator, whereas for those of Antillean descent this risk is 14.3 per 100,000. Individuals of Surinamese origin run a risk of 5.5 per 100,000, for those of Turkish origin, the risk is 6.0 and for individuals of Moroccan descent the risk is 5.0 per 100.000.”
Antillians are black and are indeed high in murder statistics. But they are just a small subgroup of “black” people in Amsterdam.
The bigger group is from Surinam and another smaller group is from Ghana. Both groups are not much different from other low SES groups in the Netherlands and Turcs and Morroccans. it is the people from the Caribeans that are exceptional. And most Caribean immigrants live in and around another city, Rotterdam.
The high murder rate in Amsterdam is mostly caused by a raging drug gang war in which blacks are actually under represented. This drug war is also called the “Mocro” wars for the Morroccan Maffia involved. The most famous criminals involved in the overall war are purebred Dutch, e.g., our local psychopath Holleeder.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/dutch-drug-gangs-war-over-stolen-cocaine-worth-14m-claims-14-lives-1479465
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/violent-dutch-gang-war-spreads-across-europe-9923371.html
Your reflex to attribute the crime nubers to black people is not backed by the evidence on the ground. The same holds for Berlin, where you tried the same.
esr:
>>Not that I think that justifies Van Dyke’s perseveration.. He should certainly have stopped firing once McDonald was down.
Well may be need to take it one step further and conclude that it was Van Dyke’s perversion that made him shot in the first place. The same perversion that made his buddies sweep the whole matter under the rug. Even the same perversion that gave us Trump and Fox News.
There are plenty of videos of unarmed cops successfully disarming people with knives. So no need for jfre’s (or whoever’s) statistically insignificant video of the one. Perhaps he should send the video to fox news. That way the perverted larger demographic that produces the Van Dykes of the country can meditate on it.
If everybody defined “lethal danger” the way you define it our lives would consist of little more than angry white men shooting at whatever “danger” they imagine is out there, and then pontificating over 21-foot-range-limit rules, and the wonderful world brought about by their civilized and sensible behavior.
The best “self defense training” is common sense. Your post leaves much to be desired there.
uma: “An armed society is a polite society.” — Robert Heinlein
@ uma
Eric used the word “perseveration” not “perversion” in his post. Although the terms are similar, perseverate means to repeat or prolong an action; whereas perverse refers to a deeply ingrained and habitual behavior that is considered to be socially unacceptable or unreasonable. My guess is that Van Dyke does not habitually shoot people and therefore the former is more applicable.
@TomA
“My guess is that Van Dyke does not habitually shoot people and therefore the former is more applicable.”
I don’t know about shooting, but “problematic” he was.
“There appear to be no criminal proceedings against Van Dyke before this week, but a jury did award a Chicago man $350,000 after determining Van Dyke employed excessive force during a traffic stop. ”
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/11/25/us/jason-van-dyke-previous-complaints-lawsuits/
@Jay:
The version I prefer is
1. An armed society is a polite society
2. A dueling society is a rude society
3. It only counts as an “armed society” if the old men and young women are armed too.
@Jay Maynard:
>> uma: “An armed society is a polite society.” — Robert Heinlein
I am not anti armed society. Where do you get that in my post?
TomA:
>>Eric used the word “perseveration” not “perversion” in his post. Although the terms are similar, perseverate means to repeat or prolong an action; whereas perverse refers to a deeply ingrained and habitual behavior that is considered to be socially unacceptable or unreasonable. My guess is that Van Dyke does not habitually shoot people and therefore the former is more applicable.
Overlook on my behalf. We quickly scan through these posts. If esr thinks the problem with the last 13 bullets is mere “perseveration” and not “perversion” that makes that makes his post all the more lacking in common sense.
>> whereas perverse refers to a deeply ingrained and habitual behavior that is considered to be socially unacceptable or unreasonable. My guess is that Van Dyke does not habitually shoot people and therefore the former is more applicable.
Yes! We really do need consult the oxford dictionary before truly being able to say whether Van Dyke and his likes are truly fucked in the head (perverse) or not.
Winter suggests:
“Then there are inner city areas where the US state has effectively withdrawn. The people living there have basically very little intervention from the powers of the state. Neither police nor tax man will come visiting them. So we can now see how the US would look like when the Citizens have to organize themselves. This must be the Libertarian Valhalla: No state, no taxes, free guns. These inner city areas are Libertarianism at work.”
As a former resident of the Democratic People’s Republic of Daleystan, I must respectfully dissent.
If only the police actually withdrew from that area–and the surrounding less troubled areas–you might have a point. But actually the Chicago police routinely do arrest–and prosecutors prosecute–and judges convict–anyone who arms themselves in self defense. But of course that generally happens to people who have something to lose, or who cross the boundaries of those areas where civil order has broken down.
Sort of the same dilemma merchant mariners face. Many international ports strictly forbid entrance to ships carrying arms for self protection. But the point of merchant ships is to cross jurisdictions, as well as the open sea where pirates aren’t under any effective against being armed.
For those who fantasize of a world where the tools of violence are denied to all, I ask: how do you intend to disarm those of us with testosterone poisoning and associated upper body strength? Do you really want to live in a world where Ogg of the Overdeveloped Musculature can beat you up, steal your stuff and impregnate your women without any fear of retaliation?
esr:
>>Doubtless the Obama administration will classify this as “workplace violence”, because that totally fits with the ski masks and pipe bombs. No word yet on whether the happy couple was screaming “Allahu akbar!” as they murdered.
There is a good possibility that it is “workplace violence” where the muslim guy decided to give his co-workers the ISIS treatment (some of whom appear to have been the fox-news-watching, Trump supporting, and muslim-hating types with whom he was having contentious relationships at work).
All we know so far is that there was some post on facebook by the woman in support of ISIS, and that months back the guy was in touch with some radical elements that are relatively insignificant in the larger pool the FBI is keeping an eye on.
If there were suicide belts found on the couple, I’d be more inclined to think the ISIS angle to this is more credible and substantial. If the woman was covering her face (burqa-style) as opposed to simply wearing a scarf (which tends to be what mildly conservative muslim women wear), I’d be more inclined to think of an ISIS angle too.
I am no fan of Obama and hold him directly responsible for the power vaccum that created ISIS. Unless the Obama administration has been hiding what they know thus far from the American public, there is little reason to believe this is directly the work of ISIS, and a lot more reason to believe that this was workplace violence by someone who found in ISIS (and ISIS-like ideologies) some inspiration for what he and his wife decided to do.
@ uma – “We quickly scan through these posts . . . We really do need consult the oxford dictionary”
That is an odd locution to use in this blog forum. Are you a hive entity with prickly sensitivity?
> There is a good possibility that it is “workplace violence” where the
> muslim guy decided to give his co-workers the ISIS treatment (some of
> whom appear to have been the fox-news-watching, Trump supporting, and
> muslim-hating types with whom he was having contentious relationships at
> work).
That’s an interesting hypothesis; I’d been considering terrorism likely based on what’s been reported regarding the shooters, but upon reflection, I think you may be correct here. I can’t recall another instance where a ideological terrorist attacked his own workplace. And that makes sense, because otherwise you’d have the perplexing circumstance that the terrorist considers it morally acceptable to work for this employer, but a holy duty to destroy it.
Unfortunately, the rhetoric from the terrorist organisations along the lines of, “The infidels are oppressing Muslims and so you should fight back,” has blurred this distinction. Let’s assume that he did attack his coworkers in response to their treatment of him, but he was also familiar with the terrorist argument. To what degree was he acting on personal animosity (i.e. “going postal”) and to what degree was he acting on the terrorists’ call to perform lone-wolf attacks? You’d need to know his mind to tease the two apart, and by all accounts, he didn’t share his thoughts with others.
On that note, I really detest this business of convincing people they’re being oppressed, used as a tactic for motivating supporters. You see it from these terrorist groups decrying treatment of Muslims, from what’s been termed the “grievance industry” in this thread, from religious conservatives who complain about the “war on Christmas”, and even from folks here unhappy about limitations on their gun rights. Now, I wouldn’t suggest the US is free of xenophobia, racial discrimination, political overcorrectness, or firearm restrictions, respectively for these groups. But going around telling everyone the sky is falling is a bad idea.
Here’s why- people treat gains and losses asymmetrically. It’s called loss aversion [1]; broadly speaking, people hate losing some value more than they like gaining the same value. So when everyone goes around convinced that their interests are underrepresented in the current state of affairs (relative to a notional equilibrium among all parties with competing interests), problems arise because no one is satisfied with the current state of affairs, but shifting the balance can only make things worse as the losing party’s dissatisfaction is stronger than the gaining party’s satisfaction. In a democratic system, this manifests as gridlock and governmental paralysis, as has been spectacularly evident in recent years. The government only regains function when one political party overcomes the checks and balances built into the system (e.g. controlling legislative and executive branches in presidential republics, or winning an outright majority in parliamentary ones). Of course at that point, you’re vulnerable to all the evils against which the checks and balances were supposed to guard.
[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2631940/
The FBI announced that the San Bernardino mass shooting was an act of terrorism, earlier today. They didn’t say that it was ISIS-linked terrorism, nor did they say it was Islamic (jihadi?) terrorism of any particular variety. I would think that more details will be forthcoming soon. While ISIS congratulated the dead attackers for carrying out the will of the caliphate, ISIS didn’t claim they were “members” per se.
So it is a moot point about whether or not it was an act of terrorism, because the FBI has already said it is. If you don’t believe it is true, just because the FBI says it, I don’t know what to tell you… expressive shrug.
@Ellie Kesselman:
>>The FBI announced that the San Bernardino mass shooting was an act of terrorism
Nope. The FBI announced that they are investigating the massacre as an act of terrorism. They did not announce that they concluded it was indeed an act of terrorism (ie that the massacre was borne out of a political as opposed to personal motive). Read the link that you posted again.
> The FBI announced that the San Bernardino mass shooting was an act of terrorism, earlier today. They didn’t say that it was ISIS-linked terrorism
If Islamic state chained up some Americans, drove a column of tanks over them and squished them underneath the tank treads while waving the Islamic State flag and chanting “Allah Akhbar”, FBI would not say it was Islamic State linked terrorism either.
And anyone who calls Islamic State “ISIS” or “Daesh” is a gutless ladyboy who is frightened to say the word “Islamic”.
Islamic state really is Islamic, and the the Nazis really were a socialist workers party.
Hey: Recall that video where a bunch of Muslims video themselves running towards the position of a downed Russian pilot while firing machine guns wildly in all directions and chanting “Allah Akhbar!”. Them you can call Islamic, because Obama tells us that they represent moderate Islam, unlike the horrible horrible internationally recognized Syrian government that always protected Christian and pagan minorities.
Yes!. The guys in that video are not terrorists but moderates! They oppose Islamic State! (Of course, they oppose practically everyone else as well. Russian pilots are Christians, the Syrian government are apostates, and as far as they know, we are Christians also.)
uma: “There is a good possibility that it is “workplace violence” where the muslim guy decided to give his co-workers the ISIS treatment (some of whom appear to have been the fox-news-watching, Trump supporting, and muslim-hating types with whom he was having contentious relationships at work).”
Blame the victims much?
@parallel
“But of course that generally happens to people who have something to lose, or who cross the boundaries of those areas where civil order has broken down.”
That sounds like a ghetto, something constructed on purpose.
@Jay Maynard
>>Blame the victims much?
How so? Perhaps what you meant is blame those who incited the victims and contributed to what might have been a hateful and toxic work environment. Limbaugh, Hannity, the daily staple diet of talk radio, Megyn -blood-coming-out-of-her-wherever- Kelly and of course Trump. Those are the same people who incited against abortion clinics (“baby killers” rhetoric) and all the rest of it. No?
> > Blame the victims much?
uma on 2015-12-06 at 03:17:53 said:
> How so? Perhaps what you meant is blame those who incited the victims and contributed to what might have been a hateful and toxic work environment.
It is perfectly clear that there was nothing out of the ordinary in the work environment. This was simply a Muslim performing the duty of every Muslim as commanded by the Koran and by the commander of the faithful.
But because you are not allowed to think bad thoughts about Islam or Muslims, you think hateful vicious thoughts about those he murdered.
In the past thirteen hundred years many peoples, religions, nations, kingdoms, states and empires have attempted to live in peace with Islam. None have succeeded. We will not be the first.
@James Donald
>> But because you are not allowed to think bad thoughts about Islam or Muslims, you think hateful vicious thoughts about those he murdered.
If you want to have a discussion about any aspect of Islam -the good and the bad-, I am happy to answer you. But you’re gonna have to wrack your brain cells real hard demonstrate that you have mental capacity to have a rational and informed discussion on the topic. Your statement above isn’t very encouraging, and repeats Jay’s polite -but incorrect- comment about blaming the victims.
When you say “a hateful and toxic work environment”, based on absolutely no evidence whatever, and in the face of substantial evidence to the contrary, you are saying the victims of Syed Farook had it coming to them.
You are evil despicable stupid hateful scum. You support murder and terror out of cowardice. At least Syed Farook did so out of courage.
> And anyone who calls Islamic State “ISIS” or “Daesh” is a gutless ladyboy who is frightened to say the word “Islamic”.
“Daesh” is the arabic acronym for “Islamic state in Iraq and greater Syria”. 100% of arabic-speaking people, and muslims call them “Daesh”. It is a playful acronym packed with subtle meaning and allusion that mocks the organization as brainless brutes. As a result of this acronym they decided to change their name into “Islamic State” or just “the State” (Islamic being implicit).
If only we could come up with a similar brilliant two-phoneme acronym (that can be easily verbalized etc) that easily/accurately describes the mentally deranged demographic that gets their “facts” from O’reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, Glenn Buck, in <10 years that demographic will go extinct. A few of them by self-inflicted gun shot wounds (the rare ones who actually have balls). The rest by a collective awakening similar to the de-nazification firmware re-flash that Germans underwent after WW2.
@James Donald.
> When you say “a hateful and toxic work environment”, based on absolutely no evidence whatever
Read what I wrote again, instead of lifting words and phrases. What I wrote was “what might have been a hateful and toxic work environment”.
You omitted the “what might have been”. That is what they call “intellectual dishonesty” in academic discourse.
My statement that the work environment “might have been” toxic is perfectly reasonable given the numerous media reports that the muslim guy engaged with his co-workers in contentious discussions on religion. One of these reports coming from the wife of one of the victims.
@uma
Realize that James supports reintroducing slavery for black people and sex-slavery for married women. Honesty, intellectual or otherwise, is the least of your concerns when interacting with him.
@Winter
>> Realize that James supports reintroducing slavery for black people and sex-slavery for married women. Honesty, intellectual or otherwise, is the least of your concerns when interacting with him.
Thanks for the info. That is good to know. I frequently read Eric’s blog as I have much respect for his contribution to mankind and also his way with the English language. He is the Shakespeare of geeks of sorts. But I rarely have the time through to read any of the comments and not familiar with the people posting there.
“Perhaps what you meant is blame those who incited the victims and contributed to what might have been a hateful and toxic work environment.”
No, I meant exactly what I wrote. You, OTOH, try to blame the victims and then weasel out of it by shifting the blame to conservatives int he opinion media. (You left out “Faux News” from your leftist hit list.)
Free clue: “He made me hit him” isn’t acceptable from a five-year-old, and damned sure isn’t from an adult.
As for “Daesh”, James is right. The Left refuses to call Islamic terrorism what it is. The same goes for the Islamic State: whether or not it is a state in being, it is undeniably Islamic. Calling it “Daesh” is not only a petty choice to deliberately cause annoyance, but it’s an active avoidance to admit basic reality.
And t your “If only we could come up with a similar brilliant two-phoneme acronym (that can be easily verbalized etc) that easily/accurately describes the mentally deranged demographic that gets their “facts” from O’reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, Glenn Buck,”, all I can say is that you must really be having a hard time engaging with their substance to want to demonize them – or should I use that newly popular term among SJWs, “otherize” them? – by calling them juvenile names.
Yes, James holds some truly repugnant views…but at least he’s not an SJW.
@Jay Maynard
I just read a nice piece about the liberty involved in the right to bear arms.
The Price We Pay for Liberty?
America must not value the liberty to own a gun over the liberty to live free from violence.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/12/gun_violence_and_child_labor_are_not_the_price_of_liberty.html
>There have been at least 351 mass shootings so far this year.
I’ve seen the list of 351 “mass shootings”. It’s a clever lie. Whoever put it together changed their filter from “4 or more deaths” (which is the UCS definition) to “4 or more deaths or injuries.” As a result the list is full of gang drive-bys and drug-trade crimes from our Swazilands. In some there were no actual deaths at all.
Most of these would be eliminated by legalizing drugs.
Winter, that’s a typical Slate hard-left hit piece. They are, as usual, as wrong as it is possible to be.
There is no right to live free from violence.
And guns do not cause violence.
@Jay&esr
You are sidestepping the issue. The right to bear arms is a freedom that comes at a cost. A cost in lives of otherr people.
And the arms in question are useless to protect yourself. Their only use is in killing as many people as possible in the shortest possible time.
“You are sidestepping the issue. The right to bear arms is a freedom that comes at a cost. A cost in lives of otherr people.”
No, it is not. Change “gun” to “knife” in the first couple of paragraphs of the Slate hit piece and they remain exactly as true. Not only that, but once again, you and that leftist at Slate are assigning the cause to the gun, instead of the violent person using it.
“And the arms in question are useless to protect yourself. Their only use is in killing as many people as possible in the shortest possible time.”
Again, simply wrong, and a wrong born out of willful ignorance. Firearms are used many times a day in self-defense.
>>”There have been at least 351 mass shootings so far this year.”
I believe even Mother Jones and the NYT have rubbished these claims. When you’ve lost Mother Jones, it’s well past time to re-examine your argument.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/opinion/how-many-mass-shootings-are-there-really.html?_r=2
But that’s what you get for thinking Slate shares the same solar system as a legitimate source. Did you wish to retract that comment, or just pretend you never made it?
The right to bear arms is a freedom that comes at a cost. A cost in lives of otherr people.
And infringing it comes at a much higher cost, both in lives and in the psychological destruction that is caused by enforced helplessness.
> Yes, James holds some truly repugnant views
Two hundred years ago, my views on race where held by all intelligent educated civilized people.
Up to the early sixties, my views on marriage were held by everyone, in the sense even feminists found it difficult to express the contrary view in plain English, or express it succinctly and be understood.
Was everyone repugnant back then?
Indeed the use of the word “repugnant” bows out from argument and rationality. You cannot present a rational defense of today’s official truth, or a rational criticism of yesterday’s official truth, which was well founded on evidence and the experience of the ages, so you just point and splutter.
The libertarian correctly argues that respect for contract and property rights is fundamental to civilization. And a contract gives you a property right in someone else’s performance of that contract. But when a man and a woman attempt to contract to raise children together, the libertarian throws out all his supposed principles for fear of being called sexist. The libertarian correctly argues that the state could not manage a pie stand, and therefore should own as little as possible – and then piously makes children the property of the state rather than parents for fear of being called racist and sexist.
The low total fertility rate reflects the fact that we have abolished marriage.
Valdis Kl?tnieks gives us this analogy on Eric’s G+: the cause of your buffer overrun is not strcpy() but the idiot programmer using it. Still, in modern C code we ban the use of strcpy(). I wonder why?
>Still, in modern C code we ban the use of strcpy(). I wonder why?
Because there are good, safe substitutes for strcpy(). There is no substitute for an armed citizenry.
@ Winter re: gun control advocacy
An armed citizenry might have prevented the rise of Stalin, Hitler, Mao, etc. and spared the lives of tens of millions and the oppression of billions for decades. There is a reason why all incipient tyrants want to the disarm the population first; it’s much easier and safer to accomplish the conquest. Thank you, but I’ll take 351 tragic civil deaths over 100+ million state genocide victims every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
Why do you keep peddling that trite old gun control meme here at A&D? We are neither stupid, nor liberal, nor cowardly.
Thank you, Eric. At last a positive suggestion to reduce crime and save taxpayers’ money. Frankly, I was getting tired of the ideological banter.
“Valdis Kl?tnieks gives us this analogy on Eric’s G+: the cause of your buffer overrun is not strcpy() but the idiot programmer using it. Still, in modern C code we ban the use of strcpy(). I wonder why?”
Valdis is a good little leftist and has blocked me so I don’t intrude on his echo chamber, so I didn’t see that post.
Still…get back to me when there’s a Constitutional right to us strcpy().
Jay, guns don’t murder people. (Irresponsible) people with guns murder people. So, keep (irresponsible) people away from guns.
The US Constitution protects the right to bear “arms”. This is so clear and unequivocal that it follows that citizens have a right to carry nuclear weapons.
“Jay, guns don’t murder people. (Irresponsible) people with guns murder people. So, keep (irresponsible) people away from guns.”
You’re two for three. The first two are quite correct. The third is not possible, and the only attempts to even try wind up keeping responsible people away from guns without stopping the irresponsible.
“The US Constitution protects the right to bear “arms”. This is so clear and unequivocal that it follows that citizens have a right to carry nuclear weapons.”
Yes, and?
@esr
> As a result the list is full of gang drive-bys and drug-trade crimes from our Swazilands.
And surely it must be pointed out that in all of those Swazilands they all have the strongest gun control legislation that the Supreme Court will allow them to have.
> Most of these would be eliminated by legalizing drugs.
Yes, and it is curious, don’t you think, that all those liberals who are advocating gun control legislation never, ever point this out, even though drug legalization is basically in their cognitive wheelhouse, certainly much more so than for conservatives.
@James Donald
> Two hundred years ago, my views on race where held by all intelligent educated civilized people.
One of the curiosities about debating with you is that in a case of “they used to do it in days or yore therefore it isn’t so bad after all” is frequently challenged by the argument “well they used to believe slavery was good and women were property, so you argument is plainly wrong.” However, since you are, in some respects arguing for that, you have to stretch even further back into insanity to find a counterpoint.
I have often said that the problem with “reductio ad absurdum” is that there is no limits to the depth of absurdity some people will believe.
Government can only deter–not prevent–irresponsible people from getting weapons. Not even maximum security prisons can prevent inmates from making or smuggling in knives, guns, cell phones and drugs and all manner of contraband.
Deterrence only works against responsible people. Therefore attempts by government actors to eliminate weapons in society will have a disparate negative impact on the very people–the responsible–who are not the source of the problem.
Or as the old saying goes: when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
> There is no right to live free from violence.
I’m not sure why you take this position- because it’s not in the American Bill of Rights? Many other documents include such a right- the Universal Declaration of Human Rights binding on all UN member states asserts a right to “security of person”, the Four Freedoms for which the US was ostensibly fighting in WWII include “freedom from fear”, and the American Convention on Human Rights signed by the US describes the right to have one’s “physical integrity respected”.
In a broader sense, a rights-ethics legal theory (broadly, stating that laws exist to forbid behaviours that violate somebody’s rights) would include this as the foundational element motivating laws that criminalise assault and other violent crime.
@d5xtgr: I fear government actors coming to my house and killing me. Thus, for me to live without fear of my physical integrity being violated we must disband all government.
@ d5xtgr
The concept of a human right did not exist before the genesis of the species Homo sapiens about two million years ago. And likely did not exist before the advent of civilization less than 10 thousand years ago. And during recorded history, it appears to have been invented in a rudimentary form a few thousand years ago, and has undergone a near-endless progression of evolutionary changes and regressions. For all intents and purposes, human “rights” are nothing more than an agreed upon set of rules that some group chooses to adopt at some point in time and then impose upon its constituent members. This is known as tyranny of the majority in a democracy and just plain tyranny in every other form of social dominance.
@esr:
>> There is no substitute for an armed citizenry.
There are so many possibilities for an armed citizenry. The one we have is the worst. Because the mental model is the wrong one. I like how in other places people bury their AKs in their backyards, for when the day comes they might need them. That is a better mental model for approaching the solution.
There is also a darker side to an armed citizenry. The possibility for endless civil war (e.g. columbia, lebanon, south sudan etc) in extremely divided societies (divided by ethnicity, tribe, sect etc)
> I fear government actors coming to my house and killing me. Thus, for me
> to live without fear of my physical integrity being violated we must
> disband all government.
I imagine you meant this to mock the “freedom from fear”. If you read the description of this freedom in its original context, it’s actually closer than you might think, although the example given is of a weaker country fearing the government, not a private citizen. The upshot is the same, however: a heavily-armed government infringes on this freedom and should be made less threatening.
> For all intents and purposes, human “rights” are nothing more than an
> agreed upon set of rules that some group chooses to adopt at some point
> in time and then impose upon its constituent members.
Yes, and that would make them the norms for that group. I’m not entirely sure if or how your comment is meant to support Jay’s contention that “there is no right to live free from violence”, to which I was originally responding. Jay is to my knowledge American, and America has chosen to adopt the documents I referenced.
Jessica Boxer on 2015-12-06 at 19:10:10 said:
> I have often said that the problem with “reductio ad absurdum” is that there is no limits to the depth of absurdity some people will believe.
Would you like to debate the issue of whether women should be “property”, in the sense that they were socially property in 1960 and legally property in 1800, or do you feel your case is sufficiently served by pointing and spluttering?
@ d5xtgr – “I’m not entirely sure if or how your comment is meant to support Jay’s contention”
“Freedom from fear” and “security of person” are slogans not rules. Calling them a “right” provides government with endless latitude to oppress it’s citizenry in service to these nebulous ideals. For example, if you claim a right to “freedom from stupidity”, then does that permit government to exterminate the stupid in service to the greater good? Be careful what you wish for.
> “Freedom from fear” and “security of person” are slogans not rules.
In the framework of rights-ethics legal theory, which is how I think your argument is meant, you are correct in this assertion. The purpose of laws (your “rules”) is to prohibit conduct that violates others’ rights (your “slogans”), but the two are not the same. If you’ve concluded that I mean “slogans are rules”, then you’ve misinterpreted something I wrote.
For example, you may take a slogan “freedom of speech” as a right you want to protect. Then you see that the Constitution provides that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech,” which is a law prohibiting governmental infringement (although not private infringement, which is why it’s legal for a website operator to delete comments). I do believe Eric considers it an additional moral obligation, in recognition of the freedom of speech, to refrain from abridging this freedom here, in his capacity as website operator.
> For example, if you claim a right to “freedom from stupidity”, then does
> that permit government to exterminate the stupid in service to the
> greater good?
There’s a couple of nits to pick here- as you noted in your last post, it’s not simply what any individual claims, but what the group is willing to adopt, that we’d recognise as a right. Also, I take your hypothetical to mean you add “freedom from stupidity” to the existing hierarchy of recognised rights (as opposed to recognising only that right, and no others). So when your shiny new freedom conflicts with someone else’s established right to life, which takes precedence? I’d hope your society prioritises the latter.
@James Donald
> Would you like to debate the issue of whether women should be “property”, in the sense that they were socially property in 1960 and legally property in 1800, or do you feel your case is sufficiently served by pointing and spluttering?
No thank you. I think my case is made sufficiently by mockery, and I can only assume that that was your intent here because your earnest pursuit of such an argument does indeed demonstrate my case that reductio ad absurdum is undermined by such credulity… or is it jejune chutzpah? It is hard to tell with you.
But it does seem to be your MO. Make an utterly outrageous claim, and then defend it with your excellent rhetorical skills. I used to do that for fun too. I do an excellent defense of socialism and rape if you would like to hear it.
But sorry I have to go, my owner is calling me in. Apparently I didn’t make his dinner quite right, OMG, there is going to be hell to pay….
Ah. Rereading, I see that I agreed with this statement by you:
> For all intents and purposes, human “rights” are nothing more than an
> agreed upon set of rules that some group chooses to adopt at some point
> in time and then impose upon its constituent members.
I would in fact characterise rights as ideals rather than rules, as I described in my last comment. I’m still in agreement with the rest of your assertion. If that’s why you thought I was conflating slogans and rules, the fault is mine for responding with an unqualified “yes”, not yours for misinterpreting what I wrote.
Winter on 2015-12-04 at 07:59:10 said:Then there are inner city areas where the US state has effectively withdrawn. The people living there have basically very little intervention from the powers of the state. Neither police nor tax man will come visiting them.
A little projection here, perhaps? There may be “no-go zones” in some European cities, but none in the U.S.
You can’t find a ZIPcode (postcode) in Chicago “where the US state has effectively withdrawn”.
There are no areas without schools, without trash collection, water and sewer service, mail delivery, property and sales tax collection, fire protection, bus or light rail service, or delivery of various state benefits, including housing subsidies, food subsidies, and old-age pensions. Open a commercial business in an area zoned residential, or an unlicensed liquor shop anywhere, and the city will be on you like flies on honey.
The police are present everywhere. Complaints alternate between demands for additional patrols to suppress crime and yowling about alleged brutality.
But then, Europe is different.
One of my major problems with Democratic politicians is I wish they’d cut the bullshit and advocate for what they really want: Second Amendment repeal. It is, granted, not politically feasible in the current climate, but “common-sense gun control” didn’t stop the San Bernardino shooting; meanwhile, there have been zero mass-shooting deaths in Australia since 1996 when the comprehensive gun ban passed. None. Zilch. Nada. For 19 years.
Let that sink in for a second. By comparison, quibbling about what does or does not count as a mass-shooting death and whether armed citizens could or could not have stopped the shooting is what Gurdjieff called “wrangling with pigs about the quality of oranges”. By banning guns, Australians solved the mass-shooting problem. Gun-related homicides and suicides are down in Australia since the ban, as are homicides and suicides in general.
It’s time to think about whether it really makes sense to let anyone at all have access to weapons that make killing trivial.
>One of my major problems with Democratic politicians is I wish they’d cut the bullshit and advocate for what they really want: Second Amendment repeal.
I wish they’d be that honest, too.
Of course, it would utterly destroy the Democrats’ chances of ever winning a national election again (a truth Bill Clinton pointed out in 1994 when U.S. majority opinion was rather less pro-gun-rights than it is now), but I don’t see that as a problem.
@Jessica Boxer:
I would be in favor of setting aside a piece of land (a country), somewhere on the european continent (certainly not in the new world) where the likes of James Donald get to establish their dreamland.
It won’t have slavery but it would have everything else he dreams of. Free men and women (all white of course) would be allowed to move there. By moving there, free women in essence chose to become the legal and social property. We’ve seen white european women effectively make an equivalent choice by freely joining ISIS, so I’d expect some women would willingly move to Donald’s dreamland. Ideally it would be the size of of Moldova (monocultural white), or Belgium (multi-cultural white) with access to a sea port of course. We’d call it Donald-stan, and hopefully the other Donald would bankroll the other aspects of its existence.
@uma:
The only whites that Donald (and I) want in utopia are described as “upper class” in Charles Murray’s book Coming Apart: The State of White America 1960-2010. (http://www.amazon.com/Coming-Apart-State-America-1960-2010-ebook/dp/B00540PAXS)
To oversimplify his argument, he posits that the decline of marriage, reduced work ethic, lack of respect for the law, and diminished religious observance are the four great differentiators between upper class and lower class whites in America.
It’s the software, not the hardware.
@ d5xtgr
To define “rights” solely as aspirational ideals is a pretty large parameter space, e.g. freedom from poverty, illness, boredom, microaggressions, ad infinitum. This leads to endless government intrusion into the lives of it’s citizenry; in which the ultimate efficiency lies in reducing the population to biogenic automatons (excluding the elites of course). Sorry, I’m not buying crazy today. Take your Utopia elsewhere.
Jeff Read on 2015-12-06 at 22:32:58 said:
> One of my major problems with Democratic politicians is I wish they’d cut the bullshit and advocate for what they really want: Second Amendment repeal.
I’m inclined to think that most people here, myself included, would agree with this part of your argument at least.
BTW, I read a comment somewhere that made me laugh. The left mocks the idea that we can deport 10 million illegal immigrants regardless of legislative action even given the political will, but somehow seems to think that they can easily pass legislation to get rid of 300 million guns is easy; all we lack is political will.
Politicians — it is all lies, deception and Disneyland. God help any country that lets politicians run the show.
> To define “rights” solely as aspirational ideals is a pretty large
> parameter space, e.g. freedom from poverty, illness, boredom,
> microaggressions, ad infinitum.
You’re either misunderstanding or misrepresenting my position. You stated (and I agree) that a “right” is something (here we differ: you said a “rule”, I called it an “ideal”)
> that some group chooses to adopt at some point in time and then impose
> upon its constituent members.
Nowhere do I say every ideal you can dream up meets that criterion. Freedom from boredom? I doubt you’ll find any evidence of any government adopting or imposing that. Just as, if you identify rights as rules, you can dream up “thou shalt not jump up and down wearing a silly hat” but it wouldn’t be recognised as a right.
>>”It’s time to think about whether it really makes sense to let anyone at all have access to weapons that make killing trivial.”
No it’s not. Also, our current laws don’t let “anyone at all” have access to firearms.
It’s time for gun control advocates to think about some new arguments. Prior to the ban, Australia’s gun regulation was still fairly restrictive. The ban wasn’t a total ban on all firearms and exceptions can be granted in the cases of the ones that are prohibited. Let that sink in for a second.
Would you care to explain how this Australian policy towards guns is preventing any mass shooting in the future or how it is responsible for the lack of them in since 1997? Norway had a much similar approach toward firearms as Australia and it didn’t stop Anders Breivik.
@Parallel:
I haven’t read the book but have seen a one hour interview with Charles Murray on his book. For me, the America of today with all its problem is better than the America he yearns back to.
If whites (collectively and on the whole) decide to move to the European homeland, and practice whatever values they want, and declare the entire space as a “Switzerland for eternity” without a single Swazilander or brown Mestizo, or Muslim, or whatever, ever allowed to set foot there, they can have that tomorrow if they want. No one in the rest of the world will question their right/legitimacy to live in their ancestral, homeland which they have inhabited since the ice melted, and live according to whatever values they want.
Jeff: Here’s how you create a gun-free America in 5 easy steps:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnoFKskvSq4&ab_channel=ReasonTV
Do you honestly think that’s even possible?
Really now…”It’s time to think about whether it really makes sense to let anyone at all have access to weapons that make killing trivial.”
If you want a European nanny state with a cradle-to-grave government running your life and preventing you from doing anything that would give anyone a boo boo, you know where to find it. Leave America the fuck alone.
Now, kutomba mbali!
>> Do you honestly think that’s even possible?
It is possible. Once you ban guns, you can make the penalty for possessing a gun far more than the penalty of possessing a few grams of marijuana for starters. The law abiding people will hand their guns away. Other well meaning individuals will hide them in places where they cannot be easily found just in case they’re needed for desperate times in the future (e.g. mass uprising, popular revolution, civil war)
Once you’ve reached that point you’ve already reduced gun related suicides and homicides, and also reduced the possibility of some random teenager who got dumped by a member of the opposite sex to commit mass murder. You would have simply eliminated the easy access to guns which is a contributor to gun-related deaths. A would-be mass shooter would have to go to far greater lengths to get weapons.
What is not possible is repealing the 2nd amendment, which would be a pre-requisite for doing all that. What is also not possible is collecting every last gun out there.
>[Winter]
>Antillians are black and are indeed high in murder statistics. But they are just a small subgroup of “black” people in Amsterdam.
Just one of many groups that the Netherlands – which has none of the problems of the US, because magic socialism and gun control, right? – has entirely failed to integrate, or apparently even civilize. 14.3 is a homicide rate comparable countries like Haiti and completely unheard of in first world countries.
>The bigger group is from Surinam and another smaller group is from Ghana. Both groups are not much different from other low SES groups in the Netherlands and Turcs and Morroccans. it is the people from the Caribeans that are exceptional. And most Caribean immigrants live in and around another city, Rotterdam.
The Ghanese I don’t know much about, but they are practically guaranteed to be overrepresented in the homicide statistics, unless this is one of those special groups of very recent immigrants selected for high level of education. The US has had some success with such groups, as well. I could look into the facts if this is important.
I’ll take your word for the Caribbeans being -exceptional-, against this rather exceptional background of ethnic groups ten times as homicidal as the native Dutch. If so, that’s -yet- another group that the Dutch have failed to meaningfully integrate.
I am surprised that you don’t see this as much of a problem. To me, it looks like a -catastrophe- and a matter of -national disgrace-. Keep in mind the second order effects of these violent minorities. This is the driving force behind what is called -white flight-, which is the very simple mechanism where increased levels of crime cause the least criminals elements to leave and be replaced by people more tolerant of the unsafe environment. If this spirals out of control and you have a sufficient supply of people with a criminal disposition, you eventually get Detroit.
Finally, the argument from SES is of course total nonsense, but a very familiar piece of socialist propaganda. If a group of people is underperforming economically, this is an -additional problem-, not an -excuse- for their homicidal tendency. The first problem does not cause the second problem, as much as they both stem from the same root cause.
[Contrast and compare with Vietnamese minorities everywhere in Europe, which were never particularly homicidal straight off the boats, and are now neither homicidal and poor. Instead, you have a large number of second generation Vietnamese children growing up in Vietnamese speaking homes that on average outperforms the natives in schools and elsewhere.]
>The high murder rate in Amsterdam is mostly caused by a raging drug gang war in which blacks are actually under represented. This drug war is also called the “Mocro” wars for the Morroccan Maffia involved.
So apparently you admit that Amsterdam has a -raging drug gang war-, causing an epidemic of homicide. Yet you insisted very recently, that -Amsterdam has none of the problems of US cities-. You have to realize that you make -zero sense, whatsoever-.
Now, I’ll grant you that Amsterdam is a lot better off than Detroit, but Amsterdam is 10% Black, whereas Detroit is 83% Black, so this doesn’t get us anywhere. Amsterdam seems to have roughly the same problems as US cities with similar demographical challenges, like say New York and San Fransisco, or would you disagree?
The only defensible position which remains at this point, is that while the Dutch Black minorities have outrageous rates of homicide, there are also other minorities which are nearly as bad. But you keep trying to make a point, that the US needs to learn from EU on how to integrate minorities and enforce law. Having looked at the Netherlands in some detail, the only lesson possible seems to be that large concentrations of certain minorities cause trouble, whichever side of the Atlantic you’re on, and that Amsterdam should learn how to civilize their Turks from Berlin.
>The most famous criminals involved in the overall war are purebred Dutch, e.g., our local psychopath Holleeder.
>http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/dutch-drug-gangs-war-over-stolen-cocaine-worth-14m-claims-14-lives-1479465
>http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/violent-dutch-gang-war-spreads-across-europe-9923371.html
The 80% majority population manages to contribute some individual criminals and are competent enough to wind up on top of crime rings, overwhelmingly thriving in minority areas, built upon a workforce recruited from minority populations. Does this tell us -anything of value-, when we already know that the Native Dutch have a homicide rate of 0.7, about a tenth of that of the troublesome minorities?
Couldn’t you find at the very least find a 98% Dutch city with a 4.0 homicide rate, to go with our lovely examples from Amsterdam, Rotterdam and The Hague? Or do they simply not exist?
>Your reflex to attribute the crime nubers to black people is not backed by the evidence on the ground. The same holds for Berlin, where you tried the same.
I attributed nothing to anything. I merely pointed out that the -lack- of rampant violence in Berlin does not tell us much about how the US should do law enforcement, because Berlin also -lacks- a large Black minority, which is the primary group that the US struggles to police. To treat this in depth one also needs to discuss Hispanics, Arabs, E. Europeans, various kinds of Asians and Native Americans, but we haven’t reached any depth, we are still at the point where I’m trying to demonstrate that whatever works in Europe doesn’t necessarily work in the US, because the demographics are clearly different, and the demographics clearly matter.
I will re-quote the what you were writing earlier, which prompted me to enter this particular discussion:
>You do not get more liberal than Berlin, Copenhagen, or Amsterdam. Still, these cities with large minority populations (Berlin is called the second Turkish capital) have none of these war-zones that the US or France have. That is not because they are on a fast track to civil war, there is none of that too, but because they do not see crime as a civil war that has to be won at all costs, but as a social problem that has to be solved using social policies.
This didn’t survive contact with the facts. The -large- minority populations in Berlin are laughable by American standards (less than 10% Middle Eastern and 2% Black). Going by homicides, Amsterdam does not compare favorably to US cities with similar demographics. It follows that your explanation is a lot of hot air, because there is -nothing- to explain, except your blissful ignorance.
A lot of hot air is streaming, but I do not see anyone taking up the task of telling us how the costs of free firearms are balanced against its benefits.
Maybe because everyone here knows that the benefits are ephemeral but the costs are far too real.
Like, the costs of knives in number of lives are a tiny fraction of their benefits. Contrast the recent two lone wolf terror attacks: USA&Guns 14 dead, 17 injured; UK&Knife 2 injured
(Note that the UK police did not even made the effort to kill the “mad” terrorist with a knife)
And using personal weapons to defend you against the power of the state?
Armed citizens are no match for a trained army. The USA has invaded lots of countries, many of which had citizens armed to the teeth. These armed citizens never stopped the US army.
@Rich Rostrum
“You can’t find a ZIPcode (postcode) in Chicago “where the US state has effectively withdrawn”.”
Higher up, Anonymous writes:
This is almost a textbook case of “state withdrawal”. So you are now saying that this is not true? Who am I to believe? The people here that write that the inner cities are war zones (=: no state control) or that assert there is just incompetent policing?
Grossly incompetent policing, like that Van Dyke in the OP, that could not stop shooting a person lying on the ground, and his partners in crime, colleges and superiors, covering up the murder (like they always seem to do).
@Winter: armed citizens at Ruby Ridge and Waco Texas died at the hands of armed Federal agents. But the losses suffered by the Feds at Ruby Ridge and Waco caused them to handle the Montana Freemen Militia case with much more patience and therefore loss of life. Federal agents also backed down in the face of armed resistance by supporters of Clive Bundy just last year.
I stand second to nobody in condemning David Koresh as an evil man. The Montana Freemen were committing fraud on a large scale and Clive Bundy seems like a nut.
But it’s a feature–not a bug–that Federal law enforcement personnel and their leadership are more deterred from rushing in with guns blazing now than before Ruby Ridge and Waco. They rightfully fear becoming the next Lon Horiuchi or his commander Richard Rogers.
@Parallel
“Federal agents also backed down in the face of armed resistance by supporters of Clive Bundy just last year.”
For all their eager imitation, the police are not the army. And we already know that the USA police is incompetent. See the OP.
The Army would simply pound any resistance to dust with long range guns and the air force by dropping smart bombs.
Obligatory Onion article on latest shooting:
‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens
http://www.theonion.com/article/no-way-prevent-says-only-nation-where-regularly-ha-51938
@Anonymous
“So apparently you admit that Amsterdam has a -raging drug gang war-, causing an epidemic of homicide. Yet you insisted very recently, that -Amsterdam has none of the problems of US cities-. You have to realize that you make -zero sense, whatsoever-.”
14 murders in a year is an epidemic of homicide in Amsterdam. It includes 0 mass shootings. The victims today are all big shot criminals and a single bystander (mistaken identity). Compare that to your US statistics, e.g., Baltimore of Washington DC. And of all the other problems in USA inner cities, nothing can be found in Amsterdam (or Berlin). Even the Amsterdam murder rate is below the average of the USA.
@Anonymous
“I’ll take your word for the Caribbeans being -exceptional-, against this rather exceptional background of ethnic groups ten times as homicidal as the native Dutch. If so, that’s -yet- another group that the Dutch have failed to meaningfully integrate.”
Antillians are a group of recent immigrants. All are born outside of the Netherlands. They are now where the Surinamese (also black) were 40 years ago, the Turks 50 years ago, and the Indonesians 60 years ago.
@Anonymous
“The Ghanese I don’t know much about, but they are practically guaranteed to be overrepresented in the homicide statistics, unless this is one of those special groups of very recent immigrants selected for high level of education.”
Baseless innuendo. If you cannot come up with evidence, I call BS on this one.
@Anonymous
“Now, I’ll grant you that Amsterdam is a lot better off than Detroit, but Amsterdam is 10% Black, whereas Detroit is 83% Black, so this doesn’t get us anywhere.”
It does get us somewhere. In Detroit, the MAJORITY is involved in excessive crime (80% is NOT a minority). At the same time, a minority group (Antillians) within the black population has excessive crime. The other black groups have the same murder rates as other immigrant groups, and these murder rates are as high as the AVERAGE murder rates of the USA. Your own murder rates for Turks, Morrocans, and Surinamese (“blacks”) show you that the color of the skin does not matter.
Furthermore, the USA black population are not recent immigrants, but long time inhabitants of the territory. The roots of most white people in the USA go back only a fraction of those of the black population. It is a serious fault of the groups in power (whites) that blacks have not integrated well.
@Winter:
>> The roots of most white people in the USA go back only a fraction of those of the black population. It is a serious fault of the groups in power (whites) that blacks have not integrated well.
Absolutely correct. Another interesting fact: Many of the Muslims in France date back to the same time whites were arriving en masse to the US via Ellis Island. They fought for france in WWI and WWII. They arrived in France decades before Turks arrived in Germany in the 1960s. Many of clowns who show up in the Trump rallies and who have been calling for deporting muslims from Europe after the Paris attacks are in fact more recent arrivals in the US than Muslims in France.
@Jeff Read
Gizmodo is great but perhaps more research is needed.
Wikipedia Lists 1 shooting massacre since Port Arthur(Three if you work by the reddit criteria… not that i do). The Hunt family murders.
I’m not saying that gun control did nothing however. Using the incidents on wikipedia as canonical I did a count of both the last 50 years and the last 38 years, split into before gun control and after gun control. The number of shootings did go through the floor after gun control but non-shootings do go through the roof. The non-shootings don’t quite make up for the shootings in number but the other interesting factoid is that all the marginal incidents (i.e. ones that meet the reddit criteria but not the straight deaths ones) after gun control came in were shootings. All the bashings and knifings and arsons are legit massacres.
Actually the bigger interesting thing is, what the hell happened in Australia in the 1980s? We went from 2 or 3 a decade to almost one every year on average (which lasts until 3 years after gun control).
>Actually the bigger interesting thing is, what the hell happened in Australia in the 1980s?
My guess? Immigration. More specifically, the demographics of who immigrated changed in a way unfavorable for crime rates.
Just in case it wasn’t obvious by my text dump.
My take on Jeff’s statements :-
False as stated. 1 if you go by regular peoples criteria. 3 if you’re on reddit. However if you dial back the hyperbole, 1 compared to 14 for the same number of years prior is a definite effect on mass-shootings.
Mostly true as stated. We have suddenly gained a rash of mass-knifings which i’d expect ESR/Jay would say is completely unsurprising.
That wasn’t what my post was about but i remembered i had a copy of the ABS “Causes of Death, Australia, 2013” report which says the numbers don’t really back you up (based on the “intentional self harm by handgun/rifle, shotgun and larger firearm/other and unspecified firearm” categories (X72/X73/X74) finding the homicide categories is a pain in the neck). You might have an argument on rates per capita, but the total deaths has remained relatively constant so that doesn’t really make your point (roughly the same number of people have died per year but a higher percentage are suicide by firearm).
uma: “It is possible. […] What is not possible is repealing the 2nd amendment, which would be a pre-requisite for doing all that. What is also not possible is collecting every last gun out there.”
You really need to take a logical thinking class. I was referring to Australian-style gun confiscation as impossible because the prerequisite conditions – that you agree are impossible – cannot occur. If the prerequisites are impossible, so is what they’re prerequisite to. Jeff cited Australia with approval and said “It’s time to think about whether it really makes sense to let anyone at all have access to weapons that make killing trivial.” That requires a gun ban, with all guns being confiscated by the government.
And you agree that’s not possible, and then say it’s possible with some mumbo-jumbo about disarmed law-abiding citizens cutting down on some things and making it harder for a mass murderer to get firearms.
You should really learn how to think straight, and pay attention to what people on your side want: total disarmament of the American citizen.
Then you have a choice to make: either recognize that what they want simply isn’t possible, or continue to make “la la la I can’t hear you!” noises.
Actually I want to correct myself slightly. We haven’t had a rash of mass-knifings. It was a rash of Arsons plus one bashing plus one stabbing plus whatever you want to call the snowtown murders.
@Jay Maynard:
It is possible in the sense that it is practically doable. It is not possible in the sense that it is politically not attainable at this point in time. So no contradiction. What I should have written was “it is feasible” instead of “it is possible” as that is what I meant. So I stand corrected.
The video that you linked to incorrectly claimed that it was possible (ie feasible) because every last home would have to be invaded by law enforcement agents to confiscate guns and it would cause a civil war. Not so based on the scenario I outlined above. It correctly asserted that it was impossible because 2nd amendment cannot be repealed which I agree with. Unless of course the democrats somehow manage to put laws on the books that in effect enable them to do what I described above, and those laws are somehow deemed constitutional by the supreme court.
And no. I am not in favor of disarmed citizenry. So your assumptions are wrong there.
@uma
“Many of the Muslims in France date back to the same time whites were arriving en masse to the US via Ellis Island.”
The roots of the indigenous Muslims in Europe, Albanians and Bosnians, go back to the Indoeuropean expansion in Europe. They converted during the Ottoman occupation (15/16th). And there are still some 1 million native Turkish people living in Bulgaria from the Turkish conquests, many of whom are still Muslim.
There have been Muslims people living continuously in Europe for longer than there have been English speaking people living in North America.
Jeff Read: It is, granted, not politically feasible in the current climate, but “common-sense gun control” didn’t stop the San Bernardino shooting; meanwhile, there have been zero mass-shooting deaths in Australia since 1996 when the comprehensive gun ban passed. None. Zilch. Nada. For 19 years.
Keep in mind that “common sense gun control” didn’t stop what happened in Norway and in France, either. Interestingly enough, America seems to have a rash of small-ish gun-related mass murders (30 dead seems to be unusually high for such an event), but when they happen in Europe, the death toll seems to be much higher per event. To be sure, this is blurred by population sizes–America is going to have a lot more of such events than any one European country, for the same reason that America is going to have a lot more of such events than any one American State–but the fact that the United States generally doesn’t have shootings of the magnitude that has happened in Europe ought to give one pause.
As for Australia not having a mass shooting in 19 years: a couple of years ago, I looked into mass murders (not just shootings) in Australia, and found that they had an event about once every 14 years on average; from the list I was looking at, they have had one event since banning guns. In the eyes of gun control advocates, however, it doesn’t count, because it didn’t involve guns. This leads me to conclude that Australia didn’t really have a problem with mass murder before the ban, either.
Let that sink in for a second. By comparison, quibbling about what does or does not count as a mass-shooting death and whether armed citizens could or could not have stopped the shooting is what Gurdjieff called “wrangling with pigs about the quality of oranges”. By banning guns, Australians solved the mass-shooting problem. Gun-related homicides and suicides are down in Australia since the ban, as are homicides and suicides in general.
I don’t have the news items available, but I recall seeing recently a story about Australian politicians noticing that banning guns had done nothing about general to stop violent death, even death by guns. It makes me wonder what statistics you are using, and what statistics these politicians were looking at…
In any case, I would also have to observe that in the United States, violent crime has been going down, even with increased gun ownership and the loosening of gun laws here.
It’s time to think about whether it really makes sense to let anyone at all have access to weapons that make killing trivial.
Perhaps. But you would do well to remember that you want to expand the laws of places like Chicago, New York and Washington DC, which are havens for murder–and have extensive gun violence–to cover the entire United States. I honestly don’t see how that can have a positive effect on violence, since the places that have loose gun laws generally have low violence anyway, and the places that would supposedly benefit from strong gun control already have strong gun control.
Myself: In any case, I would also have to observe that in the United States, violent crime has been going down, even with increased gun ownership and the loosening of gun laws here.
I forgot to mention that this has been happening ever since the Australians instituted their gun ban. I suppose I could say that the Australian gun ban is so effective, it even lowered gun death and other violent crime in the United States…but I somehow suspect that something else is afoot here…
@Alpheus
“Keep in mind that “common sense gun control” didn’t stop what happened in Norway and in France, either. ”
Funny, to say a monthly mass shooting in the USA must be just as bad as a a one time ever (Norway) disaster or attacks financed and organized by an almost statelike adversary.
We are comparing monthly shootings in schools and universities and random workplaces in the USA to once a year happenings in Europe. In this respect, gun laws really do work marvelously.
uma, you keep comparing apples and oranges, and saying that the apples are possible and the oranges aren’t, and that the apples are good enough.
Jeff (BTW, Jeff: fokof!) wants not only oranges, but enough oranges to make enough orange juice to mix a Harvey Wallbanger big enough to float an aircraft carrier.
So quit slamming me for saying what Jeff wants is impossible when you agree with it.
And for someone who doesn’t want a disarmed citizenry, you’re sure doing a good job arguing for one.
@Jay Maynard:
>> And for someone who doesn’t want a disarmed citizenry, you’re sure doing a good job arguing for one.
I believe in armed citizenry (to put the government in check, prevent tyranny, and preserve freedom) which is what I believe what the constitution intends (well regulated militias). I don’t believe in easy and unlimited access to tools that make killing so trivially simple be it for “self defense” or any other reason? Creative minds should think hard on how to achieve the the former (armed citizenry to prevent tyranny) without bundling it with the latter.
Can guns be used for self defense? Absolutely. But not without the cost of added homicides and suicides and mass shootings where a lot of innocent people die. Does an individual’s right to protect himself round the clock entail easy and unlimited access to objects that make mass killings -by people of questionable moral character and mental health- so easy and trivial ? The answer is No.
Do I support concealed carry permits for individuals of sound mental health and moral character? Yes. Because in the current environment I believe that can often stop mass shooters in the middle of their act.
Abstract discussion of gun control on a blog site is one thing, but if you haven’t noticed, firearm and ammunition sales are way up here in the US. A large cohort of the citizenry is voting with it’s dollars and choosing to be well armed, despite the fact that most of them do not live in areas where crime is rampant.
Advocating for more gun control is having exactly the opposite effect of the intended goal. At the end of this most-recent handwringing exercise, the testosterone class will be armed to the teeth and the weenie’s will be cowering in the closet screeching for government action to eliminate this imbalance. Reality trumps rhetoric. If you really want to soothe your anxiety, buy a gun and learn to shoot.
@TomA
>> A large cohort of the citizenry is voting with it’s dollars and choosing to be well armed, despite the fact that most of them do not live in areas where crime is rampant.
>>the testosterone class will be armed to the teeth
You call an irrational fear of a non-existent threats “testosterone” ?!
@TomA
“Advocating for more gun control is having exactly the opposite effect of the intended goal.”
You said you were fond of modelling. So you must know of bad Nash equilibria?
Everybody does what is best for them personally and we are all massively worse off.
Public good theory is a way out of this bad equilibrium.
> there have been zero mass-shooting deaths in Australia since 1996 when the comprehensive gun ban passed. None. Zilch. Nada. For 19 years.
Australia has had quite a lot of mass shooting incidents, for example the Islamic State terrorist incident against Lindt Chocolate a year ago.
The rate is lower than the US, and the incidents are smaller than the US but that may well reflect the fact that Australia does not have negroes, Australia has control of its borders, and the US does not (hence Australia imports substantially fewer terrorists), and Australia has smaller population than the US.
Note that the Boston bombing was an IED incident, for which gun control was pretty much irrelevant, and the Bernadino terrorists had lots of IEDs, so if gun control had inconvenienced them, would have gone with IEDs
Australia has fewer IED incidents than the US in pretty much the same proportion as it has fewer mass shooting incidents, so it is not gun control that makes the difference. It is border control.
Observe the wonderful success of gun control in Paris.
It is border control, not gun control, that makes the difference.
> We are comparing monthly shootings in schools and universities and random workplaces in the USA to once a year happenings in Europe
Terror attacks in France happen almost continually. They just don’t make the news unless Americans are involved, as for example the incident on the 21st of August this year.
@winter
>> The roots of most white people in the USA go back only a fraction of those of the black population. It is a serious fault of the groups in power (whites) that blacks have not integrated well.
Sorry, unlike uma, I cannot agree with this non-sequitur.
It was not “whites” who invented gangsta culture, gangbangers, and the racial hustler industry of Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, etc. Nor did whites get to decide that the NAACP should become a subsidiary of the Democrat Party.
Well, on the other hand, from the Dept of Stopped Clocks Being Right Twice a Day, perhaps you have a point if you consider the destruction of the black family unit and the disappearance of the black father being attributable to social welfare schemes like the Great Society, promulgated by do-gooder white liberal racist Democrats. But somehow, I suspect that’s not what you mean.
Oh, the reason I mention the NAACP/Democrat party thing in the previous was because I consider the fact that the black population has effectively disenfranchised itself by its slavish devotion to the Democratic Party as an example of an inability to fully integrate. By voting in lockstep for just one party, they have effectively removed any incentive by -either- party to address their needs.
You are correct, and wikipedia didn’t have that one. At 3 deaths and 4 injuries it would count for redditors but just misses out by FBI rules.
P.S. There is some doubt as to whether that was actually an islamic state incident since one of the guy’s demands was apparently for an ISIL flag. This however is irrelevant to the point that it was a mass shooting incident.
Winter commented on On the shooting of Laquan McDonald.
> This is almost a textbook case of “state withdrawal”.
I have not visited Chicago or Detroit. But I visited East Palo Alto when it had the highest murder rate in America, and the place was crawling with cops, like a tree covered in tree ants when you poke their nest with a stick, and people tell me it was crawling with social workers. As a white guy, could not enter East Palo Alto without being stopped by cops.
So, not state withdrawal. The state was ineffectual in East Palo Alto, but not because of withdrawal. Rather it was throwing gigantic amounts of resources at East Palo Alto, ineffectually.
Winter:
> Many of clowns who show up in the Trump rallies and who have been calling for deporting muslims from Europe after the Paris attacks are in fact more recent arrivals in the US than Muslims in France.
And despite being in France for generations, have not integrated, and have been stubbornly and persistently making war on the French for all that time.
Let us take a look at Mindanao: A substantial Muslim minority has been there for seven hundred years – and it has been war and near war for seven hundred years. If parts of Mindanao are relatively safe, they are safe because of death squads and heavily armed men all over the place.
And that is the nearest thing to safety people have enjoyed in Mindanao for seven hundred years.
> There have been Muslims people living continuously in Europe for longer than there have been English speaking people living in North America.
And they have been making trouble all that time.
We are comparing monthly shootings in schools and universities and random workplaces in the USA to once a year happenings in Europe
Terror incidents in France are almost continual. It is just that we usually only hear of them when Americans are involved, as for example
It’s well known in the black community that the popularity of “gangsta rap” was engineered by white record executives, as a counter to the revolutionary message of politically conscious acts like Public Enemy.
As to the underlying causes behind “gangsta culture”, it wasn’t black folks who brought crack into this country…
Yes Jeff, next I’m sure you’re going to regale us with the tales of how the CIA engineered AIDS to kill blacks.
“Funny, to say a monthly mass shooting in the USA must be just as bad as a a one time ever (Norway) disaster or attacks financed and organized by an almost statelike adversary.”
To be fair, comparing the United States to Norway and France combined is like me comparing Europe to Utah and Colorado combined. I generally don’t keep up with mass shootings of Europe, and for that matter, the definition of mass shooting is in such flux these days, I have no idea how you are getting the “once a month” mass shootings (nor do I know whether or not the same criteria you are using for America, is being used for Europe)…
as a counter to the revolutionary message of politically conscious acts like Public Enemy.
Leaving aside the fact that “the black community” is full of conspiracy theories, why exactly do record executives want to do social engineering? This should be quite entertaining.
Also, it would seem that I need to add “conscious” to the list of words that signify immeasurable quantities of incoming bullshit.
The record companies were heavily invested in private prisons. More gangstas meant more inmates, whivh meant more profits:
http://www.businessinsider.com/former-music-exec-describes-the-scary-meeting-that-resulted-in-todays-violent-rap-music-2012-5
>>“The record companies were heavily invested in private prisons. More gangstas meant more inmates, which meant more profits:
And your source for this is:
“That’s what one man claiming to be a former music executive said in an anonymous letter published today by the blog hiphopisread.com.”
Do people take you seriously in real life?
I keep pondering something not covered in this thread yet – no any other gun thread I’ve seen Eric post – and wondering:
Suppose we legalized drugs, AND legalized concealed carry, at least, in all of the remaining bastions of gun control in the US (i.e. any place Eric refers to as “our Swazilands”). What would actually happen?
Now, legalization can take multiple forms – it can be a party with a razor-thin margin barely passing it against popular outcry, or it can be a mandate from the masses. For now, imagine it’s somewhere between the two, somewhat closer to the latter – vocal outcry, but the legalization passes 60-40 in state and city legislatures, and politicians known for voting for gun control measures end up devoting their time to other causes such as taxes or health care or whatever.
Where would criminals actually go in such a case? They won’t necessarily stop being criminals, even though their lives are now much harder. And there’d be no other major US city for them to seek transport to with their gang buddies. What would they do? What would happen to the Crips and Bloods? Where would former drug dealers likely wind up? How many of them would take up more honest work? How many would probably end up dead, having mugged the wrong civilian? What would likely happen to demographics over the next 10-20 years? I’m asking with my alternate history hat on here. I don’t necessarily expect a libertarian utopia. Maybe somewhat better, but with bumps in the road; what would the bumps look like?
Criminals — except for a tiny handful of sociopaths — don’t commit crimes because hey, I like crime. They have a motive.
The hardcore gangstas would find a new racket: prostitution, armed robbery, smuggling, etc. They might metamorphose into a legit mafia.
As to where the drug dealers would go, drug dealing is actually a form of multilevel marketing. The dealer on the street doesn’t make that much money. The kingpins take all the profits but they sell the “lifestyle” to the rank and file in order to build up a distribution network that works for essentially nothing. With the promise of riches for climbing the “corporate ladder” of the drug network dried up, they would have to find a new hustle, possibly seeking legitimate work. Hey, the 420/Pharmacy that just opened on the corner has openings for stockboys and cashiers…
Here’s something that statist ‘lefties’ should understand:
“NO” means “no”
Molon labe
Free people never bend their knee. Deal with it.
Nobody clamoring for more ‘gun control’ is actual prepared to nut up and do a GD thing about it…they only expect other armed thugs to do their dirty work.
We will not forget. We will not forgive.
Your move.
@ Winter – “So you must know of bad Nash equilibria?”
Classic game theory mathematics can, under certain circumstances, calculate a Nash equilibrium, which by definition is an optimum based stated rules and conditions. The interpretation of this equilibrium can be judged subjectively (such as your characterization of a bad outcome); but the math is indifferent to your opinion.
The vast majority of gun owners in the US are law-abiding and make a positive contribution to the society (including ensure to common good via concealed carry). And crime declines significantly in areas where citizens are permitted to carry. Only liberals and criminals oppose widespread gun ownership. Which are you?
>Only liberals and criminals oppose widespread gun ownership.
Tch. You left out totalitarian thugs.
@James Donald
>> And despite being in France for generations, have not integrated, and have been stubbornly and persistently making war on the French for all that time.
Why not blame your white european brethren for failing to integrate them. Much like they failed to integrate everybody who pre-dated them on this continent? See, most of these them fought in French armies, and some of them even fought their own people to preserve French rule in places like Algeria (ie they were the traitors to their to their people who fled to the country they fought on the side of). They can’t really be that committed to the caliphate or Islamizing France when they fought their own people to preserve french rule.. or can they? Of course you cannot be bothered with such “little” details now can you?
But let’s set France aside for now, and take a look at neighboring Italy where the famous/infamous north-south divide exists there. They northereners (“Polentoni” corn eaters as they’re labelled by southerners because they consume Palenta) have a lot in common with French populations both genetically and linguistically. The southern italians (“terroni”) with their north african roots share they same religion with their northern italian brothers. But they have yet to be integrated in the italian economy. It’s been > 150 yrs since the founding of the italian republic and they have yet to be integrated.
Now, could we be dealing with some sort genetic defect here exhibited by populations norths of the alps (may be due to neanderthal admixture or any reason) west of vistula all the way to the british isles, that makes those populations unable to co-exist with any other populations that do not resemble them 100% genetically, ideologically? Could their hatred, extreme propensity for violence and war, irrational devotion to imported non-indigenous cultures and religion fanatically and toxically mixed with a sense of racial superiority – could that all be the result of some genetic defect? Let us take the discussion in that direction. If we are dealing with a genetic disorder here, there are really two constructive ways of addressing the problem: a) isolating culpable genes and find a cure – gene therapy b) Shipping your asses to your continental homeland where you can dwell amongst genetic brethren in a country/zoo (a la Donald-stan) designed for your types and your “posterity”.
No, he didn’t!
It’s weird, but the prosecutor seems to be doing one thing right: leaning on the cops for mysteriously losing the audio side to ALL of their tapes. I mean that’s pretty raw Cops Defying The Law. By comparison, the swearing contest around the shooting is normal police blotter stuff.
@James Donald
> > And despite being in France for generations, have not integrated, and have been stubbornly and persistently making war on the French for all that time.
uma
> Why not blame your white european brethren for failing to integrate them
Because no one has succeeded in integrating them in thirteen hundred years in hundreds of nations, peoples, civilizations and such anywhere in the world.
Where every you have a substantial Muslim minority, it is always war or near war without end.
Winter on 2015-12-07 at 03:16:07 said:
@Rich Rostrum
My name is Rostrom. Learn to read, or at least learn to copy-and-paste. (I always complain when anyone misspells my simple 7-letter name.)
“You can’t find a ZIPcode (postcode) in Chicago “where the US state has effectively withdrawn”.”
Higher up, Anonymous writes:
>For very high rates of homicide, like what you see in Chicago, the homicide
>rates are dominated by proto-civil war like conditions in the streets…
This is almost a textbook case of “state withdrawal”. So you are now saying that this is not true? Who am I to believe?
You can believe the apocalyptic rhetoric of “Anonymous”, or you can believe me, who has lived in Chicago his entire life. And no, I don’t live in a protected upper-class-enclave. Of the six apartments in my building, three are occupied by blacks and one by a Mexican immigrant. A few years ago, there was a gang shooting within a kilometer, and gunfire literally in the parking lot. (Though not since.) On the night of Obama’s election I heard celebratory gunfire.
It all sounds pretty grim, but the actual level is barely noticeable on a day-to-day basis. In 2014, there were 460 homicides in Chicago, of which 390 were shootings, and 2,229 other shootings. Chicago has an area of 588 sq. km., so that comes to less than one homicide and four other shootings per sq. km per year, i.e. one incident every 10 weeks or so. There are hotspots where the rate is much higher (Englewood, Garfield Park), but even in those areas, more than five incidents in a week in a sq. km. block is rare. (The incidents tend to cluster on weekends and in hot weather.)
The police are cautious in these areas, but still make plenty of arrests. There is no Alsatia or Casbah style sanctuary for criminals. Other government functions (fire, sewer, water, schools, mail, taxation, welfare, transit, licensing) run with only minor impediments. The “collapse of civilization” isn’t happening.
The street gangs are a problem. But they should not be mistaken for the IRA or the Sicilian Mafia, functioning as a shadow government; they don’t actually control much of anything.
@TomA
“Classic game theory mathematics can, under certain circumstances, calculate a Nash equilibrium, which by definition is an optimum based stated rules and conditions. The interpretation of this equilibrium can be judged subjectively (such as your characterization of a bad outcome); but the math is indifferent to your opinion.”
Total rubbish. Every game theoretic problem has a utility function (“benefits”). For every equilibrium there is a total utility that tells us whether the outcome is better or worse for the players combined. That is not “my interpretation”, that is build into the core of Game Theory.
Arms races are a classical case. By investing in arms, everybody incurs a heavy cost. But if everybody else is doing it, you will be annihilated if you don’t invest in more and better arms. However, if almost no-one has arms, it is much cheaper to invest in gun control. Then you are collectively better off. And the better off is well defined by the costs of investing in arms and gun ownership.
What you all so desperately try to avoid is to talk about the costs of gun ownership.
And I know why gun control won’t “work” for Libertarians. Getting safe by controlling gun ownership is a public good. And if there is one thing Libertarianism seems to be unable to supply, then it is Public Goods. But it is public goods that are the foundation of society. Hence, here is the reason why Libertarianism is anathema to society.
@TomA
“Only liberals and criminals oppose widespread gun ownership. Which are you?”
Do you really think that I consider being called a “liberal” offensive? In a sense it is offensive, but only because I consider USA liberals too right wing to take seriously. Bernie Sanders a left-wing extremist? Don’t make me laugh.
Btw, I think a vast majority of humanity supports drastic gun control. European gun control laws are considered too lax by a majority of the Europeans. So, according to your logic, most of the world is inhabited by liberals and criminals. So be it.
@Rich Rostrom
“You can believe the apocalyptic rhetoric of “Anonymous”, or you can believe me, who has lived in Chicago his entire life. ”
First, sorry for misspelling your name. And I always prefer eye witnesses. So, if my information was wrong, then my conclusions must be considered wrong too.
@James Donald:
>>Because no one has succeeded in integrating them in thirteen hundred years in hundreds of nations, peoples, civilizations and such anywhere in the world.
That is quite simply false. I will give you an example from the European continent. Polish Tatars have been muslims and fully integrated. That is because Polish culture is relatively tolerant by European standards (Hence, the large jewish population pre WW2).
In other continents: The Hui chinese have been fully integrated in Chinese society and culture for centuries. They are a very different ethnicity than the Turkic Uighurs in west china who have never really been part of China and who are pretty much in the same position as Tibetans vis-a-vis their relationship with the Han chinese.
We can go on and on. Even address your idiocy on Mindanao and Philippines. But what is the point of doing so?
@Winter
“What you all so desperately try to avoid is to talk about the costs of gun ownership.”
We don’t talk about it for the same reason we don’t discuss the strategy of Tic-Tac-Toe. It’s all well understood and has been for quite some time. It’s a thoroughly answered question. Only idiots and ideologues still bring it up. But e.g. at up to 2.4M incidents of self-defense with a firearm per year in the US, it’s really quite obvious that firearm ownership is a net positive for society.
But that’s the wrong answer to your question…
Self defense and the ownership of the means of self defense is an in-built human right. It is not subject to the kinds of utilitarian calculations the totalitarians frequently resort to. I might think the cost of the oxygen used by Jeff Read is too high, but fortunately Jeff Read’s humanity immunizes him from people (like you) who would subject him and others to such a question.
BTW, “public good” is the rallying cry of murderous totalitarians everywhere.
@Michael
” But e.g. at up to 2.4M incidents of self-defense with a firearm per year in the US, it’s really quite obvious that firearm ownership is a net positive for society.”
But this also corresponds to millions of attacks with a firearm. With all your “arms make us more safe”, the US still has a homicide rate 5 times that of European countries. The response to that seems to often be “this is not in my neighborhood”, these are still your compatriots dying from fire arms.
Excuse us, but I know Europeans do not believe for one moment that these fire arms are making you more safe. For that, you should actually be more safe than we are, which you are not.
“Europeans do not believe for one moment that these fire arms are making you more safe.”
Of course you don’t. Europeans don’t understand the US and never will. That’s why we’re so thoroughly fucking tired of Europeans telling us hoe to run our lives.
up to 2.4M incidents of self-defense with a firearm per year in the US
Does anybody have any information on this statistic? How do we know that these incidents are real and legitimate self defense situations, as opposed to self-reported incidents by “testosterone filled” white males drawing their guns at imaginary threat situations.
>Does anybody have any information on this statistic?
Yes. It’s legitimate. In most jurisdictions the police are required to investigate any weapon discharge. We also have police records of civilian weapon uses during crimes and attempts, security-camera footage, interviews with convicts, victimization surverys, and other sources.
Integrating these provides a pretty detailed picture of defensive gun uses. As long ago as 1993, criminologist Gary Kleck was able to show that five out of six of them do not involve firing the weapon. We also know that cops are terrible shots – when armed civilians do have to fire they are less likely to hit a bystander by a 5:2 ratio.
Contrary to your racist stereotype, the highest incidence of reported (and verified) self-defense incidents per capita happens in high-crime areas and is more likely to involve an Asian shopkeeper than the dreaded white male.
@ Winter – “Total rubbish.”
Your opinionated bias is so thorough that you’re unable to see it. For example, substitute private automobile ownership for private firearms ownership and then determine the “public good” utility function. Banning automobiles will save far more lives each year (not to mention associated injuries, medical and insurance costs, lost wages and productivity of injured parties, legal resolution overhead, etc.) than the predicted “public good” of banning firearms. If you really were advocating for the highest net benefit to society, then according to game theory, you should ban automobiles first.
In addition, these types of examples are narrowly defined abstractions that fail the reality test. In theory, banning illicit drugs will net an enormous public good as compared to banning either automobiles or firearms, but reality demonstrates otherwise. The end result of this public policy is that only criminals benefit from the drug trade. The same will be true if private firearms are banned, only criminals and government employees will possess them, and both will make victims of the unarmed.
Classical game theory is not used in modeling complex social phenomena. The same mathematical principles are employed, but the analysis paradigm is much different and requires computer based tools. BTW, modeling predicts continued growth of firearm and ammunition sales here in the US based upon the increasing stridency of the gun control movement. Thank you for that. We are all safer as a result.
As a pure outsider to American politics, I ask what exactly are the liberal positions on most issues in the US. Most of the liberal ideas I read about appear based on “appeasement” of one special interest group or the other. It also seems to smack somewhat of “populism”. Am I right, oversimplifying or straight out wrong?
I think because of America’s avowed dislike of communism (due to the Cold War era) and you cannot have a communist party that would get any kind of popular vote, you have substituted it with a kind of soft-Left liberalism, right?
@TomA
“For example, substitute private automobile ownership for private firearms ownership and then determine the “public good” utility function.”
The public good utility function is transportation. The contribution of automobiles to the economy, even to the number of people that can live in the USA, is very big. The main difference with an arms race is that arms are not productive AT ALL. They are a pure cost ,only necessary because others have arms too.
@TomA
“In theory, banning illicit drugs will net an enormous public good as compared to banning either automobiles or firearms, but reality demonstrates otherwise.”
No, banning illicit drugs serves no rational goal. This has been known for so long that we even cannot remember a time when this was not common knowledge (see history of the Catholic church). “Vices” have always been banned on religious grounds. All “health” arguments have always been bogus propaganda.
@TomA
“The same will be true if private firearms are banned, only criminals and government employees will possess them, and both will make victims of the unarmed.”
Prove this. Come to Europe and tell us how “the unarmed” are made a victim.
@TomA
“Classical game theory is not used in modeling complex social phenomena.”
It is. See how Nash equilibriums are used in modern day negotiation. And gun ownership is far from “complex”. Arms races have been modeled with game theory since the early beginnings (also in population genetics).
@TomA
“Thank you for that. We are all safer as a result.”
Yes, with 5 times the homicide rate of Europe, or Japan.
@Jay Maynard
“That’s why we’re so thoroughly fucking tired of Europeans telling us hoe to run our lives.”
I lost count how often I have been told that we are on a fast track to a mega death government genocide unless we become true Libertarians. The same about how much safer we would be if we would all start carrying automatic guns.
All I do is pointing out that your reality in the US does not seem to match the ideology you preach. Like about how inevitable it is that so many people are killed by your police.
>We also know that cops are terrible shots – when armed civilians do have to fire they are less likely to hit a bystander by a 5:2 ratio.
Is it that cops are really terrible shots or is that an Asian shopkeeper is much more likely to be only 3 ~ 5 ft from from their target with no bystanders in the room when their shots are fired?
>Is it that cops are really terrible shots or is that an Asian shopkeeper is much more likely to be only 3 ~ 5 ft from from their target with no bystanders in the room when their shots are fired?
Huh? When your typical Asian shopkeeper has to shoot someone there are quite likely to be bystanders. Urban robbers don’t mind bystanders, as they’ve been taught not to respond in the difficult way rural people might and may make juicy hostages.
Besides, there are other lines of evidence that cops are lousy shots. I know of a pistol marksmanship event near me that has a separate division for cops; the organizer once told me this was so as not to embarrass the cops.
> Eric is the expert here, and god knows I am not a fan of murdering cops, but if I was on a jury, my firm belief is that if the first shot was legal, then emptying the entire clip is.
When I hear people say that if you shoot someone you should empty it out, there’s – not always, but – often an undertone of “no witnesses” and “dead men can’t sue”. Not in terms of believing that it’s in fact unjustified, but rather there seems to be a pervasive belief that not having to prove it in court is worth the other guy’s life.
@Winter “Arms races are a classical case….However, if almost no-one has arms, it is much cheaper to invest in gun control.”
You make a couple of, or perhaps even several, problematic assumptions here.
First, that guns are the only arms that matter in an arms race. The fact is that most of us are born with arms–literally–as well as feet, and these by themselves can be used for both defense and offense. This is where the arms race starts, and the next steps up include working out to increase your strength, picking up rocks, sticks and baseball bats, and obtaining pointy sharp-edged objects (particularly knives) useful for stabbing and slashing. If you are small, or old, or don’t have time to keep in shape, you are already at a disadvantage to those who are. Thus, to even out the completely natural arms race, we need to have an “equalizer”, and that equalizer happens to be small arms.
Second, that there’s no end to what we would arm ourselves with if it weren’t for restrictions. In the United States, it’s perfectly legal to own flame throwers and black-powder cannons that can fire cannonballs and grape shot. I attended a “Colonial Days” event that would fire such a cannon three or four times a day; one person dressed in either American Colonial or Civil War costume explained how vollies of grape shot would be used to turn Confederate soldiers into a bloody mist. Yet, this firepower isn’t used to rob banks, or settle disputes, or whatnot. Why? Partially because it’s difficult to carry a cannon around, to be sure, but also because this stuff is expensive, and the types of people who could afford such things aren’t going to go around shooting at houses.
Third, that the only thing keeping us from exercising our anger against our fellow citizens is the lack of access to weapons. When a peaceable citizen decides to carry a weapon, they do so knowing that it’s a heavy responsibility. They typically take time to learn self defense law, and to learn techniques to de-escalate potentially dangerous situations.
Fourth, that the types of people who do fight at the drop of a hat (and will often drop that hat themselves) won’t cause any harm if guns are illegal. These types of people are usually already banned from carrying guns, but if they cared what the law was, then they wouldn’t be banned from owning guns in the first place. This is a cultural issue, and it’s not going to go away just because we pass a few feel-good gun control measures. Indeed, as shown by the increase in gun violence in Great Britain, those determined to cause harm will do so, regardless.
“And I know why gun control won’t “work” for Libertarians. Getting safe by controlling gun ownership is a public good.”
I’m not convinced that Vermont, or Utah, or Wyoming, or Maine, or Arizona, are going to be all that safer, just because we ban guns. Take Vermont, for example: in 1976, they had 26 murders, by all means (not just by gun). At the time, their population was 476,000; last year, they had a population of 626,562 but only 10 murders. (Incidentally, 1976 was the highest since 1960.)
Nor am I convinced that Europe will become a magically dangerous place if gun laws were removed overnight: all that such a decree would do, would be to make all the millions of guns quietly owned illegally legal. If Europeans were really bundles of anger ready to spring on the most innocent of victims with the slightest of provocations, it would already be reflected in their murder rates, with or without guns.
@hari:
I’ll attempt to break it down, here.
To start with, the meaning of “liberal”. Literally, that means having to do with advancing liberty. That went out the window a long time ago and had been nebulously associated with the political Left for a long time. So instead, I’ll answer what the Left means in the US (which isn’t a much better term, but it’s something).
Because of the First-Past-The-Post electoral system, it is pretty much inevitable that the country will eventually devolve down to a 2-party mass-appeal system as an equilibrium. Thus there are only two major parties in the US. The Left is generally represented by the Democratic party.
As a mass-appeal party, it is an amalgamation of many different interests. Most names/categories mine from observation. Notably:
*) The progressive voting movement. The greatest power for this school of thought was circa 1900. This is a moment which held that more democracy is better. This both led to granting women the right to vote, as well as electing what seems like every single local executive from Governor down to (sarcastically) dog-catcher and (literally) coroner. What little is left of this movement seems to be focused on allowing convicted felons to vote and improvements to corporate governance around minority shareholder rights.
*) The progressive society-engineering movement. A follow-on to the previous school of thought, most powerful up through the 1930s. The movement holds that we can make a better society through government. This lead to eugenics and also major works projects such as the Hoover Dam. Currently, this leads to projects such as high-speed rail.
*) The socialist school of thought. Closest to socialism as a philosophy. Characterized best by the quote from Obama of “You didn’t build that”. This holds that making a large amount of money can’t be done alone and therefore must have taken advantage of people somehow. This should be corrected by taxation. Note the emphasis on “The 1%” in American political discourse.
*) The equality-of-outcome school of thought. This wing holds that people are created equally and therefore any large-scale differences in output must be due to some flaw in the lack of opportunity. This part of the party looks at differences in the outcomes of groups such as women, African-Americans, children of poor parents, etc., and attempts to fix the structure of society or the government, looking at equality of outcome as the measure. This has both worked to reduce racism encoded in the government, as well as to spend lots of money on ineffective ventures. Also leads to thinking that everybody who wants to live in America should be able to do so because it isn’t their fault they weren’t born here.
*) The “we hate centers of power we don’t control” school of thought. This group is generally opposed to having large organizations that they don’t have any control over. For example, banks, insurance companies, cable companies, hospitals. Generally in favor of regulating how business works and who they must serve. Results in regulations which require cable companies going into a city to make service available to >=95% of the population before they are allowed to start sales. Or limits the fees banks can charge. This school of thought is generally okay with government running/monopolizing things (as it is elected) but not private organizations. At its best, it has ensured that services are available to as wide a group as possible. Current victories include ensuring that sole-proprietorship bakeries must sell cakes to same-sex couples for same-sex weddings.
*) The labor movement. Mostly dying except outside of the government. Emphasis on ensuring that the workers have equal footing when negotiating with companies for wages, etc. At its best it created and promoted health-and-safety regulations so that people didn’t die from stupid things. Mostly destroyed by the internal corruption of union leaders, the overhead costs of the unions, and the mobility of low-skilled jobs in comparison to the workers.
*) The environmental movement. Wants to save everything. At its best it has been associated with drastic improvements in air and water quality. At its worst, it involves years of regulatory review and intervention in business.
*) The anti-war movement. Fairly broad and shallow. Provides good oversight of military spending. Spends a lot of time opposing anything that might be related to war. Thus a large emphasis on opposing nuclear power because it might be used to build nuclear weapons.
Much like an SNES RPG, combining two or more of these can result in other groups with greater focus:
*) Equality-of-outcome + “we hate centers of power we don’t control” leads to the emphasis on single-payer healthcare.
*) Anti-war movement + “we hate centers of power we don’t control” leads to opposition to private gun ownership.
*) Environmental movement + progressive society-engineering movement leads to mandating low-flush toilets.
*) Labor movement + environmental movement leads to emphasis on green jobs, wind turbines.
*) The progressive voting movement + “we hate centers of power we don’t control” leads to voting on anything that might result in somebody being affected, anywhere. Eg. a ban on wind turbines because they might make things look bad.
This isn’t the definitive list, but it’s one I’ve assembled in my head and covers a good part of the positions and the underpinning philosophy.
@Winter:
The ‘public good’ function of any item is the combination of its’ benefits, in this case transportation, and any negative drawbacks like carbon emissions.Conceivably, someone who highly values the environment might believe that the carbon cost of private transportation outweigh any possible benefits. Under that scenario, the ‘utility function’ regarding automobiles would indeed incline in favor of mass transit and curtailing private transportation.
Whenever two people calculate utility functions from different axioms, they will likely not agree on policy matters that rely on that calculation. (At best, they will differ only in a matter of degree.) And on the question of axioms:
If arms are not “productive AT ALL”, then neither is brushing your teeth, performing regular data backups, or obtaining a general “liberal arts” (vs. a “vocational”) education—for just like gun ownership, none of these activities ever provide a direct, immediate benefit.
Alpheus, you are correct in listing Winter’s assumptions. They are generic to the common European hoplophobe, who thinks firearms are magic talismans of eeeeevil that turn innocent, peaceful citizens into slavering maniacs looking for an excuse to kill.
Sadly, there is no reasoning with such. Their irrational fear, couple with an often comorbid condition called “European leftism” which causes them to value the good of society over the rights of the individual, prevents them from thinking rationally. They stop at the nasty icky eeeeevil gun, never bothering to think about the hand that holds it.
Guns used in self defense, what a wonderful fairy tale:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/
http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable15.pdf
http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2012-12-27/how-often-do-we-use-guns-in-self-defense
@AlexK
“The ‘public good’ function of any item is the combination of its’ benefits, in this case transportation, and any negative drawbacks like carbon emissions. Conceivably, someone who highly values the environment might believe that the carbon cost of private transportation outweigh any possible benefits.”
What is your point? Using cars has benefits and costs.
To simplify things, economics distinguishes internal costs for operating and maintaining (deprecation) a vehicle paid by the owner, and external costs that have to be paid by others, like death, destruction, and pollution. And these costs and benefits are averaged over all people to get to a net benefit/cost for society. If the costs for all outweigh the benefits for all, there will be a strong pressure to look for an alternative.
Did they not teach you that in school?
@AlexK
“Whenever two people calculate utility functions from different axioms, they will likely not agree on policy matters that rely on that calculation.”
You will be very surprised how easy it is to monetarism externalized costs (damages) and send you the bill if the monetary costs show a clear negative. Libraries have been filled about this in the economics literature. But I know Libertarians love skewed Gedankenexperiments with fairy tale economics. Everything but real data.
For gun ownership, these externalized costs have actually been calculated. They are remarkably low, I must admit: the average annual marginal social cost of household gun ownership is in the range $100 to $1800. But maybe we can look for more studies.
What is the social cost of gun ownership?
http://www18.georgetown.edu/data/people/ludwigj/publication-18264.pdf
These go somewhat broader but does not get to a figure:
Externalities and the Dubious Defenses of Gun Enthusiasts
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/12/externalities-and-the-dubious-defenses-of-gun-enthusiasts.html
Michael Olenick: The Lesson of Newtown – Time to Charge for the True Cost of Gun Ownership
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/12/michael-olenick-the-lesson-of-newtown-time-to-charge-for-the-true-cost-of-gun-ownership.html
This one comes to $700 per capita per year:
The True Cost of Gun Violence in America
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/04/true-cost-of-gun-violence-in-america
Ah, but I know, these “messengers” are all shot because they are not of the true faith.
@ Winter – “Prove this. Come to Europe and tell us how “the unarmed” are made a victim.”
Just ask the families of the unarmed victims in the Bataclan Theater in Paris.
The gun control meme has never been about minimizing firearm violence within the citizenry. It is solely about ensuring that government can easily and effectively dominate the citizenry regardless of how totalitarian the government becomes. Parasites have an existential imperative in ensuring government dominance over the productive. This is the only way they can assure their survival during periods or scarcity or extreme hardship.
@Jay Maynard
“Their irrational fear, couple with an often comorbid condition called “European leftism” which causes them to value the good of society over the rights of the individual, prevents them from thinking rationally. ”
Meanwhile, I have statistics and you have faith.
@TomA
“Just ask the families of the unarmed victims in the Bataclan Theater in Paris.”
As compared to the families of the Newtown shooting in 2012, or the San Bernardino shooting?
So what is the difference of having the right to bear arms? That teenagers will carry semi-automatic guns into concerts? If that is such a great idea, why don’t the US practice it?
@TomA
“The gun control meme has never been about minimizing firearm violence within the citizenry. It is solely about ensuring that government can easily and effectively dominate the citizenry regardless of how totalitarian the government becomes. Parasites have an existential imperative in ensuring government dominance over the productive. This is the only way they can assure their survival during periods or scarcity or extreme hardship.”
I am reading a wonderful article. I am still contemplating whether this fragment of your writing fits in:
On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit
http://journal.sjdm.org/15/15923a/jdm15923a.pdf
Winter, your statistics are textbook examples of how to lie with statistics. That, plus the Left’s fetish for raising taxes based on highly dubious “externalities” calculations, renders your arguments just more European leftist drivel.
esr:
>>Yes. It’s legitimate. In most jurisdictions the police are required to investigate any weapon discharge. We also have police records of civilian weapon uses during crimes and attempts, security-camera footage, interviews with convicts, victimization surverys, and other sources.
It is a far stretch to go from that statement to the definitive statement that 2.4M incidents are a “net positive” to self defense. Here is a link on anti-gun website that claims there are less than 1600 verified defensive gun uses in 2014. So which one is correct? The difference between 2.4M and 1600 is gigantic difference of several orders of magnitude.
http://www.thetrace.org/2015/07/defensive-gun-use-armed-with-reason-hemenway/
>>Contrary to your racist stereotype, the highest incidence of reported (and verified) self-defense incidents per capita happens in high-crime areas and is more likely to involve an Asian shopkeeper than the dreaded white male.
So am I to assume 2.4M asian shopkeepers stopped armed robberies of their stories. Or am I to believe the number is 1600. My money is on the latter number.
There was a fox news interview that I saw the other day. It was O’Reilly interviewing Trump and both were coddling one another while congratulating one another on being “Tough Guys”. It is the kind of interview that the demographic in my “racist stereotype” jerks off to. My reasons for calling BS this 2.4M number go far beyond “racism”.
BTW, I have learned how to handle firearms at the age of 15. Everything from hand pistols to AKs to even Mauser collectibles. I never felt a need to own gun not one single day, and think that the dangers/risks of having them around and easily accessible far outweighs any advantages.
@Jay Maynard
“Winter, your statistics are textbook examples of how to lie with statistics.”
You, however, are going it on faith alone. You do not even bother to disprove my sources.
Arms races are a classical case. By investing in arms, everybody incurs a heavy cost. But if everybody else is doing it, you will be annihilated if you don’t invest in more and better arms. However, if almost no-one has arms, it is much cheaper to invest in gun control.
Self defense is not a war of attrition.
What you all so desperately try to avoid is to talk about the costs of gun ownership.
No, we have measured the costs and found them far lower than the costs of the alternatives.
And I know why gun control won’t “work” for Libertarians. Getting safe by controlling gun ownership is a public good. And if there is one thing Libertarianism seems to be unable to supply, then it is Public Goods. But it is public goods that are the foundation of society. Hence, here is the reason why Libertarianism is anathema to society.
Are you seriously trying to use an externality / public good argument against libertarians? I guess the reports of europeans not having balls were false. Outside of the Rothbardian contingent an understanding of those concepts is central to libertarianism, most importantly including the understanding that the best way of dealing with a too-expensive good is to find a way of making it cheaper rather than forcing everyone to pay at gunpoint.
Besides, anyone supporting a democratic system of government has already lost the moral high ground with regards to public goods.
@FooQuuxman
“Outside of the Rothbardian contingent an understanding of those concepts is central to libertarianism, most importantly including the understanding that the best way of dealing with a too-expensive good is to find a way of making it cheaper rather than forcing everyone to pay at gunpoint.”
Except that there are public goods that are essential, irrespective of cost. Waterworks are often such “goods”.
My favorite example is the area I live in. My front door is a few meters below sea level. The reclaimed land harbors cities and towns (plural). The public good in question is keeping the water out, i.e., managing pumps and water works. These are paid for by taxes. If you do not want to pay taxes, you have to move out. If the pumps stop, we have water flooding our upstairs floor.
I have asked many times on this blog for a Libertarian alternative for financing this public good, without which there would be no land to live at all. Currently, I have a democratic say in the matter of taxes. You sound as if you can give us an alternative that gives us more FREEDOM and more say in our destiny. Remember, no money for the pumps, no land.
Your chance to be the first to come up with a true Libertarian alternative to this puzzle!
@Winter: “To simplify things, economics distinguishes internal costs for operating and maintaining (deprecation) a vehicle paid by the owner, and external costs that have to be paid by others, like death, destruction, and pollution. And these costs and benefits are averaged over all people to get to a net benefit/cost for society. If the costs for all outweigh the benefits for all, there will be a strong pressure to look for an alternative.”
I don’t think I addressed this before, but if guns had zero positive utility, then there would be no reason for police officers to carry them.
As for the studies that Winter cites: I’m not familiar with them, per se, but I would be very hesitant to believe anything that the Violence Policy Center put out. I once participated in an audit of VPC list of violent acts committed by concealed carry permit holders, made to show how problematic concealed carry permits really are. The actual percentage of events where a person had a concealed carry permit, and that permit was relevant to the death in question, was a very small percentage of the list that VPC had created.
Bloomberg and Harvard have similar reputations of putting out dubious information on the issue of gun rights.
@uma: “So am I to assume 2.4M asian shopkeepers stopped armed robberies of their stories. Or am I to believe the number is 1600. My money is on the latter number.”
First of all, that 2.4M applies to all Americans, not just Asian shopkeepers; and yes, that number might be a bit high. But when you consider that this is 2.4M events out of, say 280 million people (assuming the study was in the 1990’s, which I think it was)…that means that, per capita, there was about 1 self-defense event for every 100 people. Is that really all that impossible?
Secondly, why do you trust the 1,600 number? That seems very low, especially considering how often crime occurs; and it’s particularly suspect coming from an anti-gun source, considering how often such sources have proved be…how shall we say it? less than knowledgeable, and perhaps even a bit disingenuous…in their statistical rigor.
@Alpheus
” I’m not familiar with them, per se, but I would be very hesitant to believe anything that the Violence Policy Center put out.”
As I predicted, when you have no data yourself, you shoot the messenger.
@Alpheus
“that means that, per capita, there was about 1 self-defense event for every 100 people. Is that really all that impossible?”
Yes, outside of war zones, 1 armed self-defense event per 100 people per year is exceptional.
@Alpheus:
Secondly, why do you trust the 1,600 number? That seems very low, especially considering how often crime occurs; and it’s particularly suspect coming from an anti-gun source, considering how often such sources have proved be…how shall we say it? less than knowledgeable, and perhaps even a bit disingenuous…in their statistical rigor.
I don’t. That is why I labelled the source appropriately as an anti-gun source whose data is to be taken with a fair amount of skepticism. But I’d wager the number of verifiable defense instances where the gun stopped underway or helped protect property is in the thousands rather than the millions.
Between enjoying the greatest benefit of an armed citizenry (stopping govt tyranny) and the total insanity of “easy-access” homicides, suicides and teenagers massacring a couple dozen people when they get “micro-agressed” – between all that there is plenty of room for rational, thoughtful people to come up with far better public policies than the ones we have.
Winter: “I have asked many times on this blog for a Libertarian alternative for financing this public good, without which there would be no land to live at all.”
I do not know the circumstances as to why the Dutch resorted to this method to reclaim land, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was the result of people trying to escape government prosecution of one sort or another. It wouldn’t be a surprise to me, either, if the dispute involved taxes that the persecuted didn’t want to pay.
It seems that people do all sorts of crazy things to escape taxes!
As for how a Libertarian would approach this topic: I cannot say, because people are very imaginative when it comes to solutions. But one possibility would be to set flood insurance rates on such reclaimed land high enough as a warning that it’s not a good way to build a house, unless the land itself (and all the skyscrapers already built, and farmland in use) are at such a premium, that you might as well build a dike, drain the sea water, and start building on and farming that land anyway.
On the other hand, there’s also a dark side to government interference that you refuse to acknowledge, and that’s probably because government in the Netherlands is somewhat rosy. But what happens if you have a government that pushes flood insurance artificially low, rewrites zoning laws to allow people to build in below-sea-level areas (as much as I dislike zoning laws, they are, after all, supposed to protect people, right?) and funnels the money intended for the levies into other projects, and perhaps even to line their own pockets? You get New Orleans, after Hurricane Katrina. The result, in part, because the market wasn’t free to act in a reasonable manner….
Winter: “As I predicted, when you have no data yourself, you shoot the messenger.”
Very well, here is the study that leads me to distrust anything that comes out of the bowels of the Violence Policy Center:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2095754
I don’t have the time at this moment to go through the studies you linked to, but I notice that they link to people who have proven to be just as untrustworthy in the past. It’s enough so, that when I see such a “messenger”, I don’t want to shoot them, so much as I want to tar and feather them, and then run them out of town on a rail.
Winter: “””(Apheus) “that means that, per capita, there was about 1 self-defense event for every 100 people. Is that really all that impossible?” Yes, outside of war zones, 1 armed self-defense event per 100 people per year is exceptional.”””
Come to think of it, it depends on how you define defensive actions. Sure, that encounter with hooligans might not have come to anything, so hinting that you had a gun and were prepared to use it might not count as self-defense, and it would be a stretch to count it as a “defensive gun use”…but at the same time, these other studies will often “low-ball” self defense use to the point that you literally have to kill someone in order for it to count as a use of self defense!
Surely, there should be some sort of happy medium…but in a country where you get 12,000 murders a year, you’d think that there’d be just more than 1.600 instances of self defense…
@Alpheus
“I do not know the circumstances as to why the Dutch resorted to this method to reclaim land, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was the result of people trying to escape government prosecution of one sort or another. It wouldn’t be a surprise to me, either, if the dispute involved taxes that the persecuted didn’t want to pay.”
I do not think you could be more wrong.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/08/27/historical_map_shows_land_reclamation_in_the_nertherlands.html
http://blogs.umb.edu/buildingtheworld/waterworks/protective-dikes-and-land-reclamation-the-netherlands/
@Alpheus
“But one possibility would be to set flood insurance rates on such reclaimed land high enough as a warning that it’s not a good way to build a house, unless the land itself (and all the skyscrapers already built, and farmland in use) are at such a premium, that you might as well build a dike, drain the sea water, and start building on and farming that land anyway.”
This will not work in any way as a small dyke won’t work. You need to build LARGE water defenses. See map in link.
@Alpheus
“But what happens if you have a government that pushes flood insurance artificially low, rewrites zoning laws to allow people to build in below-sea-level areas (as much as I dislike zoning laws, they are, after all, supposed to protect people, right?) and funnels the money intended for the levies into other projects, and perhaps even to line their own pockets? You get New Orleans, after Hurricane Katrina.”
In four centuries, that has not happened. For the simple reason that people are very well aware why they need the water works. Also, this is a case where the powerful drown as easy as the powerless.
The one time something like this happened was in 1953 when the dykes were not in order in the aftermath of WWII (the Germans had different priorities and the whole country was in ruins for some years).
@Winter
You have already been given data for defensive uses of guns. It comes from a reliable source.
The anti-gunners are liars. Always. We are entirely correct to dismiss them out of hand.
A firearm is a great equalizer in the hands of a woman against a much more powerful male attacker – there are daily occurrences of women using guns to defend themselves from violent males. You would deny her this.
Why do you hate women so much?
A firearm is a great equalizer in the hands of an elderly person against a much more powerful young attacker – there are daily occurrences of the elderly using guns to defend themselves from youthful violent attackers. You would deny them this.
Why do you hate the elderly so much?
I presume you similarly hate Jews. Blacks. Hispanics. The infirm. The poor. Disabled veterans.
Why do you hate so many people?
@Michael
“The anti-gunners are liars. Always. We are entirely correct to dismiss them out of hand.”
As I wrote for Jay, Faith based convictions.
@Michael
“Why do you hate the elderly so much? I presume you similarly hate Jews. Blacks. Hispanics. The infirm. The poor. Disabled veterans. Why do you hate so many people?”
Strange remark. What did I write that would make you think such things? Or is this another Faith based judgement?
From the articles Winter linked to, about Amsterdam:
“From 800 to 1250 AD due to a boom in farming and a growing coastal trade, the population of the Netherlands grew ten-fold. To keep up with the demand for food, the Dutch dug up the marshes and sold the peat, converting marshes to farmland. But as the marshes were drained, the groundwater was lowered and the land began to sink. It therefore became imperative to build a series of linked major dikes to protect the land from flooding.”
While I was wrong about the Netherlands on this (about persecution and taxes, which seem to be the two biggest reasons for colonizing new places), it seems that how I originally described the possibility–namely, building dikes so you could have farmland that is less expensive than land available elsewhere–indeed seems to be the motive for the creation of the Netherlands.
“It’s a commonplace of economics that they’re not making any more land, but this is a powerful reminder that once upon a time it was actually pretty common for technologically advanced societies to build more land.”
And it seems that we don’t do this anymore because of economic reasons. This is probably why we don’t build pyramids, either. Granted, there are some projects that only government can do, but there’s nonetheless the question: if only government can do them, are they really worthwhile to do?
“In effect, local water boards also produced revenue through self-taxation: each village contributed to the upkeep of their local dikes. What can we learn from the democratic, self-regulating and self-taxing water boards as we consider governance and maintenance of key infrastructure? Is there a role for locals in highway maintenance, canal improvement, bikeway development?”
Now that I think about it, this sounds a lot like the types of government we might find in a colonial New England town hall, or from the chieftans of Medieval Iceland. In contrast, what happened in New Orleans seemed to be the result of two or three layers of government, centralized and somewhat distant from the people living there.
“The one time something like this happened was in 1953 when the dykes were not in order in the aftermath of WWII (the Germans had different priorities and the whole country was in ruins for some years).”
Oddly enough, for better or for worse, this reminds me of the one time Switzerland was conquered by outside forces: Napoleon managed to create a wedge between the French speakers and the rest of the country, that he was able to conquer them…but the Swiss (including the French speakers) disliked that so much, that when Hitler tried the same thing with the German speaking Swiss, he didn’t find them nearly as receptive as he had hoped….(I’m not going to try to find any logical reason why the one thing should remind me of the other, though, because I don’t see any logical connection at this moment…)
@Winter: I have asked many times on this blog for a Libertarian alternative for financing this public good, without which there would be no land to live at all.
Which was the original state of the “land” you now live on; it was underwater. How did it originally become land?
@Alpheus
“it seems that how I originally described the possibility–namely, building dikes so you could have farmland that is less expensive than land available elsewhere–indeed seems to be the motive for the creation of the Netherlands.”
Yep, in 1100 AD it was all small scale farm land reclamation. Since then, technology has progressed and sea levels have risen. These small scale projects really do not work anymore to get several meters of water out of an area of hundreds of square kilometers. But it was indeed much better than trying to rob some from the Belgians or Germans.
@Alpheus
“And it seems that we don’t do this anymore because of economic reasons. This is probably why we don’t build pyramids, either. ”
The last big land reclamations were completed around 1970. From these times, the value of land has been less than that of the open water, so we stopped investing in reclaiming land and started to invest more in water instead. Our water defenses keep us busy enough as sea levels are rising faster than they used to and our rivers are transporting more water that has to be carried to the sea.
@Alpheus
“if only government can do them, are they really worthwhile to do?”
The pyramids had only religious value. Our land is economically productive. For example, I live there. For me, and for the country, the cost benefit calculations were positive.
@Alpheus
“Now that I think about it, this sounds a lot like the types of government we might find in a colonial New England town hall, or from the chieftans of Medieval Iceland. In contrast, what happened in New Orleans seemed to be the result of two or three layers of government, centralized and somewhat distant from the people living there.”
Indeed. It has been remarked before that if we will all go down together, there is much better motivation to work together.
@Peter Donis
“Which was the original state of the “land” you now live on; it was underwater. How did it originally become land?”
It was collectively decided to make it land. The costs were covered by the sale of the land and taxes of those who live and work there. Such a large enterprise is organized by our government. Historically, we had some large reclamation works done by private enterprise. In the end, these were sold back to the government.
All this is just distracting that the maintenance of reclaimed land is a public good. Give me a better model than taxes. Just abandoning a profitable enterprise, we living on reclaimed land, because you object to paying taxes sound idiotic.
@Winter “As I wrote for Jay, Faith based convictions.”
No, Winter. Based on evidence. Lots of evidence. SJWs always lie. They have repeatedly been caught in their lies.
You dismissed the 2.4M number even tho it is well researched and verified and is not published by known liars. You dismiss it based on faith. You’re a hypocrite by your own words.
“Strange remark. What did I write that would make you think such things?”
You want the weak to be prey to the strong. You want the peaceable to be at the mercy of the violent. The people in Paris are dead because of you. You are an accessory to murder because you deny them the means to save their own lives. You have blood on your hands.
Shut up – How many more must die to try to redeem your murderous ideology? Do human lives mean nothing to you?
@ Winter – “So what is the difference of having the right to bear arms? That teenagers will carry semi-automatic guns into concerts? If that is such a great idea, why don’t the US practice it?”
There were four Islamic attackers in the concert hall versus hundreds of music fans. If just 10% of these fans had been carrying concealed handguns, then the outcome would likely have been much different. France has very strong gun control laws, and all it accomplished was to ensure that the terrorists were heavily armed and the victims were sitting ducks. If you wish to be a sitting duck, that is your choice; but to impose that insanity on others is genocidal.
@Michael
“You dismissed the 2.4M number even tho it is well researched and verified and is not published by known liars.”
None of that. I just wrote that 1 use of fire arms in self defense per 100 persons would be exceptional when not in war. I still consider that exceptional, whether it is true or not. Also, to put such a number in context, we must know wheter the supposedly “aggresive” party was armed or not.
And I prefer (peer reviewed) data over emotional accusations of falsehoods. In my experience, people on this blog are much to eager to call liar and fraud when the data do not suit them.
Especially when the accusators cannot come up with peer reviewed data themselves.
What I was taught in freshman economics was that people will seek an alternative when the direct costs outweigh the direct benefits. When benefits are reaped directly while costs are socialized (such as with private transportation and CO2 pollution) you have a “tragedy of the commons”: no individual willingly reduces the benefit they receive in order to keep the total cost incurred at a maintainable level. The opposite, where costs are direct but benefits socialized, tends to be called the “free rider” problem, and again ensuring sufficient maintenance is received is the core difficulty.
The critical element in either a “tragedy of the commons” or a “free rider problem” is the non-exclusionary nature of the good in question: that specific individuals cannot be targeted based on their behavior. I would very much like to know what you cite as solving the free rider problem, as (at least when I was being taught) this was considered an economically intractable issue.
@Michael
“Shut up – How many more must die to try to redeem your murderous ideology? Do human lives mean nothing to you?”
I am rather puzzled by your accusations. Western Europe has a homicide rate of around a fifth of that of the USA. Why is that a murderous ideology?
> Western Europe has a homicide rate of around a fifth of that of the USA. Why is that a murderous ideology?
You are importing people with a much higher murder and rape rate, and piously overlooking their murders and rapes.
@Alex K
“I would very much like to know what you cite as solving the free rider problem, as (at least when I was being taught) this was considered an economically intractable issue.”
For public goods, the comon solution is taxes. That is also a remedy for activities that externalizes costs. Also, activities that causes damages, e.g., polution, can be regulated.
The free rider problem is only intractable when it involves private parties. I think it is one of the reasons goverments arise.
@Alex K
“no individual willingly reduces the benefit they receive in order to keep the total cost incurred at a maintainable level. ”
That is where goverment was invented for. It makes laws, and enforces them, and it levies taxes.
@winter “Why is that a murderous ideology?”
You’re a self-professed communist. You worship the strong central state. You deny innocent people the means to defend their very lives. You want to import rapists, murderers, and religious death cultists by the millions.
Those things all spell bloodshed. The communists killed millions. The Islamics will make them look like amateurs.
But I guess it’s necessary to break a few eggs to make your Utopian omelet, right Winter.
Winter on 2015-12-08 at 16:02:13 said:
> Yes, outside of war zones, 1 armed self-defense event per 100 people per year is exceptional.
I personally have engaged in armed self defense. (Asshole government built an apartment block for welfare people in a nice suburb, walking distance from the home that I had purchased to raise my small children in, necessitating a series of violent incidents between myself and people resident in those homes. Subsequently, in response to local pressure, they put a better quality of people in that apartment block.)
I find it hard to believe I am one person in a hundred.
uma on 2015-12-08 at 07:16:04 said:
> That is quite simply false. I will give you an example from the European continent. Polish Tatars have been muslims and fully integrated.
Polish Tatars are far below one percent – and are not at fully integrated at all.
Muslims don’t organize to systematically cause organized trouble until they exceed one percent. Chronic civil war sets in at ten to thirty percent. To keep the peace at one percent is easy. To keep the peace at thirty percent is possible, but requires terrifyingly and shockingly extreme measures.
And “keeping the peace” is very far from “full integration” Polish Tartars are not integrated.
@Michael
“You worship the strong central state. You deny innocent people the means to defend their very lives. You want to import rapists, murderers, and religious death cultists by the millions.”
You watch too much television.
*Winter* commented
> I lost count how often I have been told that we are on a fast track to a
> mega death government genocide unless we become true Libertarians.
You had a megadeath government not so long ago. You are sending a awful lot of people to prison for thought crimes, which is a pretty good indicator that a megadeath government is approaching, and you are using gangs of state sponsored thugs to prevent political opponents from organizing, which is another pretty good indicator that a megadeath government is approaching.
@Winter – as you applaud, and become complicit with, those government types that deny to ‘others’ the same technology they themselves enjoy to protect their lives – do you feel any pangs of responsibility when your countrymen are killed by violent criminals?
Without political support from you and your ilk, these dead people would have at least had an option to weigh to decide for themselves whether or not they avail themselves of an effective means of self defense. You took that from them. By force.
They might be alive today had you not interfered in their lives – by proxy (you would not personally interfere with such people as you are a coward).
I suspect you feel nothing, and will ridicule the suggestion…because you are a sociopath.
I own guns because of wretched scum like you. I am thankful you exist on another continent and are utterly irrelevant and inconsequential.
@JAD
“You had a megadeath government not so long ago.”
We were invaded by that particular country. Just like the Americas were invaded by other European countries. To the detriment of the original inhabitants.
For the rest, we have to admit the US to beat us in any of these attrocities. So, come back complaining when the US have less prisoners, less violence and better free speech protection than us.
@winter “You watch too much television.”
And you never respond to anything that doesn’t fit your faith-based state worship.
@Dan
“do you feel any pangs of responsibility when your countrymen are killed by violent criminals?”
Given that so few innocent people are killed by violent criminals, I do not see how carying guns could have made a difference.
The majority of homicide victims are killed by relatives or were violent criminals themselves.
There are indeed a few victims of armed robberies killed. But it is questionable whether these people could have defended themselves effectively.
Anyhow, preventing these few murders would not even compensate for the added shooting accidents from widespread gun ownership.
There is not even a rational case to make that there would be a net reduction in preventable deaths by private gun ownership, so I do not feel guilty of their deaths.
Btw, most of the people I know, including pensioners, are even more opposed to guns than I am. The very people you want to “save” by giving them a gun would not want to touch it with a barge pole.
@Michael
“And you never respond to anything that doesn’t fit your faith-based state worship.”
Count my comments. I am writing rather large amounts of text about quite a large number of subjects. I even add supporting evidence.
But there are limits in the number of questions that I can answer.
And I do not hope that you have any illusion that you can talk me out of my believes without actually understanding the country I live in.
@Dan
“I own guns because of wretched scum like you. ”
Are you saying you want to kill me for my political believes?
Another reason to fight the spread of guns.
>Are you saying you want to kill me for my political believes?
No, he’s armed against thugs attempting to turn your beliefs into action in the U.S. So am I.
> Is it that cops are really terrible shots or is that an Asian shopkeeper is much more likely to be only 3 ~ 5 ft from from their target with no bystanders in the room when their shots are fired?
George Zimmerman fired one shot directly through Trayvon Martin’s heart and lungs, turning his heart into hamburger. Darren Wilson sprayed and prayed.
Law abiding people with guns are typically much better shots, and much less likely to panic in an emergency, than cops. Criminals with guns tend to much worse shots, and much more likely to panic in an emergency, than cops.
That said, Van Dyke panicked because he was in a genuinely life threatening situation, and we should not condemn those that panic in such a situation. On the other hand, we would prefer cops that do not panic in life threatening situations.
>Darren Wilson sprayed and prayed.
Not so. As I discussed in This picture tells a shooting story, Wilson’s technique was quite good considering the extremity of the situation: “The first thing that jumps out at me is that this was not wild, amateurish shooting. Had it been, the distribution of bullet holes would have resembled an irregular blob. The near-linear arrangement suggests a relatively steady hand and a shooter who wasn’t panic”
@winter “…you have any illusion that you can talk me out of my believes…”
Of course not. That’s the job of the Muslim invaders.
And it’s already in process… borders are being closed; invaders are being turned back and even attacked; nationalism is on the rise; a few leaders are show signs of embryonic backbones.
And it’s already in process… borders are being closed; invaders are being turned back and even attacked; nationalism is on the rise; a few leaders are show signs of embryonic backbones.
aka: screwed if you do, screwed if you don’t.
> 1600 verified defensive gun uses in 2014
What is “verified”?
When police answered Zimmerman’s call, they found the dead body of a minor hoodlum shot through the heart and Zimmerman with smoking gun and injuries from the beating he had received. Their initial reaction was to believe Zimmerman’s story, forget about the incident. and go on their way. Punk attacks short fat out of condition guy, short fat out of condition guy is licensed for concealed carry. Consider it education for punks. Obviously the punk attacked Zimmerman and Zimmerman did not attack the punk, because Zimmerman beaten up, because Zimmerman short and the punk tall, and because a guy with a gun would not have attacked a large punk with his fists, and because Zimmerman is neighborhood watch, which is a strong indicator of law abiding character, and concealed carry, which is a strong indication of law abiding character.
Suppose that they had forgotten about the incident and gone on their way. Then the incident would not be “verified” would it?
The relevant measure is not whether a shooting incident is “verified self defense”, but whether police decide to let it pass.
It is not going to be “verified self defense”, unless police first decide to investigate it as possibly not self defense..
And then you have to multiply for all the incidents where a criminal was quelled by the sight of a gun, or the sound of a gun being racked, where the gun was not discharged, or it was discharged and no one was harmed, or someone was harmed, but lived, and was disinclined to make a complaint.
By and large, if a gun is deployed, and no crime is committed, perhaps because a gun has been deployed, neither party is likely to want police investigating and police are not terribly interested in investigating.
Amusing to see the never-credible Slate cited again in this thread. Looks like someone needs better sources.
@Michael
“Of course not. That’s the job of the Muslim invaders.”
About a third are Christians from Eritrea. The Syrians are fleeing from Muslim invaders.
And seriously, the population of the EU is over 400 million. The total population of Syria was 22 million. They won’t take over our governments. They cannot even take over their own country.
The reaction to these refugees has a lot in comon with an alergy that can make a harmless substance into a deadly poison.
(And before you start, both of the Paris attacks were planned and executed by EU citizens, with minor participation of fake refugees)
@esr
“No, he’s armed against thugs attempting to turn your beliefs into action in the U.S. So am I.”
You are all arming up to shoot Democratic compatriots?
My understanding is that the US constitution does not allow shooting political opponents. Even more reason to limit gun ownership.
@Gmmay
“Looks like someone needs better sources.”
I have never seen a source accepted on this blog that contradicted Libertarian dogma. So why should I bother looking for acceptable sources?
The correct response is to get better sources that actually show evidence that the Slate piece is wrong.
winter
> For the rest, we have to admit the US to beat us in any of these attrocities.
Europe sends thoughtcriminals to jail, and it is sending one hell of a lot of thoughtcriminals to jail.
In the US, the DoJ sues companies that hire known thoughtcriminals, making thoughtcriminals unemployable. It is bad, but it is one step further away from gulags,killing fields, and megadeaths than Europe is.
When Occupy attempted to silence its opponents, Antifa style, police quietly wandered off and let those whose speech was to be silenced take care of things, to the great shock and outrage of Occupy. That is several steps further away from gulags,killing fields, and megadeaths than Europe is.
So, come back complaining when the US have less prisoners, less violence and better free speech protection than us.
@winter “They won’t take over our governments. They cannot even take over their own country.”
Watching someone bury their head in the sand is so entertaining.
Some parts of Europe are already under Sharia law. Crimes by invaders are rarely prosecuted. The EU-elite are so politically correct they won’t take any action in defense of their own people or country. The takeover is already happening, it just isn’t consummated yet. And nevermind how they are winning the demographic race.
“(And before you start, both of the Paris attacks were planned and executed by EU citizens, with minor participation of fake refugees)”
This isn’t correct. But even if it were, so what? That you give citizenship to a sworn enemy only bolsters my point. Thanks for the help.
You are all arming up to shoot Democratic compatriots?
One can always rely on a leftist to either be incapable of understanding their opponents, or deliberately missing the point.
What we mean by this sort of thing is that we are armed so that if someone of your tribe or any other tribe attempts to impose their will on us by force we can defend against it. Perhaps you disagree with every aspect of that belief, but it is good for your own mental hygiene to have some smattering of understanding of what your opponent really believes.
James Donald,
Brandishing a shotgun in your girlfriend’s face is NOT a strong indicator of law-abiding character.
Bragging about killing a guy and getting away with it on Twitter is NOT a strong indicator of law-abiding character.
Tweeting revenge porn of your ex is NOT a strong indicator of law-abiding character.
Since the miscarriage of justice that was his acquittal, Zimmerman has shown himself, repeatedly, to be a mentally unstable individual and precisely the sort of person who shouldn’t be allowed to own or wield a firearm under any circumstances.
esr:
> Wilson’s technique was quite good considering the extremity of the situation:
Zimmerman’s situation was rather more extreme
@Winter: It was collectively decided to make it land.
“Collectively” on what scale? As I understand it, it was originally on the scale of small communities.
Such a large enterprise is organized by our government.
It is currently; but as I understand it, there was no central government of the Netherlands when much of the land was originally reclaimed. The enterprise has gradually been centralized, for what is probably a variety of reasons.
All this is just distracting that the maintenance of reclaimed land is a public good.
In the sense that it’s impossible to benefit just some of the people living on the land and not others, yes. But that doesn’t mean it has to be funded coercively.
Give me a better model than taxes.
As you describe it, nobody actually has to be forced to pay the taxes; you said everyone understands the need to maintain the reclaimed land, so they would pay for it willingly even if the government did not force them to by collecting taxes. So you’ve already overcome the biggest obstacle to getting public goods funded: getting everyone who benefits to recognize the benefit.
Just abandoning a profitable enterprise, we living on reclaimed land, because you object to paying taxes sound idiotic.
Who said anything about abandoning a profitable enterprise? If it’s profitable, it doesn’t have to be funded coercively.
@James Donald:
>>Polish Tatars are far below one percent – and are not at fully integrated at all
You’re talking out of your rear end once again. In nearby Russia, virtually all Tatar muslims are fully integrated into Russian identity/society. It is only the Muslims of the north caucus (a recent acquisition by Russia) who have big troubles with Russia (nationalist conflicts, e.g. Chechnya). Last I checked, a christian north caucuses country called “Georgia” also has major nationalistic conflicts with Russia and that country also was a recent acquisition of the Russian empire before its independence after the fall of the soviet union. Oh and the percentage of muslims in Russia is about 20% with Tatars counting in the millions.
>> Muslims don’t organize to systematically cause organized trouble until they exceed one percent. Chronic civil war sets in at ten to thirty percent. To keep the peace at one percent is easy. To keep the peace at thirty percent is possible, but requires terrifyingly and shockingly extreme measures.
See comment above. Which countries do you have in mind that haven’t been totally fucked by european missionaries and where Muslims make 10-30% of the population where there are problems? None. In south India, they’re integrated into the tolerant Dravidian (non indo-european culture). It is only in the indo-european north (with its hindu nationalists) where the sectarian problems are. In africa, every country that has indigenous christianity of the non-toxic european-missionary variety (e.g. Eritrea, Ethiopia) muslims and christians have rather co-existed peacefully with muslims making ~30% of the population there.
It is only countries that your white brethren have totally fucked over with their toxic form of christianity and proselytization that are at near civil war conditions (e.g. Nigeria). Mind you, those are countries where Islam spread mainly via trade and sufi orders and co-existed with animist beliefs centuries (800+ yrs in some cases) before the first white man set foot there.
Private enterprise land reclamation:
1. A private company reclaims the land and rents it out on long term leases.
2. A private company reclaims the land, and sells it. Attached to each block is an obligation to contribute to pumping and dike maintenance.
I am the part owner of various private roads, which pose a similar problem. On the small scale, you just go around and nag your neighbors to do their fair share of road maintenance. Generally they tend to slack, so the road tends to be somewhat potholed. As the scale gets larger, starts to resemble a local government, except it was formed entirely voluntarily, through contract, precedent, and custom.
>>“The correct response is to get better sources that actually show evidence that the Slate piece is wrong.“
I have already shown how your previous Slate citation was wrong and you didn’t correctly respond with a retraction or even acknowledgement of your error. What evidence have you presented that you’ve since discovered some intellectual honesty?
>Where are the examples of decent, law abiding black people being taken down like Bambi in the forest
This one:
http://theweek.com/speedreads/445604/dash-cam-video-captures-white-cop-shooting-unarmed-black-man-who-reaching-drivers-license
But naturally it didn’t go viral, because, by the slatestarcodex rule mentioned above, there was no controversy over how to interpret it, so no one talked about it.
Still, this argument is a little like a father who beat his child to death saying “but she wouldn’t shut up …” Just because someone did something wrong isn’t license to kill them. The problem here is that judgment and humanity is required, but most people, like Jessica, want black and white. Is he “a thug”? Then who cares if he gets killed.
There are ways to defuse situations. Chicago cops don’t get much training in that approach unfortunately. I sympathize with Van Dyke. I also think he committed a crime. A friend of a friend was a teacher at Sullivan who knew McDonald. The “turning his life around” thing is a ridiculous trope in many of these cases, but she actually felt that way about Johnson. I know that breaking into trucks while hopped up isn’t a sign of turning things around. On the other hand, I have another aquaintance, white guy from SW side, who admits to breaking into a semi when he was young. He is now a cop in a SW suburb. People do turn their lives around, even after doing things that are thuggish. Clearly, what sent this even spiraling downward was Johnson’s repeated refusals to acknowledge the authority of the police. But good policing might have made it turn out better.
The other thing I’d say is that I’ve heard the n-word very sparingly in my life. Perhaps 4 or 5 people in my nearly 50 years. One of them was a Chicago cop and another the sister of a Chicago cop. It’s hard to make good decisions about situations with that shit lodged in your brain. The department is in need of a “Weed and Seed” a la the Mexican federales. Get rid of 10% or more and then rehire. If you don’t like and respect the communities you police, you need to look for a different job.
>A young black man acting erratically and wielding a knife on the street in Chicago is a distinct threat pattern. This reality is not diminished by liberal platitudes about abstract social equality.
I’ve lived in Chicago for decades, in two mixed neighborhoods, Taylor St (in the 90s, pre-Little Italy gentrification, around the corner from ABLA) and Humboldt Park west of California. Frankly, you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. You’re mouthing platitudes of rage you learned on tv or through some other disconnected media. This kid was way out of control, but nothing about living/working in poor communities in Chicago inevitably breeds the kind of contempt that many Chicago cops display. It’s a virus that the department needs to eradicate. As people like Tracey Meares have said, police attitudes and approaches have a huge effect on the community’s willing to cooperate with them. There are two feedback loops here. And yes, I also believe that these communities need to work to eradicate the vice of contempt for police displayed by people like Laquan, Michael Brown and even Walter Scott (what kind of idiot overweight 50 year old thinks he should fight an armed cop?) I hear a fair amount, including today from a colleague I respect, about how black parents have to give their sons a talk about how to handle police stops. I can’t help but think “why didn’t Laquan, Mike Brown or Walter Scott’s parents give them the talk.
> 2. A private company reclaims the land, and sells it. Attached to each block is an obligation to contribute to pumping and dike maintenance.
You know, I’ve always wondered what Libertarians think the end result of this logic is? What happens when all the land is owned, and all land has some obligation or another “attached”? I think it ends up looking a lot like the world we live in (with those who have the rights to collect those obligations assuming the role of states), or at least the feudal precursor thereto.
> Germany’s crime numbers are lower than the USA’s, but not that much lower.
Milhouse wrote:
>They’re a lot lower than Chicago’s, St Louis’s, or Baltimore’s.
So Milhouse, is your theory that in Germany, crime is evenly distributed across geography and demography? Somehow, I doubt that.
> Which countries do you have in mind that haven’t been totally fucked by european missionaries and where Muslims make 10-30% of the population where there are problems? None. In south India, they’re integrated into the tolerant Dravidian (non indo-european culture). It is only in the indo-european north (with its hindu nationalists) where the sectarian problems are
You are simply lying barefaced because you want white people murdered and raped. Millions have been murdered within living memory in India North and South, millions more will be murdered.
Here is a map of terror in India. As you can see, the difference between North And South is barely noticeable http://pamelageller.com/2006/03/bloody_bloody_b.html/
If somewhat fewer are murdered in South India, it is because they have somewhat fewer Muslims, but the difference is insignificant.
There is no country anywhere in the world, nor has there ever been any country anywhere in the world, with a substantial Muslim minority where they have peace, except that that peace is maintained, as for example in Mindanao, by horrifying and terrifying means.
>Yes, this happens all over from Iraq to US cities, but only because liberals are holding the stronger side back and not allowing the stronger side to escalate so hard that further resistance would be absolutely futile.
The huge decline in violence that we’ve seen in this country began and saw the greatest declines while Clinton was president. There is no evidence for what you’ve written. Only your theology. Bill Bratton had as much responsibility as anyone for it, running the departments in the two biggest cities during the time when both became more peaceful than they’d been in decades, and he is a Democrat.
The biggest thing that has changed in the last decade is not the crime or murder rate, but the nature of media. Local media has died, replaced by national media, and so there is always another sensational crime to latch onto, making people feel that the country is more violent even as it has become massively less so.
@JAD
“As the scale gets larger, starts to resemble a local government, except it was formed entirely voluntarily, through contract, precedent, and custom.”
So, we replace a tax system where we have representation to a tax system where we either have no representation or do have representation.
And how is this an improvement?
And I do not see how this “voluntary contract” scales to millions of people.
@ ryanch – “I’ve lived in Chicago for decades, in two mixed neighborhoods . . . You’re mouthing platitudes of rage you learned on tv or through some other disconnected media.”
You appear to be a new participant on the board, and have need of some learning curve. Since you have quoted me in your comment, I will provide some feedback that may of use.
I also grew up in mixed neighborhood in East Cleveland, Ohio. See the web link below for a GoogleMap street view of the house I was raised in. Single mother, five kids, food stamps, the whole nine yards. My best friend in 3rd Grade at Chambers Elementary was Henry Whifield, a 6′ tall gentle giant to my 4′ skinny frame. Henry was black and I am white. I may have watched too much TV in my youth, but I have never suffered from platitudes of rage. And I grew up witnessing firsthand the horrific destruction of black families that was wrought by Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society legislation.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/1362+E+134th+St,+East+Cleveland,+OH+44112/@41.541008,-81.5913637,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x8830fea4e633bd71:0xf338e117457e7116
>It’s easy to miss, because the first shot happens only a fraction of a second later; that’s why I think Van Dyke had pre-instructed himself with “If he turns, I shoot”
Basketball and soccer players are taught that the hips are the best sign of future direction of motion. He never comes close to squaring his hips to Van Dyke. There are two slight changes in posture/direction. One is at 5:32 of the Vox version, when he crosses the white line, and his heading changes from perhaps 200 degrees to 185; ie, a 15-degree change of course, from SW to nearly due south on Pulaski, just inside the right lane marking. A second later, his shoulders do seem to turn slightly towards Van Dyke, but notice his legs and hips. They don’t turn. He is not making a move on Van Dyke.
The flash of the blue light has briefly illuminated him. If you watch the whole video, including the 5 minutes of driving, you’ll see something I’d never noticed – Mars bars seem to have a spotlight effect that moves across the field of the camera – this blue spotlight has just passed across him, and I’m not entirely sure the turn of shoulder is real, or an optical illusion as the light keeps moving. At any rate, he is already off balance, slightly backwards and to the right, at the point that his shoulders turn. (I’m doing significantly faster than half second stop-starts. I’d love to have the frames individually.)
I’d note that the clearest view I’ve found is in the Vox version. I know they are probably all using the same video, perhaps even embedding the exact same video, but each site has its preferred settings, so maybe Vox just aligns best with the resolution of my screen.
At the risk of a horrible trivialization, I’ll mention that this video may have forever ruined Andrew Bird’s Pulaski at Night, which I’ve always felt is an amazing song. My brain can’t help but make it the soundtrack to this silent video.
To summarize my post above, at best, the kid’s shoulders are aimed less at Van Dyke at the time of the shot than they were 5 seconds before, because he’s about to pass him. He has not yet passed him, though, he’s still a few feet in front, and given the lane width, the diagonal, and the fact that Van Dyke is centered above the leftmost pair of the 4 yellow lines, they are still 12-15 feet apart at the point Van Dyke “steps into” his shot (not 10 feet as has been stated here and elsewhere, perhaps including the police report.)
I think it’s interesting to watch Van Dyke’s feet. He does “step into” the shot. It’s a smooth motion of several steps that begins before McDonald’s shoulder turns. This may be important, to me, it seems to suggest
After writing to this point, I discovered that clicking the YouTube link in the Vox video, I can use YouTube settings to slow down the video, and this thoroughly convinces me that there is no pre-shot shoulder turn. Rapidly pressing start-stop in the .25 speed, you see that the “shoulder turn” is actually his upper body falling/jerking slightly to the right, away from the officer, presumably on impact.
A couple final comments. First, ESR, someone above told you that McDonald had been breaking into houses, and you seemed to take this into your assessment of him. That’s incorrect, though. He was breaking into 1 or more trucks in a truck parking lot a half mile away. Two truckers saw it, called it in (in garbled English, leading some to believe that one of the truckers had apprehended him briefly, which is clearly not the case when you read the witness testimony of the other trucker), had a brief confrontation, and then he took off.
Breaking into trucks isn’t great, but it’s rather different from breaking into houses.
In discovering the youtube slow speed, I forgot to complete the previous sentence in my post-above. The fact that Van Dyke moves into the shot smoothly makes me wonder whether he’d already decided to shoot before the supposed shoulder turn. I no longer believe there was a shoulder turn, but for those who do, you should consider what Van Dyke’s body language says. I might have thought a sudden, stressful reaction of fear and adrenaline would be at least somewhat reflected in his motions. I don’t see that.
I could be wrong in my assessment of how a normal “good shoot” would look, how the officer would move through the shot. If someone has experience or can point me to a video, I would be interested.
I have heard (friend of friend with all the unreliability that implies, yet I can’t see why either had a motive to make it up) that Van Dyke indicated he wanted this one. “hold him for me” or something like that. The foaf is a CPD detective. Take it with a grain of salt. And the words could be interpreted differently – hold him till I get there to gain control of the situation.
For me, they line up with my assessment of his motion. He was eager. He tried to jump out earlier, while the Tahoe was still moving, but Walsh, his partner, told him they were too close to McDonald and kept driving.
The partner pairs wig me out. Walsh and Van Dyke; Gaffney and McElligott; Bacerra and Velez. Does the CPD insist on segregated cars as policy? I’m sure they do not, but it’s troubling that it just works out that way so often. On the SW side, you’d think they’d want to spread their Hispanic officers out.
@gmmay
“I have already shown how your previous Slate citation was wrong and you didn’t correctly respond with a retraction or even acknowledgement of your error.”
Oh, that was you targeting a number (of shootings) I did not care about because the message was about the cost of private gun ownership. I tried to point that out but I have obviously failed. How you want to define “mass shooting” is irrelevant to me. I consider more than two victims “massive” enough. This amounts to number fetishism.
As our gracious host so often remarks, in the grand scheme of things, the mass shootings do not weigh in heavily, neither in number of victims, nor in “costs”. So, whether there were 351 mass shootings or “only” 73 is not important for my message.
But my principal objection to your reasoning is that I will consider each statement on its merit. I do not care whether I “like” the messenger or not. To go to extremes, just because, James A Donald or Rush Limbaugh say something does not in itself make it wrong.
@James Donald
>> You are simply lying barefaced because you want white people murdered and raped .
No I do not want white people murdered and raped. I want those who have your ideology and beliefs to be re-patriated to their mother continent, to live in a homeland in their natural habitat on territory they have unquestionable legitimacy to, and practice whatever ideologies, values, religions, they want. And also replenish their dwindling numbers on their native territories. There is a place for “white separatists”. It is called Europe. And you can take O’Reilly, Trump, and Megyn Kelly with you to setup TV stations where you can broadcast day in and day out sh_t about how great you and your people are (like they do in north korea). I don’t have a problem with that at all.
Likewise, if Chinese supremacist movement were to develop in America, I’d want them back in China, somewhere between the wall and south China sea coast.
If a Hindutva hindu upper caste supremacist movement were to develop in America, I’d want them back on their subcontinent.
That is all. Instead of bitching and moaning, and cursing at the world and venting on that blog of yours, I will show you how to light a candle. Why don’t you and your kind organize yourselves and demand the “right of return” to your european homeland, the way some south african whites are doing these days. Let’s say somewhere in Scotland (where many southern whites hail from). It is not as heavily populated as England and it is quite viable and feasible to set up your own state there. There is no linguistic barrier with the rest britain. Britain, with its great traditions of rule by consent going all the way back to magna carta will give you a referendum for self determination. You can establish your paradise there. And I am a 100% sure the rest of the world would support you on it. No?
The fascist @uma finally shows his (?) true colors. In ira, veritas?
Fascism is radical authoritarian nationalism, where nationalism is defined as loyalty to ones ethnic heritage.
@uma is willing to discriminate equally against whites, Chinese or Hindu, so there must be some racial superiority mixed in there too (probably over-compensating for deep-seated self loathing, with displaced blame to some “oppressor[s]”).
Authoritarianism is blatantly visible too, as @uma rejects any dissent from the “ideologies, values, religions” of the Holy State.
Mass migration? Doesn’t get any more radical than that. Guess we’ll have to see whether the final solution to the white question will include forced swims back across the Atlantic.
The only open question is whether @uma considers Thomas Sowell, Ben Carson, Nikki Haley and Bobby Jindal “white” enough to shove them into the Atlantic too.
@Parallel:
As far as I know a third of the population of Algeria (white settlers) were asked by their homeland’s government (France) to pack their bags and leave back to France after the Algerian war of liberation. No one had to swim across the Mediterranean and nobody in the rest of the world called that a “Fascist solution”. They called it, and the liberation of the continent of Africa that happened along with it, a triumph for humanity.
When Winston Churchill, Franklin Roosevelt, and Stalin sat down and decided to ethnically cleanse 12 million Germans from lands continuously inhabited for a 1000 yrs before WW2 nobody called that “Fascism”. Everybody called it the “Triumph against fascism”.
>> The only open question is whether @uma considers Thomas Sowell, Ben Carson, Nikki Haley and Bobby Jindal “white” enough to shove them into the Atlantic too.
I like Thomas Sowell. I share his views on economics and many other social issues. Non of those folks believe in slavery as far as I know, or women as property, or in white supremacy and think that is “common sense” to hold those beliefs which your friend James Donald believes in. So may I ask why you’re trying to hide behind these people and cloak yourself with their skin color? I wonder why.
@Parallel
“Fascism is radical authoritarian nationalism, where nationalism is defined as loyalty to ones ethnic heritage.”
Not even close:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fascism
And there is nothing in Uma’s comments that hints of fascism. On the other hand, about James’ and your comments, we really could argue.
JAD, you’re missing one crucial detail:
“esr:
> Wilson’s technique was quite good considering the extremity of the situation:
Zimmerman’s situation was rather more extreme.”
Yes, but Zimmerman was also in contact with Martin. No aiming required.
@Random832:
[Let me start with something of a stage aside: I’m an anarchist, not a libertarian, so I can’t guarantee what I say below actually applies to either big-L or small-L libertarian views. Still, I believe this question deserves some sort of answer.]
Land obligations resembles the modern day structure of governments only if you focus on a limited set of the powers granted to government. While the example of communal infrastructure obligations (roads, waterworks, etc.) certainly makes this resemblance appear strong, this is not the limit of powers granted to government. The reasons for funding such items as unemployment insurance, retirement, poverty reduction, art, education, healthcare, emergency response, or scientific research as a land obligation are far more tenuous. For a counterexample, the red Cross, a charity organization, performs emergency response, healthcare, and poverty reduction functions without the use of land-linked taxes or usage fees, and provides their services across national borders.
Similar alternate non-government structures have been proposed for retirement and unemployment (managed through labor unions), or art and scientific research (funded from associations of local museums). If similar disconnected and distributed organizations were applied for all of the powers only loosely “attached” to land title, the resulting structure would not resemble modern governments very much at all. Not only would there be a multitude of such overlapping organizations in one area, these organizations (like the Red Cross) would not necessarily stop services at a common border.
@Alex K.
“Similar alternate non-government structures have been proposed for retirement and unemployment (managed through labor unions), or art and scientific research (funded from associations of local museums). If similar disconnected and distributed organizations were applied for all of the powers only loosely “attached” to land title, the resulting structure would not resemble modern governments very much at all.”
Is the fact that this is an almost perfect description of Medieval European society an accident or is it on purpose?
And what makes you think such a society would not just fast-forward retrace the historical evolution towards a modern state?
‘and what makes you think such a society would not just fast-forward the historical evolution towards a modern state?’
What makes you think evolution has a direction? When David Friedman wrote, in The Machinery of Freedom, that he didn’t mind if people called him a socialist, or a catholic, or etc, he was doing what sensible adults do when the rest of us try to slap labels on their dicks and yank them off to our retard farms. He was ignoring distractions from on the machinery of freedom: reasonably informed people making reasonably free contracts.
In Holland’s case, which sounds like a pretty well-run place already, libertarians think it would work even better if its incorporated townships and other incorporated governmental bodies were run by people whose passions were backstopped by personal interest- vis, their money. Instead of someone else’s money. If I lived in Holland, I’d be tempted to avoid risking any such change for fear it would go wrong. Always keep a hold of Nurse, for fear of finding something Worse. But ‘my government is incompetent, corrupt and dangerous, but I’m scared to try to make something better’ is not an ideal. ‘Increase the power of the State, expecting the State to magically wither away’ is not an intelligent ideal. Getting the smartest, best informed people, with the most skin in the game, that you can find, to make agreements between themselves- well, that’s a lot of work.
> The reasons for funding such items as unemployment insurance, retirement, poverty reduction, art, education, healthcare, emergency response, or scientific research as a land obligation are far more tenuous.
Freedom of contract – a land obligation can be whatever the person who sells you the land wants it to be.
@Winter:
First: medieval society was founded upon the theory of “Divine Right of Kings”, under which the King carried plenipotent authority (even the Catholic church operated under a similar system, but with non-contiguous land authority and the Pope as regent). While most modern democracies do claim a similar central, unitary authority, this is not always plenipotent (such as with the EU’s European Parliament or the member states; both cannot be simultaneously plenipotent). All I am proposing is to take this idea of shared power to the logical conclusion, with what is currently each agency of a unitary authority granted independence of action and a strict set of powers for a narrowly stated purpose.
Secondly: as democratic systems have grown ever more inclusive over the past ~150 years, the idea of strict, geographical demarcation becomes more and more regressive in appearance. For instance, were a hurricane made landfall at the mouth of the Rio Grande, why should there be differential aid to the afflicted parties on each side of the river when they incur similar losses? When we temporarily forget this discrepancy is caused by a national border, the process appears as arbitrary as the concept of “second-class citizens” or stating that women may not vote. While the most conservative elements in society may be willing to support a transition away from such an inclusive society, I do not believe the population in general would do so.
Third, the current spread of multinational businesses and international communications already are putting pressure on the legal frameworks of the current (geographically limited) government model. Questions of international labor standards, trademark or copyright violations, and similar cross-border business vastly complicate international relations, but due to the volume of such trade we cannot close borders economically—and any group attempting to re-form a unitary government from a system of overlapping, non-geographical jurisdictions would find it just as painful and difficult to “put the genie back in the bottle”.
@Random832:
That wasn’t the argument. The question is not if a obligation can be attached to the land, but if it can logically be claimed the obligation must be so attached. The example Winter keeps drumming—maintaining a seawall—is an example of an obligation that “must” attach to the land. (Without the seawall, there would be no land to sell.) Roadway or right-of-passage works very similarly, as the land potentially could not be used (ie., may be fully surrounded by other claims and inaccessible) without.
However, none of the other services I listed directly impact if a particular location is viable—only how desirable it may be. As a result, while these obligations can be carried through land titles, I treat any claims that they must do so with skepticism.
> Roadway or right-of-passage works very similarly, as the land potentially could not be used (ie., may be fully surrounded by other claims and inaccessible) without.
But the land that would be inaccessible without the right-of-way is not the same land that the right-of-way passes through, and why should the latter care if the former is inaccessible (he could, after all, claim that there’s no reason the road must pass through his land and not one of his other neighbors’.
@Bruce
“In Holland’s case, which sounds like a pretty well-run place already, libertarians think it would work even better if its incorporated townships and other incorporated governmental bodies were run by people whose passions were backstopped by personal interest- vis, their money. Instead of someone else’s money.”
We just had a period where things like that were tried out in various parts of the “government sector”. The infamous “Privatizations” as started by Thatcher. The damage was quite massive in parts. The idea that you can “sue them” when they go to the dark side is a fiction. The, considerable, damage is already done and somehow, the money is always gone. Jailing people is difficult and does not mend the damage. It seems the public opinion is going in the direction that we should keep a close eye on the ball.
If we go to the basics, society needs “Public Goods” to survive and these must be managed and paid for. Libertarians and anarchists want to produce public goods with individual contracts. So far, that has not worked in practice, if it even would work in theory. And I do not see many people eager to try them out on their own livelihood.
So, if you want to try it in your own country, feel free to show us the way. But expect us to watch how it pans out for you before we try it ourselves.
Random832 writes: “But the land that would be inaccessible without the right-of-way is not the same land that the right-of-way passes through, and why should the latter care if the former is inaccessible (he could, after all, claim that there’s no reason the road must pass through his land and not one of his other neighbors’.”
I don’t know if anyone’s dancing around the concept intentionally or if it simply hasn’t occurred to anyone to say the term, but right-of-way laws are typically referred to as easement. Search on that, and you turn up plenty of documentation on how it works and why it’s a thing. Search on it plus “libertarian” and you get plenty of hits discussing it from that angle. (Among those hits, I found a fairly good article on mises.org, and some comments critiquing one Matt Bruenig, who appears to have an odd hate-on for libertarianism for reasons including “but what about right-of-way, huh? Huh??”.)
winter writes: Libertarians and anarchists want to produce public goods with individual contracts. So far, that has not worked in practice, if it even would work in theory. And I do not see many people eager to try them out on their own livelihood.
It’s not enough to point to specific examples of public goods that individual contracts didn’t bring about before a fiat collective action did, and use that to justify the overall superiority of collective action. You have to also look at the problems that collective action causes, that individual contracts will not, and show that those problems will not overtake the public goods.
(This is one of those points where I could see myself dissenting, however weakly, from ESR’s anarcho-capitalism. I imagine it possible for an unusually bright person to have a good idea and implement it more quickly by seizing power and enacting it by fiat, than by taking the high road and convincing enough people that it’s a good idea that they voluntarily go into it; later, everyone who was forced, comes to like the idea and is grateful. HOWEVER, even A-C allows for this type of behavior, if one considers how such systems respond to individual actors who violate A-C’s rules. A-C would basically say that bright people could take such chances, but are open to being sued for damages if the idea doesn’t pan out. The people affected can always choose not to sue.)
> But the land that would be inaccessible without the right-of-way is not the same land that the right-of-way passes through, and why should the latter care if the former is inaccessible
Well I had exactly this problem with a neighbor who can access his property without using the shared road. He made improvements that intruded upon the road, so I took a diamond power saw, cut his improvements off at the right of way line, and restored the road, thereby maintaining the precedent that the road is the road, and is in use as a road. This action was legal, as the road has always been in use as a road for as long as anyone can remember.
uma wrote: Can guns be used for self defense? Absolutely. But not without the cost of added homicides and suicides and mass shootings
The cost of my gun was $650 + tax. I don’t recall anything on the sales receipt mentioning homicides, suicides, or mass shootings, and I’m not aware of any of these things happening as a result of my purchase.
And the road has been surveyed, and the boundaries of the road are marked and recorded.
@Dan
“I own guns because of wretched scum like you. ”
@Winter
“Are you saying you want to kill me for my political believes?
Another reason to fight the spread of guns.”
Exactly the opposite. We can tolerate you because we’re armed.
Weaker, less-confident people respond more violently to relatively minor threats. (They need to.)
@Jeff L:
>>The cost of my gun was $650 + tax. I don’t recall anything on the sales receipt mentioning homicides, suicides, or mass shootings, and I’m not aware of any of these things happening as a result of my purchase.
Do you know for certain that your kid is not gonna take your gun and shoot a dozen people in his school, or kill himself? Forget about the lives of the dozen people. How much is your kid worth to you in dollars plus tax?. That is “cost”.
>Do you know for certain that your kid is not gonna take your gun and shoot a dozen people in his school, or kill himself? Forget about the lives of the dozen people. How much is your kid worth to you in dollars plus tax?. That is “cost”.
Do you know for certain that your rampant priapic member won’t take forcible control of your body and COMPEL you to forcible anally rape entire classrooms of preschoolers? (The point stands as well if you are not, in fact, biologically male.)
uma: Do you know for certain that your kid is not gonna take your gun and shoot a dozen people in his school, or kill himself? Forget about the lives of the dozen people. How much is your kid worth to you in dollars plus tax?. That is “cost”.
If either of those things happen, then I’ve failed as both a parent and responsible gun owner. From my perspective, the cost of failure is infinite (my child), so it is in my best interest to make sure that cost is never incurred. So the net cost of my gun is still only $650 + tax. No homicides, suicides, or mass shootings included.
winter writes:
> Libertarians and anarchists want to produce public goods with individual contracts. So far, that has not worked in practice
My road is a public good produced by individual contracts, written and unwritten.
What is a mall but privately owned sidewalk and parking?
@Winter
> The infamous “Privatizations” as started by Thatcher. The damage was quite massive in parts.
I don’t know about the Dutch, but Thatcher’s privatization was such that many of her policies which were deeply, explosively divisive are now just assumed to be correct. It is kind of like how the religious nuts went batshit crazy over The Beatles and their druggie songs, but now “Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds” is elevator musak. The most notable thing about Blair was not what he did, but what he did not undo of Thatcherism.
> If we go to the basics, society needs “Public Goods” to survive and these must be managed and paid for.
But your argument reminds me of that debate an atheist like me has over the existence of God. “How can you know Jessica that some super powerful beings don’t exist somewhere else in this vast universe? And if they are so powerful, would we not call them God?” And were I to stipulate to such an argument, which is on its surface fair, it somehow means I have to eat the Bible, wear a long dress and bonnet, and keep my pants zipped until a priest says it is ok to conceive a child with my holy husband.
Which is to say it is a great tactic to pick at the most difficult cases in any philosophy and point out its flaws, and from that make grand extrapolations. But in the case of public goods far and away the majority of abuses and taxes go into schemes that just don’t fall into that category. Social security, medicare, medicaid, charity, welfare, control over massive quantities of “public” land, drug standardization and control, ownership of the radio spectrum, allocation of mineral rights on “public” land, long distance toll roads, disgraceful eminent domain, and my biggest bugbear of all, public schooling, and on and on.
Can we accept that these are horrible ways to produce these supposedly public goods? And if we can, I am sure we will all be happy to consider the detailed arguments about who fixes potholes in local streets, or seawalls and harbors.
uma
>As far as I know a third of the population of Algeria (white settlers) were asked by their homeland’s government (France) to pack their bags and leave back to France after the Algerian war of liberation. No one had to swim across the Mediterranean and nobody in the rest of the world called that a “Fascist solution”. They called it, and the liberation of the continent of Africa that happened along with it, a triumph for humanity.
Even though most of those “white settlers” had been born in Algeria, many of them from parents also born in Algeria.
So if we deport all Mestizos and Indios back to Mexico and all blacks back to Liberia, and all Muslims back to Syria, Yemen, and Libya and any other part of the middle east that cannot stop us from doing so, then that too should be a triumph of humanity and a liberation of the white race.
> Brandishing a shotgun in your girlfriend’s face is NOT a strong indicator of law-abiding character.
Zimmerman did not brandish a shotgun in his girlfriend’s face. You guys are just telling each other these stories preparatory to murdering him.
> Since the miscarriage of justice that was his acquittal, Zimmerman has shown himself, repeatedly, to be a mentally unstable individual and precisely the sort of person who shouldn’t be allowed to own or wield a firearm under any circumstances.
Since his acquittal, you guys have been trying to murder him, and then accusing that the actions he takes to avoid being murdered are crimes or indications of mental instability (examples, barricading his home, trying to calm down Matthew Apperson)
He keeps getting charged, yet each charge is dropped, and he comes up smelling of roses, as in the Mathew Apperson case, where he refrained from using his guns to protect his life despite Mathew Apperson shooting him.
I am pretty sure if you guys came after me the way Mathew Apperson came after Zimmerman, I would not show the calmness and self control that Zimmerman showed. If I got shot I would empty all my guns in the general direction of the person shooting at me.
@Jeff L:
If either of those things happen, then I’ve failed as both a parent and responsible gun owner. From my perspective, the cost of failure is infinite (my child), so it is in my best interest to make sure that cost is never incurred. So the net cost of my gun is still only $650 + tax. No homicides, suicides, or mass shootings included.
Great. So we both agree that the cost of failure is infinite. Now explain to me how you would make sure that this cost is never incurred, and let’s find out if your logic and calculus adds up.
I am quite certain, all “responsible gun owners” think that they’re “responsible parents” too, and that their spawned offspring -even in its teenage years- is in as perfect and responsible state as its parents. Especially if the family watched O’Reilly, and Glenn Beck for their quality family time together, and meditated on Limbaugh during lunch time.
@Garrett: thanks for the illustrative examples!
By the same token, @uma, how would you factor in the societal benefits of gun ownership as a deterrent to communist repression? You know, the ideology that was responsible for 85-100 million deaths by government?
Did the dead Federal agents at Ruby Ridge and Waco contribute “the blood of patriots” that the “tree of liberty” requires for refreshment? As tragic and unfair as those deaths were, and as crazy as Weaver and Koresh were, they didn’t suffer the fate described by a survivor of communist oppression:
“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If…if…We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation…. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”
? Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
@Jessica
“Can we accept that these are horrible ways to produce these supposedly public goods? And if we can, I am sure we will all be happy to consider the detailed arguments about who fixes potholes in local streets, or seawalls and harbors.”
Not all of your examples are public goods in a strict sense. Goods and services have positive and negative utilities and effects that vary in the way they are exclusionary.
Some are truely private, like the proverbial apple or cake that I can eat or sell. Others are truely non-exclusionary like low crime levels or dikes. Most are inbetween.
Every society puts their own boundary where they think public goods start and community involvement (coercian in Libertarian view) is needed.
Your example of drug standardization is a case in point. The positive externalities of standard drug testing and safety procedures are large. Health care has a strong tendency to develop into a lemons market with bad consequences for public health. Good public health has strong positive externalities in the form of higher productivity and economic growth. The same arguments apply to education.
In this field, societies have to make trade offs between Liberty and Efficiency. If personal freedom is considered more important than efficiency, you get low(er) efficiency. Examples are the inefficient health care system of the US or the epidemic of bad universities that sell bogus education in the US.
I think the dysfunctional wefare/pension/prison system combo is also part of this trade off as the US refuses to think through what to do with those who (temporary) are unable to work for whatever reason. The Libertarian view of wefare is Charity, which has historically shown to have very strong negative externalities.
I know that many people would find the negative externalities or lower efficiencies preferable over less freedom. But I see this is only rarely discussed explicitely. More often the negative side of this trade off is simply denied, or we are told the alternative is a new megadeath carnage.
‘The infamous ‘privatizations’ as started by Thatcher’
Most English left criticism of Thatcher’s privatizations go ‘she privatized the profits and socialized the risk’. If so, her failure was explicable according to libertarian theory. If Lloyd’s had branches run by rich people who stayed rich as long as their branch of government ran smoothly, and lost their houses otherwise- well, Lloyd’s has done well for centuries.
The hatred for Thatcher on the English left has enough personal spite in it that I suspect her rise to office was taken as a personal insult by a lot of people on the left. As if everyone who voted for Thatcher was saying ‘I vote that the 1970s-80s English left is composed of people of bad personal judgement and character’. Well, if you compare them to the 1970s-80s English right, that may seem unfair. But I think voters compared and contrasted the English left of the 1940s- Keynes, Beveredge, the people who made National Health work from the start, the fellows who convinced England to quit ruling India, the men who beat Hitler.
@Parallel:
By the same token, @uma, how would you factor in the societal benefits of gun ownership as a deterrent to communist repression? You know, the ideology that was responsible for 85-100 million deaths by government?
Good question. As I mentioned in earlier posts I am pro armed society. But not pro easy access guns and drowning in firearms. Having spent my formative years growing up in places outside of the US, I have learned that there are other ‘armed-to-teeth’ societies out there that do not have anywhere near the easy access gun problem we have here. What I learned is that in those societies people tar-up their AKs (which are fully automatics btw not the crippled shit we have here), rocket propelled grenades, and even mortars, and bury them in deep holes in their backyards for when the day might come 40 years later that they need to defend themselves and their wives and children. Sounds far better and more sensible to me than storing that shit in cabinets or fully-loaded under the pillow, and yee-hawing in celebration every time a “courageous” police officer of the one skin color, liquidates in cold bold a drugged teenager of another skin color.
If people in the US made that simple “mental shift” collectively and adopted similar more sensible modes of thinking instead of fantasizing about imaginary threats when most of them live in Switzerlands as opposed to Swazilands, wouldn’t we all be infinitely better off? I think we would, and I think there would be under no threat of tyranny.
And about hunting gear. Do the Remingtons really need to be strewn around in basements and garages? Can’t we organize ourselves into clubs, the way German society for example does for every single imaginable on of its hobbies, and come hunting season visit the clubs in groups and load up our gear in our pick up trucks and return that shit where it belongs when we’re back. Sounds like a trivial solution to me.
@Bruce
“Most English left criticism of Thatcher’s privatizations go ‘she privatized the profits and socialized the risk’. If so, her failure was explicable according to libertarian theory.”
Some of her privatizations were for services where competition is difficult to organize or cannot be allowed to fail. They simply could not work well as they were not operating in a free, competitive market. Cases that went wrong here were for endeavors where checks and balances and financial oversight were lacking.
Thatcher mixed up policies to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the British economy with pure power fights with her political opponents. The voters did not like that. Especially when the efficiency improvements and economic growth that did occur did not end up in the pockets of the voters. The infamous ‘privatized the profits and socialized the risk’ was very visible to the voters with a very clear reminder during the financial crisis of 2008.
Privatization is something sort a crutch. Ideally things should never be nationalized to begin with. If they are nationalized, just selling them off is really not ideal, too much room for insider dealing and corruption and generally fscking the market mechanism.
Once things are already nationalized, there is no truly perfect way how to un-nationalize them. The least bad thing is probably to keep it nationalized but make it self-sufficient i.e. no subsidies, just living off its profits, and probably it will be expensive and provide a bad service, and in the meantime allow a new, grassroots, startup private industry to grow up and make the nationalized one outcompeted and irrelevant.
But just taking a nationalized business and handing over the keys to the largest bidder is not ideal, too much room for graft and shady corrupted dealing.
The classic case is Russia. Can anyone claim their privatization was well done, turning former commie bigwigs into oligarchs, plus selling a lot of stuff to foreigners on the cheap? It was very badly done, obviously a lootfest. An alternative would be just giving shares to citizens, Czechs tried that, did not really work either, because the average citizen is stupid.
No, really, the general experience is that once something is nationalized, consider it cursed property, whatever you do with it, keep it or sell it off or hand to the people or anything, it will still be cursed. You cannot salvage it anymore, the best thing you can do is to encourage a NEW private industry to grow up and outcompete it.
@The Dividualist
“No, really, the general experience is that once something is nationalized, consider it cursed property, whatever you do with it, keep it or sell it off or hand to the people or anything, it will still be cursed.”
I think you are too pessimistic. But the results are mixed at best.
In my country, the privatization of the PTT into separate banking, postal and telecom services went exceptionally well. We now have a competitive telecom market and a somewhat competitive postal market. Electrical power also went reasonably well. Privatization of public transport was a failure.
Privatization in Russia was an unmitigated disaster. The question is whether there was an alternative. Central government was losing power very fast, the economy tanked, there was no legal framework or capital market needed to handle private companies, and companies were “spontaneously privatized” left and right.
http://www.europeanfinancialreview.com/?p=2376
@JAD
“Even though most of those “white settlers” had been born in Algeria, many of them from parents also born in Algeria.”
What you are saying is that the whites in the USA are at war with Hispanics and blacks. Therefor, you claim that it is justified to ethnically cleanse US soil from those “races”.
But unlike in Algeria, there is no armed conflict between Whites and the Hispanic and Black population. But you want to deport them anyway.
@Winter:
>>But unlike in Algeria, there is no armed conflict between Whites and the Hispanic and Black population. But you want to deport them anyway.
Part of the gun fetish of white America can be explained by subconscious desire to be prepared for -and in some cases initiate- these type race wars and conflicts.
The percentage of whites who would participate or sympathize with such wars is larger than the percentage of muslims (a far more heterogenous, diverse and disunited group) who have sympathies for jihadist causes and groups around the world. Trump’s popularity is probably a good gauge (though perhaps a little inaccurate) of the percentage of the whites who fall in the sympathizer category towards such wars and deportations. A minority for sure, but not an insignificant one.
>Part of the gun fetish of white America can be explained by subconscious desire to be prepared for -and in some cases initiate- these type race wars and conflicts.
You say shit like this and you have the gall to accuse others of bigotry?
Here’s a free clue, ignoramus. The National Rifle Association was founded by former Union servicemen after the Civil War for the specific purpose of teaching black people in the Reconstruction South how to defend themselves against the “night riders” who would become the Ku Klux Klan – by shooting those racist bastards.
Here’s another free clue. 20th-century gun control laws were rooted in legislation designed to disarm black freedmen. Thus the emphasis on banning cheap “Saturday night specials” and handguns in general – poor man’s weapons, rather than the rich man’s rifles and shotguns.
The U.S. gun culture, far from being racist in origin, has a proud history of fighting and rejecting racism. “That every man be armed” is taken seriously, with a clear grasp on the fact that it is the weak and marginalized who need the equalizing effect of civilian weapons the most.
@uma
“art of the gun fetish of white America can be explained by subconscious desire to be prepared for -and in some cases initiate- these type race wars and conflicts.”
Obviously. That “fear” has a continuous history down to the slavery days, when a slave revolt was always possible. Historically, this fear is also part of an explanation for the martial cultures (and cruelty) of Rome and Sparta.
But the fear for the “alien” ideologies of Communism and Islam are also good motivators. See the talk above about how they store weapons to take up against people like me.
@uma
Since no-one else much as deemed to waste their time responding to you, I’ll go ahead:
“As I mentioned in earlier posts I am pro armed society.”
No, you’re not. You want to confine everyone’s right to a narrow slice that you approve of. No thanks.
“…and drowning in firearms.”
Hyperbolic nonsense.
“.. people tar-up their AKs (which are fully automatics btw not the crippled shit we have here), rocket propelled grenades, and even mortars, and bury them in deep holes in their backyards for when the day might come…”
We’d do the same but the fainters in this country (like you?) have made it impossible to acquire the kinds of weapons that are required to wage full-on war against the kind of government we are now gaining. So we have to acquire 10x as much of lesser stuff.
“Sounds far better and more sensible to me than storing that shit in cabinets or fully-loaded under the pillow, and yee-hawing in celebration every time a “courageous” police officer of the one skin color, liquidates in cold bold a drugged teenager of another skin color.”
And with this oral diarrhea of hate-filled bigoted stereotyping we have been relieved of any obligation to take you seriously. You know less about US “gun culture” than Winter. Nice accomplishment, that.
Note that your proposal leaves women defenseless against rapists, the elderly defenseless against criminals, the weak, the poor, the minorities, and the infirm will be prey to anyone who wishes to take advantage of them. Why do you hate them so much?
“… similar more sensible modes of thinking…”
There’s nothing “sensible” about what you propose. It’s just disarmament by a different path. We will not have “common sense” gun laws thank-you-very-much as we are not sufficiently stupid to miss that it’s just a ruse for confiscation.
“…instead of fantasizing about imaginary threats when most of them live in Switzerlands as opposed to Swazilands”
The numerous dead at the hands of criminals, Islamics, and goverments are imaginary? The blood pools on the ground look quite real to me. I live out here in “Switzerland” where I can barely fathom the crime rates in Chicago, but the threat is still ever-present. And when I travel an hour down to Little Rock, all of a sudden I find myself in Swaziland. But you would have me defenseless. Go away.
“…and I think there would be under no threat of tyranny.”
Then you’re stupid. Or naive. The threat of tyranny is always present. Living in an imperfect world we just attempt to mitigate it as best possible..
“And about hunting gear. Do the Remingtons really need to be strewn around in basements and garages? Can’t we organize ourselves into clubs, the way German society…”
When a coyote is attempting to kill a very expensive animal some 200 yds down from my house you’re ok with the animal being killed and eaten. I’m not.
“Sounds like a trivial solution to me.”
Yes it does. For the enemies of liberty everywhere.
@esr
“The U.S. gun culture, far from being racist in origin, has a proud history of fighting and rejecting racism.”
So this is not typical? Or maybe it never even happened?
Black Man vs White Man Carrying ASSAULT RIFLE in Public (SOCIAL EXPERIMENT) – This is NOT a “Prank”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXrh6wAxJlw
Sorry, I forgot youtube links were displayed in-line.
@esr:
>>You say shit like this and you have the gall to accuse others of bigotry?
I am not referring to the history of arming unarmed people in America. I am referring to the fetish of acquiring guns in America – which as per media reports has been on the rise recently – and which has little to do with your history lesson and everything to do with the current atmosphere and ongoing dynamics within the country.
The child of the illegal mexican immigrant (an American citizen mind you) can be a free man too and is indeed a free man. When I start hearing Trump, O’Reilly, Limbaugh, and Megyn Kelly start calling for the arming of the children of illegals so that they defend their families against racist attacks or even governments raids where government officers overstep their limits, bounds or legal jurisdiction, I will start paying more attention to the history lesson.
>everything to do with the current atmosphere and ongoing dynamics within the country.
You accused present-day gun owners of being motivated by desire to prepare for a race war. This is not just false and vicious, it is the direct reverse of reality.
>When I start hearing Trump, O’Reilly, Limbaugh, and Megyn Kelly start calling for the arming of the children of illegals so that they defend their families against racist attacks or even governments raids
…they will start sounding like members of the actual gun culture, instead of blowhard pundits.
Winter, are you not aware that one of the biggest initiatives undertaken by pro-gun people all over the US in recent years is to enable all people everywhere to open carry (with no attendant threat of police harassment)? We’ve been having considerable success at it and more to come.
We are HAPPY that concealed carry rates among women and minorities are on the rise. It benefits us all. Society is better for it.
Bravo Eric. Uma and Winter are really getting unhinged and must resort to insulting mockery in order to feel good about themselves and assuage their cognitive dissonance.
Here in the US, we have a longstanding cultural tradition of self-reliance; of which gun ownership is fundamental trait and reflects our deep and passionate commitment to liberty for all.
The parasites are growing increasingly anxious about the new Obama-driven leap in gun sales and ammunition. They rightly fear that, should the economy crash and trigger a return to hardship, they will be forced to fend for themselves. And when your skill set is bloodsucking and whining, the future is bleak and survival is doubtful.
esr:
>> You accused present-day gun owners of being motivated by desire to prepare for a race war. This is not just false and vicious, it is the direct reverse of reality.
No I did not. I accused a segment of them (a minority) of being “subconsciously” motivated by that with Trump being their mouthpiece who says in public (deportations) what they subconsciously believe in private.
Other segments of gun owners are motivated by other reasons (e.g. irrational fear of non-existent threats, or your asian shop keepers in the crime-ridden neighborhood or whatever)
Here is what I wrote again:
Part of the gun fetish of white America can be explained by subconscious desire to be prepared for -and in some cases initiate- these type race wars and conflicts.
Trump’s popularity is probably a good gauge (though perhaps a little inaccurate) of the percentage of the whites who fall in the sympathizer category towards such wars and deportations. A minority for sure, but not an insignificant one.
Underline – “be prepared for”, “in some cases” and a “minority”.
Sorry Eric, but there are plenty of James Donalds out there in the country. And to deny that is to be blind.
>Here is what I wrote again:
Unfalsifiable bullshit, like every other accusation of “unconscious” racism.It’s a handy way to smear people you want to smear while dismissing their own or anyone else’s reports of anti-racist behavior.
I have no love for Donald Trump, but he isn’t a racist, not even in the casual way you fling around the term, and your assumptions about his supporters are yet more unfounded bigotry.
James Donalds are damn fucking rare any more. I’ve met maybe one face to face in my entire lifetime, and I just turned 58.
@winter:
A question about the waterworks. How are the costs of operation apportioned to the property owners? I can see several reasonable approaches, and several distasteful ones.
@Garrett
“A question about the waterworks. How are the costs of operation apportioned to the property owners?”
This is normally combined in a single “bill” that also includes related items, eg, drainage and sewage disposal and cleaning. But what I understand is that it is divided up based on whether there are buildings and type of land use. It is per house or apartment for residences or per surface area for land without buildings. Rates are “flat” for land area or apartment and some (fractional) percentage of the worth of the buildings.
Don’t get upset, for a family, this would run into one or two hundred euros a year. It depends on the place.
@Michael:
>> Note that your proposal leaves women defenseless against rapists, the elderly defenseless against criminals, the weak, the poor, the minorities, and the infirm will be prey to anyone who wishes to take advantage of them. Why do you hate them so much?
Yes yes. Their defense from imaginary crime is more important the 10x unnecessary deaths that will happen as a result of drowning in guns. It would fantastic indeed to arm single moms with guns for their safety from ‘rapists’. The likelihood of her being raped is indeed far more than the likelihood of one her fucked-up kids taking the gun and doing something with it.
>>When a coyote is attempting to kill a very expensive animal some 200 yds down from my house you’re ok with the animal being killed and eaten. I’m not.
Well tough luck. Maybe you should buy a coyote trap. I’d rather have your animal dead than the children at the local school. There are choices -often conflicting- and interests we have to balance to get by in this world. It’s called reality and the real world. And reality isn’t so neat as to conform with your ideology and utopian conceptions of liberty. Reality does not consist of rugged individuals pumping liberty all day long and each living on a mansion in isolation from the rest of world with loaded guns by their sides at all time to protect from trespassing intruders and coyotes. Reality has schools, children, teenagers, public spaces, mentally ill people etc. What you’re in effect saying is in the name of you’re “liberty” that you’d rather have the local children die than your animal die. That’s what it boils down to.
@esr:
>> I have no love for Donald Trump, but he isn’t a racist, not even in the casual way you fling around the term, and your assumptions about his supporters are yet more unfounded bigotry.
>> James Donalds are damn fucking rare any more. I’ve met maybe one face to face in my entire lifetime, and I just turned 58.
Well, maybe James Donald Lites are bit more plentiful and they attend the Trump rallies. Trump himself is definitely a clown not a racist.
So I’d correct myself on that one.
@Winter why isn’t it purely based on land area, just like you pay for electricity and water purely by how much energy/volume you use?
@Random832
“@Winter why isn’t it purely based on land area, just like you pay for electricity and water purely by how much energy/volume you use?”
The “water boards” are also responsible for water quality. I assume they also factor in the “pollution” in the taxes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_board_%28Netherlands%29
uma, it is people spewing bullshit like yours that push those on the fence and over into Trump’s camp.
Donald Trump is popular for one major reason. It’s not that he’s a hyper-conservative (indeed, he’s not a conservative at all). It’s that he fights.
In particular, that he fights the kind of idiocy you spout. He fights against political correctness, he fights against the leftist MSM, he fights against ski-disant “progressives”.
For too long, the Republican rank and file has hungered for someone who fights.
Now they’ve got one.
Will it win him the nomination? Hard to guess.
Will it win him the Oval Office? I seriously doubt it.
Will it hand the Oval Office to Hillary Clinton if he runs as an independent? Absolutely.
But the more you and people like you attack Trump for being RAAAAAAACIST!!!, the stronger he gets – because his supporters don’t give a fuzzy rat’s ass what you think. Indeed, that people like you get pissed off at him is seen as a feature, not a bug.
uma wrote: As I mentioned in earlier posts I am pro armed society. But not pro easy access guns
How do you propose to have an armed society without easy access to guns? Who decides who gets access and who doesn’t? Besides, everything you’ve said thus far betrays your claim of being “pro-armed society” anyway, so this statement from you is complete nonsense.
And speaking of complete nonsense…
… and yee-hawing in celebration every time a “courageous” police officer of the one skin color, liquidates in cold bold a drugged teenager of another skin color.
I can only think of one instance in recent history where a black man was executed in cold blood by a white police officer. I did not hear any “yee-hawing” when that happened – in fact it was universally condemned, and that police officer is now in jail. On the other hand, there have been some recent cases of white police officers being executed in cold blood by black men, and the “black lives matter” crowd celebrating in the streets over it, chanting “What do we want? Dead Cops! When do we want ’em? Now!” Perhaps you’ve confused that with the “yee-hawing” you refer to in your post?
@Jay Maynard
“Will it hand the Oval Office to Hillary Clinton if he runs as an independent? Absolutely.”
Yeah, Trump is really a boon to the Democrats.
There is even a conspiracy theory about it ;-)
Is Donald Trump a Democratic Plant?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/7/donald-trump-democratic-plant/
The Secret Transcript of the Phone Call between Trump and Bill Clinton
http://communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2015/10/the-secret-transcript-of-the-phone-call-between-trump-and-bill-clinton.html
>Yeah, Trump is really a boon to the Democrats.
Possibly, but there are a lot of ‘ifs’ involved.
One thing he certainly is doing that the Democrats do *not* appreciate (and they get quite hysterical) is moving the Overton window.
@Greg
“One thing he certainly is doing that the Democrats do *not* appreciate (and they get quite hysterical) is moving the Overton window.”
Trump might be “new” in the USA, but the likes of him have been around for decades in Europe.
The lessons from (Western) Europe are that they hardly get even as much as 30% of the votes. Which is quite a lot. But the rest of the electorate hates them so much that they will vote for everyone else just to block them. So they rarely end up in power. And if they do, they generally do not make a full term. (Exceptions are some of the Eastern European ones, like Orban in Hungary).
You see the same in the US. Trump will get considerably less than 30% of the votes in a general election. But he will drive out all the “centrists” to Hillary. He is already doing that. With Trump on the Ticket, Hillary could even win back BOTH houses for the Democrats.
If you want to win as a president, you have to capture the people in the center. And it is clear that Trump is not attracting votes from the center.
Two things:
1) You have, if that is possible, less than zero grasp of American electoral politics.
2) Are you familiar with the concept of the Overtones window, and how rare and novel it is for someone in American public life to interrupt its steady leftward drift?
I LOATHE autocorrect. Spot the problem my proofreading missed in the previous post ’til a tiny instant after hitting ‘post’.
@Jay Maynard
“In particular, that he fights the kind of idiocy you spout. He fights against political correctness, he fights against the leftist MSM, he fights against ski-disant “progressives”.”
So I sprout idiocies? Compared to Trump? Remarkable.
Did you mean “soi-disant” progressives?
“ski-disant” sounds like a quote from a Monty Python movie: The knights who say “Ski”!
You did call me all kind of names that seem to imply “progressive”. It is not exactly that I am fond of calling myself “progressive”. Actually, I do not consider myself particular “progressive”.
(btw, is stating that someone is able to speak French really an insult?)
For those who claim to want DATA, I’ll leave these here:
http://www.nationalreview.com/node/427985/print
https://reason.com/blog/2015/08/03/mass-shootings-study/print
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/defensive-gun-ownership-gary-kleck-response-115082_full.html#.VmnQM79H5eg
https://www.saf.org/journal/11/kleck1999.pdf
From the 2013 “Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence” as follows
http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1
Quote “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defen-
sive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by
criminals,” .p15
And, in the past 30 years gun laws in the US has become less restrictive, and in the US, violence of all types is at historic lows. This can easily be verified from any number of sources.
International homicide rates, for comparison, for the past century is a little harder to link too, but see here, p. 66:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=A4mqsik_VDcC&pg=PA46&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false
Gun control as national policy became popular among western nations around the 1920s, as best as I can tell (I’m open to correction here). And even before then, the US had higher homicide rates than the countries of Western Europe. This does not support the claim that lower modern homicide rates in Europe are a result of Europe’s restrictive gun policy v. USA less restrictive policies.
For more comparisons:
http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2010/06/16/a-crime-puzzle-violent-crime-declines-in-america/
http://ourworldindata.org/data/violence-rights/homicides/
Also forgot this Nugget:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/22/barack-obama/barack-obama-correct-mass-killings-dont-happen-oth/
@Greg
“1) You have, if that is possible, less than zero grasp of American electoral politics.”
So, then you can explain to me how a candidate can become president without the Hispanic and female voters? And how Trump is doing under Hispanics and women? Better than Romney? I doubt it.
@Greg
“2) Are you familiar with the concept of the Overtones window, and how rare and novel it is for someone in American public life to interrupt its steady leftward drift?”
Not under that name, but I looked it up. We had that 10 years ago so I know how it goes. It is general populism. If you want to see how this ends, look at the history of Peron in Argentina.
It means a lot of insults and jelling, but very little movement. It is all emotion and very little meaning. What it does mean is that the rest of the electorate will hate his followers with a vengeance. So they will all vote for whoever is running against the populist candidate.
Actually, the whole rise of Trump reminds me of several European politicians, e.g., Le Pen in France, Haider in Austria, etc. Same style, same ideas, same voters.
Sorry
@uma
“art of the gun fetish of white America can be explained by subconscious desire to be prepared for -and in some cases initiate- these type race wars and conflicts.”
Right now, its the gun control set that are proposing to stripp the rights from a vague and extra-judical list of (mostly) minorities without legal recourse. Try again.
Also, no “Citation needed” before you agree, winter? Isolated-demand-for-rigor much?
Oh, and before someone mistakes my comments for something too constructive:
@winter
“Prove this. Come to Europe and tell us how “the unarmed” are made a victim.”
Shall I start with Buchenwald or Auschwitz?
Winter on 2015-12-10 at 15:28:04 said:
> So, then you can explain to me how a candidate can become president without the Hispanic and female voters? And how Trump is doing under Hispanics and women? Better than Romney? I doubt it.
Trump is doing far better than any other Republican candidate with women and blacks, far better than any other Republican candidate with blacks, and, surprisingly, does about as well as other Republican candidates with Hispanics.
He
@daemon
“Shall I start with Buchenwald or Auschwitz?”
Please do. Nowadays, these are quite educational places to visit. You can also ask the people living around it how they think about private gun ownership. At the time of use of these camps, the Germans did kill both people with and without guns.
@JAD
“Trump is doing far better …”
Which is a lot of weasel words for “No support at all”. Trump help to chase them away from the GOP itself.
@JAD
About the support under Hispanics for Trump that should show in the polls.
They seem to be rather difficult to find:
http://www.vivala.com/politics/latino-trump-supporters/1748
@daemon
“Also, no “Citation needed” before you agree, winter? Isolated-demand-for-rigor much?”
I have no idea what you mean?
Yes, Winter, I meant “soi-disant progressives”. Autocorrect got me.
@Jay Maynard
“Autocorrect got me.”
I must admit that I think Progressives who say “Ski” is actually much better.
A case where the auto-correct beats a creative mind with many nerdy associations (the French had a “decisive” role in Monty Python and the Holy Grail).
If Trump is a boon to the Democrats, why are they wetting their pants in terror?
Seems to me that most of those earnestly advising the Republicans that Trump is good for Democrats and bad for Republicans are the same people who think that those murdered in the Bernardino massacre had it coming to them because some of them were republicans.
And the people who cannot seem to find Hispanic Trump supporters are the same people who are trying to murder Zimmerman or get him arrested on new false charges.
They are not trying very hard to find Hispanic Trump supporters, but they are trying really hard to find Zimmerman.
@JAD
“If Trump is a boon to the Democrats, why are they wetting their pants in terror?”
I think they are wetting their pants for laughter. However, as a politician you must keep a straight face when “condemning” all his nonsense. Voters count on you.
@JAD
“Seems to me that most of those earnestly advising the Republicans that Trump is good for Democrats and bad for Republicans are…”
If this wasn’t so sad, it would be a perfect comedy show about the US elections.
The real losers will be the supporters of Trump who count on him because they feel betrayed by their party. Just to be betrayed once again, but now double so by a clown.
Republicans Got the Debate They Wanted—And So Did Democrats
https://newrepublic.com/article/123426/republicans-got-debate-they-wanted-so-did-democrats
@uma
“Yes yes. Their defense from imaginary crime”
Rape is an IMAGINARY crime? Unbelievable!
” is more important the 10x unnecessary deaths that will happen as a result of drowning in guns”
Falsehood. Unsupported assertion.
“It would fantastic indeed to arm single moms with guns for their safety from ‘rapists’.”
Rapists are REAL, not quote-rapists-unquote.
You’re a hateful misogynist bigot.
“Well tough luck. Maybe you should buy a coyote trap.”
Because, ignoramus, coyote traps can’t distinguish between coyotes and dogs.
“I’d rather have your animal dead”
Your compassion for your fellow man is truly a sight to behold.
“than the children at the local school.”
False dilemma You’re full of those.
You didn’t say one single thing that is factually correct. You just spew bigoted hatred and lies.
Jessica, in Australia the government allocates mineral rights on private land, by issuing licences. It’s called the Miner’s Right. The right of miners to dig massive holes in other people’s land against their wishes.
Does this not happen in the USA?
“
Part ofthe gun control fetish ofwhiteleftist America can be explained by subconscious desire to be prepared for -and in some cases initiate- these type of race wars and conflicts against the disarmed of color.”There, @uma, fixed it for you.
(Kafkatrap much? The beauty of Kafkatraps is they go both ways once you recognize them.)
The trouble with the argument that private citizens need guns to resist and overthrow governments they despise is that Mao’s PLA and the Nazi Brownshirts were armed private citizens: peasants in the PLA and middle class in the Brownshirts.
They did indeed overthrow their hated governments, namely Chiang Kai-Shek’s Nationalists and the democratic Weimar Republic.
Perhaps you see that in a crisis, it’s the most ruthless who use their guns first and most often, and it’s they who seize and hold onto power.
Yes, it’s true that they then take away guns from their opponents, but this is because they have done away with the government that allowed widespread gun ownership, and now that they have control of the military plus their own numerous, heavily armed militias, there’s nothing able to stop them.
Yes, occasionally some Czech freedom fighter will succeed in killing a risk-taker like Reinhard Heydrich, but the regime remains in power and exacts terrible retribution.
To those who insist on taking the “Socialist” part of the Nazi party’s full name as evidence of how dangerously left wing it was, I will remind you that it was the middle class who voted for them in large numbers (some 30% of the popular vote) and a very conservative President who appointed Hitler as Chancellor.
Meanwhile, the parties on the left, with the conspicuous exception of Stalin’s puppets in The German Communist Party when told, were vociferous in their opposition to Hitler and his policies.
Some Conservatives in the UK and Republicans in the US supported Hitler, but all the Labour parties opposed him to the hilt.
Churchill’s warnings were ignored by his own party until Labour insisted that they would not join any unity cabinet that did not have Winston as its PM. That’s how he got that job, and let no conservative ever forget it.
@Parallel:
>> (Kafkatrap much? The beauty of Kafkatraps is they go both ways once you recognize them.)
Nope. No kafkatrap. And no going both ways. For the going both ways boolean to be true the rest of the world’s behavior which has varying schemes of gun regulations must a) be proven to an abnormal “fetish” and “anti-liberty” and b) your desire to have the mentally-ill have access to guns being the normal behavior of the un-fetishized mind.
@Michael:
>>Rape is an IMAGINARY crime? Unbelievable!
Yes it is. If you live in a Switzerland, and don’t subscribe to the feminist definitions of rape, it is an imaginary crime. That doesn’t justify drowning us all in guns.
If on top of that your insecurity about imaginary threats caused you to buy guns to begin with and brainwash other into buying them, then there is no reason to believe that you’ll use them properly, sensibly, and sanely once you have them.
@uma
>>Rape is an IMAGINARY crime? Unbelievable!
“Yes it is. If you live in a Switzerland, and don’t subscribe to the feminist definitions of rape, it is an imaginary crime.”
Troll. Idiot. Whether in Switzerland or here in my US version of it, RAPE HAPPENS. I can’t believe I’m arguing with this toxic moron.
“That doesn’t justify drowning us all in guns.”
A continual spew of hyperbolic nonsense. You don’t know anything about anything so you just turn on the diarrhea fountain to see what comes out.
“If on top of that your insecurity about imaginary threats…”
Tell me specifically which threats are imaginary.
” then there is no reason to believe that you’ll use them properly, sensibly, and sanely once you have them.”
I and all my family have owned guns for generations. So the “once you have them” happened more than a century ago. So you’ve been proven wrong.
Again. And again. And again.
I have the freedom to choose to be armed.
Your masters have decided that you shall not have any choice but to be disarmed.
Enjoy your stockholm syndrome.
Best of luck.
I can only speak for Texas, but mineral rights are one of the property rights attached to land and can be sold separately. Ownership of mineral rights doesn’t necessarily entail the right of entry onto the land’s surface, so oil and gas extraction, for example, may require horizontal drilling belowground.
Re: this ongoing gun control diatribe by uma and Winter
Stupidity is not a virtue, nor is it a success strategy.
Gun sales hit record levels here in the US during the Black Friday shopping extravaganza last month. This likely occurred because of all the political grandstanding and gun control threats being issued from Obama’s administration in the aftermath of recent shooting incidents. He is now hinting at some further measures, which he intends to enact by edict using an Executive Order.
Any moron should be able to predict the consequences of this action, i.e. even higher firearm sales records (not to mention the ammunition purchases which are being sold in bulk lots as big as 5,000 rounds each). Americans are very seriously arming themselves and we have long since passed the threshold where any real attempt at gun confiscation can work (even if made the law of the land). The only reason to pursue this course of action is to purposely trigger a civil insurrection.
If you morons keep yapping about gun control, soon there will be 2-3 privately owned guns for every man, woman, and child in the US.
…The only reason to pursue this course of action is to purposely trigger a civil insurrection….
I don’t know. It is so ridiculously unenforceable that I wonder if the real target isn’t the fedgov itself – Literally choking the fedgov on its own impotency.
Which may turn out to be a great thing. Which makes me wonder if Obama is actually a phenomenal manchurian candidate.
I’ll take my tinfoil hat off now…let some alien rays in.
The trouble with the Trumps is not what they believe, it’s their willingness to say anything to get ahead. This is a classic “pragmatist” trait.
@Winter: “Examples are the inefficient health care system of the US or the epidemic of bad universities that sell bogus education in the US.”
A large percentage of our problems are the result, either directly (in the case of education) or indirectly (in the case of health care, via Medicare and Medicaid policies). I somehow doubt that the nationalization of these things are going to make anything better.
@TheDividualist “Once things are already nationalized, there is no truly perfect way how to un-nationalize them. The least bad thing is probably to keep it nationalized but make it self-sufficient i.e. no subsidies, just living off its profits, and probably it will be expensive and provide a bad service, and in the meantime allow a new, grassroots, startup private industry to grow up and make the nationalized one outcompeted and irrelevant.”
I would propose that the simplest way to de-nationalize something, would be to merely make it legal to compete against it, and to remove the regulatory obstacles that prevent competitors from rising up. Lysander Spooner, for example, tried to compete against the Post Office, but Congress made competition illegal; he didn’t have the money to challenge the Constitutionality of the law all the way to the Supreme Court. Thus, while we have some competition with the Post Office, we don’t have anyone that can legally deliver letters. (I find it hard to believe that UPS or FedEx would have any problem delivering a letter!)
It’s important to recognize regulatory obstacles, though. For example, it’s difficult for local utilities providers to get a foothold in communities, not just because cities grant a single company a monopoly, but also because the same cities make it very difficult for rising competitors to have the right-of-way for their utility lines, and make it easy for entrenched companies to sue new competitors. This is why it’s so difficult to establish something like fiber internet in most American cities….
(One thing I like about Google offering fiber to cities like Provo, Utah, is that Google insists on a right-of-way for anyone who wishes to compete with them.)
The US seems to have some strange restrictions: savings banks limited to one state (does that still apply?), baby Bells with local near-monopolies (still?), US Post monopoly on letter delivery, an aversion to prayer in public schools.
We always had prayer in school – whatever prayers parents wanted their children to pray, if any – and Parliament always opens with prayer.
Our local primary school, which has atheists and Muslims attending, is playing religious Christmas carols every morning. (At other times of the year it’s classical music.) Speaking as one who was raised an atheist, it’s very pleasant and soothing to hear fine music played so well.
@Dan wrote:
“I wonder if the real target isn’t the fedgov itself – Literally choking the fedgov on its own impotency.”
There was a time when we needed a strong Federal Government to override the states’ laws and practices that were inimical to individual liberties (Jim Crow anyone?).
Now the racists are running the Federal bureaucracies (c.f. AG Holder reversing the prosecution of Black Panthers caught on video intimidating voters). For that reason (and many others) the Feds have lost their moral high ground vs. the states. As bad as the Jim Crow state laws were, some states are now better protecting individual rights than the Feds.
That’s why I voted for decriminalization of marijuana here in Washington State. It’s one way I can push back against the Federal over reach into areas they have no legitimate scope of power.
Well what’ya know – I learned something from @uma. Before today I never would have guessed that Sears Roebuck and Company sold fetish objects by mail order!
http://metaldetectingforum.com/catalog/iver-johnson-automatics.jpg
TomA:
If you morons keep yapping about gun control, soon there will be 2-3 privately owned guns for every man, woman, and child in the US.
I suspect those who already have guns are the ones who made virtually all of the purchases. The people who own guns tend to own a lot of them. Whether each of them owns 15 or 20 guns it doesn’t change much.
An imbecile with 15 guns will do no better at fighting his insurrection than an imbecile with 20 guns.
What a good idea! It’s so good it should be the law.
Stringent telecom regulation in Europe gets the average European 100Mb down/20Mb up, at least, for €40 a month, while Americans either bend over for Comcrap at twice that for a “low introductory” rate or take their chances with Verizon DSL (15 Mb at best, and there are large swaths of copper Verizon has simply abandoned).
And libertarians say the government never did anything the market couldn’t do better on its own! LOL
>>“To those who insist on taking the “Socialist” part of the Nazi party’s full name as evidence of how dangerously left wing it was, I will remind you that it was the middle class who voted for them in large numbers (some 30% of the popular vote) and a very conservative President who appointed Hitler as Chancellor.“
Neither of which are evidence that Hitler and the Nazis were conservative. The fact that Hitler basically cribbed his nationalism and grand strategy from Engels, merged the labor unions into the apparatus of the state, and instituted a centrally-managed economy are some of the more glaring indicators of where the Nazis were on the political spectrum.
>>“Meanwhile, the parties on the left, with the conspicuous exception of Stalin’s puppets in The German Communist Party when told, were vociferous in their opposition to Hitler and his policies.“
As with all major modern European parties, they were just completing brands of leftism.
>>“Some Conservatives in the UK and Republicans in the US supported Hitler, but all the Labour parties opposed him to the hilt.“
Was this before or after the magical party switch between the Democrats and Republicans in the US?
>The fact that Hitler basically cribbed his nationalism and grand strategy from Engels, merged the labor unions into the apparatus of the state, and instituted a centrally-managed economy are some of the more glaring indicators of where the Nazis were on the political spectrum.
That and the fact that Hitler continued to spew rhetoric that identified capitalism and free markets with Jewish corruption and cosmopolitanism all through the war. After the war Soviet propagandists and their academic enablers in the West airbrushed the socialism out of the picture – you have to go back to recordings and transcripts of the actual speeches to realize how pervasive these themes were.
In the immediate postwar years the same themes would be recycled in Soviet propaganda, to the point where the Russian word translating “cosmpolitan” was a recognized code word for “Jewish”.
>>“Oh, that was you targeting a number (of shootings) I did not care about because the message was about the cost of private gun ownership. I tried to point that out but I have obviously failed. How you want to define “mass shooting” is irrelevant to me. I consider more than two victims “massive” enough. This amounts to number fetishism.”
You were the one who used the quote which opened with numbers. And then you requested that I show you how it was wrong. Here, let me refresh your memory:
>>“The correct response is to get better sources that actually show evidence that the Slate piece is wrong.”
Which I promptly did, so now you were only quoting the article for the simplistic rhetoric? Why open with the numbers then? Given that you seem to have no problem expressing yourself, I’m having a hard time believing you needed some Slate scrub to do it for you. This latest effort of yours is even less convincing.
The correct response when you’re wrong is to admit it and move on.
@ uma – “I suspect those who already have guns are the ones who made virtually all of the purchases.”
Not so. A lot of first-time purchasers, including single women and minorities, are purchasing handguns largely in response to news media sensationalism of recent shooting incidents. Also, ownership statistics tend to be skewed because a head of household designation implies a single owner/purchaser, but most of these family guns are widely disbursed via inheritance and straw purchases for family members. Regardless, individual gun owners in the US number in the tens of millions. And if a real civil insurrection were to occur, this armory would quickly be disbursed to all able-bodied civilian men (and women).
> The trouble with the Trumps is not what they believe, it’s their willingness to say anything to get ahead. This is a classic “pragmatist” trait.
Trump gets ahead by saying what everyone knows to be true, but no one can say.
I saw a video of the aging whore who runs Germany saying the usual lies about the invasion. It was obvious that she did not believe a word she said, and no one listening to her believed a word she said, but everyone was terrified that if they were suspected of noticing the emperor was naked, they would be devoured, just as no one wanted to be the first man to stop cheering Stalin.
I’m that rare person in today’s debate, a moderate on gun control. I get that vast numbers of gun owners use them safely; that they are often effective protection and deterrence. I think there are some things we could do that would have a small but significant impact on the ability of people whose goal is criminal to get guns easily, without infringing much on the rights of the vast majority to own and use guns. I think that talk of confiscation, as in the NY Times a few weeks ago, is idiocy based more on cultural prejudice than on any real understanding of guns, their role in society and their role in crime.
Still, I’m often amazed at the ridiculousness of pro-gun voices. Someone above says that huge numbers of people are buying guns now because of President Obama’s gun control “threats.”
Tell me, who are these people who can be rabble-roused into buying a gun quick before the president can act on his threat (pant, pant, pant) to (OH NO) expand the background checks already in place at responsible gun shops to cover other venues (AHHHHH Police state!!!!). Who are these tyrannized souls?
People who can’t pass a background checks would be the main category. Felons and those with mental issues that reached the point of public documentation. Boyfriends with restraining orders. Oh, the tyranny.
I sometimes wonder whether significant chunks of the American public are physically unable to hear President Obama. Is it a problem in the tympanum, or in the processing centers that serve the aural neurons? Does the ink carrying Obama’s words disappear from newspapers when certain readers try to read them, replaced by other words? Do the pixels of an Obama quote rearrange themselves? The public is overwhelmingly in favor “expanded background checks”. Yet, significant chunks of the public, when the words “expanded background checks” come from Obama’s mouth, hear confiscation and boots kicking in doors. It’s just realy f-ick weird.
You can disagree on the wisdom of background checks, I guess. But the idea that any significant number of people are buying now because they know what is being proposed and want to avoid it … it’s not plausible. they’re buying now because they’re the sort of low-information souls that get criticized elsewhere on this blog who just don’t have a clue, and get bum-rushed into whatever damn thing somebody wants to scare them into doing.
But when guns are the topic, they’re praised as just logical, rational, probably libertarian deep-thinkers.
It’s worth noting that Marquez made the mistake of buying the San Bernardino AR-15s in California. If gone to a “rational gun culture state” and bought them at one of many availalble venues there, we wouldn’t even know he was involved in the San Bernardino massacre. He might still be casting about for a new partner, having let his ticket to paradise slip away when his friends Tafsheen and Syed Rizwan impulsively grabbed their weapons earlier than planned.
I don’t want to take your guns. But I just can’t see the tremendous infringement on your freedom of having to wait a couple days for a background check before buying a lethal weapon. Pass the background check, you can have the gun the rest of your life. Well, until you tell your estranged girlfriend you’d like to kill her. But for most of us, that’s not an issue.
esr on 2015-12-10 at
> Hitler continued to spew rhetoric that identified capitalism and free markets with Jewish corruption and cosmopolitanism all through the war.
Progressivism is what puritanism became over centuries of memetic selection for the pursuit of power. Nazism is what Lutheranism became under the same selective forces. Communism is, like Christianity, yet another Jewish heresy, one particularly hated by Orthodox Jews, though reform Jews claiming to be progressives, claiming to be conversos to a Christian descended belief system, show a suspicious affection for it.
French revolutionary leftism was descended from the false Popes of Avignon, hence the war in the Vendee and the War in Spain, which were straightforward holy wars between competing Roman Catholic clergies. The clergy the French left sought to install in the Churches in those wars had personnel and organizational continuity all the way back to Avignon. French leftism died with Napoleon, and was replaced by English leftism, Puritan descended via Exeter hall.
@Jeff Read: libertarians say the government never did anything the market couldn’t do better on its own!
You think the American telecom industry is the product of a free market? It is to laugh.
> Yet, significant chunks of the public, when the words “expanded background checks” come from Obama’s mouth, hear confiscation and boots kicking in doors. It’s just realy f-ick weird.
“if you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.”
TomA:
>> And if a real civil insurrection were to occur, this armory would quickly be disbursed to all able-bodied civilian men (and women).
I will repeat myself again: An imbecile with 20 guns will do no better at fighting an insurrection that an imbecile with 15.
If a real insurrection occurs where real men fight over real grievances, your typical small-penis-syndromed “testorine-filled” 20-gun owner, will be the first to offload his hardware into the black market and stand on the sidelines. It will be ordinary men of the most benign type who will do the real fighting.
> Trump gets ahead by saying what everyone knows to be true, but no one can say.
You know, I’ve got to wonder why ascribing the idea that someone (whether a particular person or “everyone”) knows or believes but “can’t say” something isn’t considered to be in the same category as a kafkatrap.
I suppose whatever reasons “no one can say” these things don’t apply to the people, Trump included, who do say them.
> I suppose whatever reasons “no one can say” these things don’t apply to the people, Trump included, who do say them.
Observe the reaction whenever Trump says something that is obviously true, sane, and politically popular.
That reaction is why normal people cannot say these things.
@esr
“That and the fact that Hitler continued to spew rhetoric that identified capitalism and free markets with Jewish corruption and cosmopolitanism all through the war. ”
Libertarian Echo Chamber. You should go out more and listen to people who actually have lived through the historical periods you love to talk about.
Warning Historical Lesson!
There was a time when Capitalism, Jews, and Cosmopolitans were despised by the real conservatives. Yes, once upon a time, Capitalism and Free Markets were a figment in the eye of the Progressives.
https://scotterb.wordpress.com/2013/12/05/the-conservative-critique-of-capitalism/
Yes, real conservatives used to be against capitalism. And fascism is one of those reactionary movements that wants to go back to those pre-capitalist times.
@JAD
“Observe the reaction whenever Trump says something that is obviously true, sane, and politically popular. ”
So, your version of Free Speech makes it a crime to object to what is said?
How revealing.
James, not all that Trump, Abbott or you say is manifestly false, indeed I’m fascinated by your latest pronouncement into the historical development of modern idea systems, but I wonder if you are bold enough to admit that some of your utterances might be in error?
And James, where do you stand on free trade versus protectionism?
Winter: conservatives are simply those who hold power and strive to conserve it. To do this, they reason that it’s necessary to maintain the conditions that have for generations enabled them to exercise that power.
This is a theme of Orwell’s “1984”. The Party of that dystopia is trying to halt history so that it can remain in power forever, going to extreme (I’d say desperate) lengths to keep that goal in sight, despite all the contradictions that their actions produce. Indeed, they take the hypocrite’s route of severity combined with institutional denial.
Progressives are those who seek to change conditions do as to effect a transfer of power, ideally to the people. Unfortunately, numerous examples, such as the “Democratic” faction in Ancient Rome, of which Julius Caesar was a member, and most modern revolutionary movements, show that this can go horribly wrong, because power once tasted becomes addictive.
@winter
“Yes, real conservatives used to be against capitalism.”
No True Scotsman, eh? I wonder how many logical fallacies you can exhibit in one thread.
>And James, where do you stand on free trade versus protectionism?
I am in favor of free trade, but inclined to doubt that “free trade agreements” several thousand pages long actually advance free trade.
Winter on 2015-12-11 at 02:49:11 said:
> So, your version of Free Speech makes it a crime to object to what is said?
You are not objecting to what is said, but trying to destroy those that say it.
@uma “I will repeat myself again:”
You can repeat yourself as often as you want. You’ll still be wrong.
“An imbecile with 20 guns will do no better at fighting an insurrection that an imbecile with 15.”
Since you are so full of strawman arguments…
So how about a team of 50 smart, well educated, well trained, thoughtful men and women with say, 200 guns?
“It will be ordinary men of the most benign type who will do the real fighting.”
Yes. Exactly. And we have tens of millions of those and they have tens of millions of guns.
Now, what other hate-filled stereotypes would you like to spew here?
@Michael:
>> So how about a team of 50 smart, well educated, well trained, thoughtful men and women with say, 200 guns?
I am assuming they’re from your demographic in the country. Let’s call those “tough guys” (and gals) the “Limbaugh Brigade”. What will happen will along the lines of the famous “Operation Chickenhawk” from Al Franken’s book ‘A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right’
@ryanch
“Still, I’m often amazed at the ridiculousness of pro-gun voices. Someone above says that huge numbers of people are buying guns now because of President Obama’s gun control “threats.””
There is nothing ridiculous about those pro-gun voices. Steady investment in a valuable commodity ahead of a likely shortage is good business. It’s what many people I know have been doing for years.
“who are these people who can be rabble-roused … Who are these tyrannized souls?”
I suspect such don’t exist. I don’t know anyone “rabble-roused”, (please try to avoid the stereotypes and hyperbole, it might make you look like a uma-scale idiot) but I know lots of people buying guns and ammo. It’s just that we know our politicians hate us, especially this particular administration. He said so. And we’ve been down this road before. The threat is real. They really do want to ban/restrict guns and will do so if they get the chance. More below.
“People who can’t pass a background checks would be the main category. Felons and those with mental issues that reached the point of public documentation. Boyfriends with restraining orders. Oh, the tyranny.”
You do understand that *anyone* can be made to fail a background check at any time. All it takes is a stroke of a pen from a local LEO or a doctor or any other such in collusion with FedGov. And restraining orders are done without any due process.
The public is overwhelmingly in favor “expanded background checks”.
Unsupported assertion. But so what? See below.
“I sometimes wonder whether significant chunks of the American public are physically unable to hear President Obama. … ”
What part of “incessant liar” have you missed in the 7 years of this administration?
“Yet, significant chunks of the public, when the words “expanded background checks” come from Obama’s mouth, hear confiscation and boots kicking in doors. It’s just realy f-ick weird.”
See below.
“It’s worth noting that Marquez made the mistake of buying the San Bernardino AR-15s in California. If gone to a “rational gun culture state” and bought them at one of many availalble venues there, we wouldn’t even know he was involved in the San Bernardino massacre.”
No. They still have to fill out 4479s in Arizona. And if you’re planning mass murder, buying a gun under the table in CA would hardly be a deterrent.
“I don’t want to take your guns. But I just can’t see the tremendous infringement on your freedom of having to wait a couple days for a background check before buying a lethal weapon. Pass the background check, you can have the gun the rest of your life.”
Here’s the part you just don’t get … expanded background checks is not a “reasonable measure”, it’s the camel’s nose in the tent. Intended to soften up the target. THEY WON’T STOP THERE, next week it will be some other “reasonable” measure. This isn’t paranoia, it’s how they operate. They always have, they always will. They’ve stated that Australia-style confiscation is a “reasonable” goal. It’s entirely “reasonable” of us to fight them at every turn.
@uma
“Let’s call those “tough guys” (and gals) the “Limbaugh Brigade”.”
No, let’s not. Let’s call them typical Americans. Cause that’s what they are.
How many more hate-filled stereotypes are you going to spew in this thread? What, exactly, lurks in your bigoted soul?
“What will happen will along the lines of the famous “Operation Chickenhawk” from Al Franken’s book ‘A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right’”
I doubt Al Franken has anything to teach us on this subject or any other.
We need to come up with “Rules of Gun Control Advocacy”, analogous to the Rules of Spam.
Rule 1: Gun grabbers lie.
And, Michael, I have the dishonor of being “represented” by Senator Franken. (He damned sure doesn’t represent my views! Neither do the others who supposedly “represent” me, Senator Amy Klobuchar and Congressman Tim Walz. Walz, in particular, is a reliable foot soldier for Nancy Pelosi.) He damned sure doesn’t have anything to teach us.
>> Michael: Let’s call them typical Americans. Cause that’s what they are.
You mean “Middle Americans”.
@daemon
“No True Scotsman, eh? I wonder how many logical fallacies you can exhibit in one thread.”
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
The fact that you do not know the past does not mean it did not happen. Although the people on this blog are mentioning fascism about once every day, most have no clue what it actually was and is. Even worse, they do not want to know.
@Jeff Read: “What a good idea! It’s so good it should be the law…..Stringent telecom regulation in Europe gets the average European 100Mb down/20Mb up, at least, for €40 a month, while Americans either bend over for Comcrap at twice that for a “low introductory” rate or take their chances with Verizon DSL (15 Mb at best, and there are large swaths of copper Verizon has simply abandoned).”
If I recall correctly, Google now offers 1Gb internet–I can’t remember the specific rates up and down–for $70/month. When Google first came in, Comcast came in and upgraded everyone’s services (I can’t remember what speeds they upgraded them from or to) without changing their price structure. This is what we could have, if we could have a free and open market.
@ryanch: “Pass the background check, you can have the gun the rest of your life. Well, until you tell your estranged girlfriend you’d like to kill her. But for most of us, that’s not an issue.”
Of course, if you’re the estranged girlfriend who just learned that your now-estranged boyfriend would like to kill you, and you don’t have a gun…those two or three days waiting for a background check, that may have to be appealed (thereby increasing the waiting period for the gun) if it comes back rejected because someone with a name similar to yours is a convicted felon or mental patient, those days of waiting can be the most terrifying days of your life.
And there are stories where the estranged girlfriend got the gun in time to protect her life from an attempted murder…and there are stories where the estranged girlfriend was murdered before getting her gun.
This notion that waiting periods (for whatever reason) will magically make us safer is flawed, to say the least. The notion ignores the dangers that come from them as well.
@ uma
Your rhetoric is just whining and that won’t do you any good if a real tyrannical government shows up at your door and forces you to wear a yellow star or armband. You can walk compliantly to the Gulag if you wish, but tens of millions of Americans will do what you Europeans have forgotten how to do. We will shoot back, and that is no small thing.
One of the few remaining deterrents on the unbridled growth of government is widespread private ownership of firearms. Realistically, the probability of a tyranny arising in the US is still quite small, but a financial collapse brought on by cancerous federal debt is a real possibility. These guns may then have to be used to fend off the hungry parasites who know only entitlement and no longer have the aptitude to support themselves. This is the true crime of Progressivism; incentivizing helplessness on a massive scale.
“Of course, if you’re the estranged girlfriend who just learned that your now-estranged boyfriend would like to kill you, and you don’t have a gun…those two or three days waiting for a background check, that may have to be appealed”
With a couple of state exceptions, you can get a black powder revolver, caps, powder and balls through the mail in a day or two, or possibly instantly if your local gun shop has them. They are slow to reload, but the first six shots are just dandy.
@TomA
“One of the few remaining deterrents on the unbridled growth of government is widespread private ownership of firearms.”
As I wrote above: Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
Armed citizens are no match for a regular army. But have been there many times. Some truths hurt too much to bear.
All the tyrants you care to mention simply razed any opposing town of city to the ground. That was exactly what the Romans did, Attila, Genghis Khan, Timur, and then all the way to the armies of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. By sprouting this non-sense you simply show the world your lack of rationality.
Concerning “The Conservative Critique of Capitalism”.
I find it amusing that the essay describes Marxism, but doesn’t really provide a definition of Capitalism, nor of “Traditional Conservatism”, whatever that is. The problem with this is that both the words “Capitalism” and “Conservatism” means different things to different people at different times; and because Conservatism changes from generation to generation, in particular, you can have a wide variety of traditions that can be considered “Traditional Conservatism”.
Indeed, several years ago, I came across Eric’s claim that he was neither Liberal nor Conservative, and I thought that the claim was funny: to me, Eric was ultra-conservative, even more conservative than Rush Limbaugh, because I had somehow associated “conservatism” with liberty, and “liberalism” with government control. I did this, despite, or even because, of me listening a lot to Rush Limbaugh and probably G. Gordon Liddy, and probably also because of a wide variety of conservative political books I had read up to that point. That, and I don’t think I was aware of Libertarianism at that point…
With regards to Capitalism, I think it can have a clear definition–let the free market do its thing, basically–but so many countries and organizations want their ideas of “free” to be implemented, that it’s been watered down to the point where it includes corrupt, restrictive banana republics and societies so heavily regulated that you might see a little bit of capitalism involved, if you look hard enough…but because these systems have the Free Market there, somewhere, it’s the Free Market that gets the blame for the many severe flaws of those systems.
(This can be seen in Jeff Reed’s admiration of Europe’s heavily regulated internet; he doesn’t recognize that American internet is even more heavily regulated.)
@ Winter – “Armed citizens are no match for a regular army.”
Apparently your knowledge of our history is somewhat inadequate. The English redcoats (a very competent regular army) did not fare well against an armed citizenry at the start of our Revolutionary War and eventually lost to an American military force that essentially consisted of hastily-trained militias.
Regardless, no one here in the US gives a shit about your opinion that gun ownership is folly.
@Alpheus
“The problem with this is that both the words “Capitalism” and “Conservatism” means different things to different people at different times; and because Conservatism changes from generation to generation, in particular, you can have a wide variety of traditions that can be considered “Traditional Conservatism”.”
No, just read Adam Smith for Capitalism and Burke for Conservatism (both discuss earlier ideas).
This is obviously a case of “How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.”
I know it must really hurt to have to admit that the Nazis were not “Lefties”, but honest to Germanic Gods old fashioned reactionaries that wanted to go back to the good old mythical times. The Fascists wanted to go back to times where progressive and entartete ideas like “capitalism” and “free markets”, Jews, and Cosmopolites could simply be exterminated.
@TomA
“The English redcoats (a very competent regular army) did not fare well against an armed citizenry at the start of our Revolutionary War and eventually lost to an American military force that essentially consisted of hastily-trained militias.”
Yes, when they had, indeed, organized as an army with generals and all. Citizens can organize and train an army. Also, 20 years later, the British burned down Washington, so much for armed resistance.
But this is all idle talk. Anyone who claims that armed citizens can stop the US armed forces is a fool.
I know that you think US soldiers will not shoot at US citizens. But if that is the case, you will not get a US tyranny and the citizens do not need the fire arms in the first place. The moment people start firing at the soldiers, they will fire back and raze the place.
@Winter. “No, just read Adam Smith for Capitalism and Burke for Conservatism (both discuss earlier ideas).”
Just because Adam Smith and Edmund Burke presented their ideas for these definitions, does not mean that this is what everyone means when they utter these words.
This is akin to Alan Kay saying “When I created the term Object Oriented, I did not have C++ in mind”. Now that I’m familiar with Python, Smalltalk, and the Common Lisp Object System, I’m inclined to agree that C++ and Java aren’t really all that object-oriented…but if I were to waltz into a room full of C++ and Java programmers, and tried to make this claim, they would be looking me as though I just sprouted tentacles from my head right before their eyes.
“I know it must really hurt to have to admit that the Nazis were not “Lefties”, but honest to Germanic Gods old fashioned reactionaries that wanted to go back to the good old mythical times.”
I don’t know why it would hurt to admit one way or the other whether the Nazis were “Left” or “Right”. What is very clear is that they didn’t value Individuals, and they wanted to stick their noses into the tiniest details of every business. The Nazi and Fascist political systems didn’t have much room for Individualism, and certainly not in the way that we understand Individualism here in the United States.
“Yes, when they had, indeed, organized as an army with generals and all. Citizens can organize and train an army. Also, 20 years later, the British burned down Washington, so much for armed resistance.”
And despite that, the British could only bring that war to a draw–with concessions to fix those things that pushed America to start that war in the first place (eg, the end of conscripting Americans into their Navy, among other things). Had the Battle of New Orleans occurred in a more timely manner (where American soldiers routed British ones), some have speculated that Canada might very well be a part of the United States today…
“I know that you think US soldiers will not shoot at US citizens. But if that is the case, you will not get a US tyranny and the citizens do not need the fire arms in the first place. The moment people start firing at the soldiers, they will fire back and raze the place.”
Heh. I’m listening to a podcast on the French Revolution, where soldiers did fire on civilians, without razing the city, and where some soldiers did defect from the King’s side. What would be a greater deterrent, though? Soldiers defecting, and fighting other soldiers, or soldiers defecting, and then joining (and even training) local militiamen who bring their own arms, and then fighting the remaining army?
Of course, that’s assuming that you’re going to want to have arms to fight for one side or another. How many people will there be, who will need arms, merely to fend off the mobs and the bandits, that will inevitably rise up in time of governmental turmoil?
Yes, I’m aware that the French Revolution is very complicated, but this notion that you can’t possibly win all fights against tyranny, so you might as well not fight against tyranny at all, is rather offensive. Sometimes (such as in the Warsaw Ghetto) you fight because you have nothing left to lose, and it’s better to die on your feet, than die on your knees.
According to the Department of Defense (public figures, at least), in FY 2014, the total Army end strength was 1,066,600 soldiers: 510,400 Active soldiers, 202,000 in the Army Reserve, and 354,200 in the Army National Guard. This means that assuming full muster and no defections, 1.06 million of some of the the world’s finest war-figters.
Current census figures place the U.S population at 322 million. If you assume that only a quarter of those people have the will and capacity to fight, then you have about 80.5 million armed, if untrained, combatants.
Even with far superior training, mobility, and equipment of the Military, 80:1 is difficult odds in any warfare scenario.
Numbers matter: My great uncle used to tell my dad stories of Korea when the Chineese came. The first six ranks didn’t have guns when they charged the trenches. The next six or so had guns. When they fell, the people behind picked up the rifles and kept coming. Eventually, the U.S. forces ran out of bullets and were swarmed with bayonets.
Let’s not ever find out who would win in a civil war.
I, for one, am one of the people “…more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”
@James Noyes: “Let’s not ever find out who would win in a civil war.”
I fully agree with this sentiment. Civil wars and revolutions have a tendency to do things that you don’t expect them to, and they often conclude in a way that is undesirable to the reasons why they were started in the first place.
While I think it’s important to understand the distinction between a just revolution, and a revolution for power…one of the things I’ve been realizing, as I’ve listened to the particular “Revolutions” podcast I’m listening to, is that Revolutions often Just Happen, often because everyone thinks they are the ones in control of the process, and between stubbornness (Charles I of the English Civil War), waffling (King Louis the XVI of the French Revolution), misunderstandings, and other issues, revolutions and civil wars often just erupt, regardless of whether the cause is just or not.
That, and taxes always seem to be a big factor, at least, for the first three revolutions I’ve listened about (ie, the English Civil War, the American Revolution, and the French Revolution). If I had understood just how much of a factor taxes have been in these revolutions, I might have been a little more worried around the time when Tea Party Protests were so popular. Not that those people were inherently predisposed to starting revolutions, mind you, because they certainly weren’t…but the fact that taxes was one of the grievances raises a red flag: “People are getting angry about taxes. Watch out!”
@James Noyes
“Even with far superior training, mobility, and equipment of the Military, 80:1 is difficult odds in any warfare scenario. ”
That would be around 12 per 1000 population. The ratio needed is generally below 50 security forces per 1000 population, but often it is below 10 per 1000. That holds only for foreign forces. Local forces need much less, mostly less than half of that number.
http://strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/parameters/Articles/09winter/goode.pdf
The above study assumes the armed forces will not start to simply kill all civilians. You might want to look at the Russians in Chechnya. Also a country with heavily armed civilians. These weapons also did not stop the Russian armies (which are rather bad forces).
What you also forget is that in a civil war, there will not be 330 million people against the army. It will be 100 million people at each side and 100 million grounded in the middle.
@James Noyes & Alpheus
“Let’s not ever find out who would win in a civil war. ”
And who are the people that start to talk about civil war time and again?
Not the supporters of the Democrats, nor the people who support Jeb Bush or Chris Christie. It is the Libertarians and Tea Party that keep bringing this up. Which would mean that we have 250 million people on the Government side, and 80 million on the Revolution side. Guess who will get the Army on their side?
@Winter: I’m still reading through that link, but one quote has already jumped out at me:
“Having enough military forces is a necessary, but by no means sufficient, condition for success. The twentieth century is replete with examples of counterinsurgents winning Pyrrhic military victories that resulted in political losses. The French in Algeria and the Portuguese in Mozambique and Guinea-Bissau prevailed militarily but ultimately acceded to the insurgents’ demands for independence. The British devoted enormous forces to Cyprus and suffered relatively few losses but nonetheless had to give up control of most of the island.”
This is how the American Revolution was also won, if I recall correctly….
>Here’s the part you just don’t get … expanded background checks is not a “reasonable measure”, it’s the camel’s nose in the tent. Intended to soften up the target. THEY WON’T STOP THERE, next week it will be some other “reasonable” measure. This isn’t paranoia, it’s how they operate. They always have, they always will. They’ve stated that Australia-style confiscation is a “reasonable” goal. It’s entirely “reasonable” of us to fight them at every turn.
Summary – Policy A is unreasonable because “they” might enact Policy B. So steps that look like they’re on the path away from reasonable are also unreasonable.
This is where our politics is today. On both sides. Moderates can’t be trusted, because every place is on a slippery slope to some other place.
You’re only as paranoid as about half your countrymen, so I can’t really single you out. Sigh.
Alpheus wrote:
>If it comes back because someone with a similar name to yours …
At work, I handle extremely large databases of personal information. In a governmental setting, as a way of combatting fraud. (I can imagine on a libertarian blog, there may be people who find the existence of such databases troubling. I get it. But, a, you probably should start using cash for all transactions. And b, the FBI, etc. have much more powerful tools than mine, so my database shouldn’t trouble you much.)
I mention it only to say that if “someone with a similar name” is a problem in the background check data stream, then gun owners should be pushing very hard to improve that data. 15 years ago, this might have been an insurmountable issue. Today, most mistaken identity issues can be reconciled on a near live basis. If this is a real problem, gun owners should be pushing to improve that database, since it’s already affecting them in many states. I would support them.
ryanch: Read this article on documents from the Clinton Presidential Library on gun control and tell me with a straight face that we’re not dealing with a camel’s-nose-in-the-tent scenario.
We don’t trust “reasonable” gun control measures to be the end of the story, because we one, and have had it proven time and time again, that they are not. It’s not “Policy A is unreasonable because “they” might enact Policy B”. It’s “because once they get policy A, they will enact policy B, and then policy C, and so on until the army’s at your front door demanding you hand over your guns or else”.
In this case, the slope is not just slippery, but made of solid Teflon.
@James Noyes
> Numbers matter:
I am drowing in this thread just keeping up, so I feel for Winter who is the one counterpoint to a dozen others. Although I don’t agree with his general take, I will support him on this point. Should the government turn the military on an armed defense they would win hands down.
I am reminded of that movie, whose name I forget. It was about a Navy Carrier in some experiment that sent the carrier back in time to December 1941. They had to decide whether to use the carrier’s resources to defeat the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Does anyone doubt that a carrier full of F14s (as it was in the movie) would readily defeat that Japanese invasion? Biggest problem would be running out of munitions.
Certainly numbers matter a lot, but technology can EASILY overwhelm numbers. Again, remember the planned invasion of Japan during WWII? The Japanese had massive numerical superiority since everyone on the islands was effectively a soldier. However, we all know what happened. The application of a new technology twice ended that numerical superiority in a few microseconds.
During the revolutionary war the colonists really were not at a technological disadvantage at all (in fact if memory serves me correctly, they had quite a few superior rifles.) Plus they had massive logistical advantages. The British army had a disciplined training, more cannon and a naval advantage, but most of these were cancelled out by various means (discipline is less important when a professional army is fighting against amateurs defending their homeland for example.)
And as a reminder, the Americans lost nearly every battle of the revolutionary war, and only won, finally, at Yorktown because they got lucky, Cornwallis screwed up, and, most important of all, the French navy sealed the deal.
There is also no realistic scenario when the whole of the country would rise up against the government. It was even so during the revolutionary war when perhaps a third of the colonists supported the rebellion, and an equal number opposed it. And that is important not only because of numbers, it is vastly more important on the impact it has on the military. If they are fighting against all the citizens in a situation where democracy is gone (which it would have to be, because presumably if everyone is fighting, they’d first fight with the ballot.)
But if it is a small fraction of the population the military can easily justify their orders in support of the non rebellious, especially with fabulous rhetorical tools like “domestic terrorist” and “right wing militia” at the disposal of the Ministry of Truth.
@Alpheus
“Having enough military forces is a necessary, but by no means sufficient, condition for success.”
Please, apply that caution against your own ideas of starting a civil war.
Remember, in the 19th century, there was a civil war in the USA. One side won, even though the other side had loads of weapons, and an army. When at war, you can lose, even if you have guns. Especially, if the opponent is better trained and has much better weapons.
Trying to emulate the Afghans or the Algerians requires that you first understand what their situation was. Also, they really were not willing to suffer all the bloodshed because they did not like Obamacare.
@Winter “Anyone who claims that armed citizens can stop the US armed forces is a fool.”
In all my years of discussing the dreadful possibility of civil war or armed insurrection, I’ve never heard anyone make that claim. So you’re arguing against a point no-one has made.
If you would like to actually understand how things will likely go, please go get a bit of education on 4GW.
The other thing to realize (you should know this) is the US government has countless enemies worldwide. So any armed opposition against the Great Satan (Capitalist Pigs, whatever) will likely receive direct support from numerous state actors. “Why yes, we’d love a shipment of Russian missiles. You still accept silver?”
uma on 2015-12-11 at 08:57:34 said:
> I am assuming they’re from your demographic in the country. Let’s call those
> “tough guys” (and gals) the “Limbaugh Brigade”. What will happen will along the
> lines of the famous “Operation Chickenhawk” from Al Franken’s book ‘A Fair
> and Balanced Look at the Right’
What bridge do you live under?
@ryanch: “I mention it only to say that if “someone with a similar name” is a problem in the background check data stream, then gun owners should be pushing very hard to improve that data.”
We could push, but at some point, we’re going to reach a limit of diminishing returns. How many inaccuracies are acceptable before we give up? And how do we know that we aren’t pretty much as accurate as we’re going to get, given that we’re talking about millions of checks, and only about an estimated 20% of the 2% that fail come out to be wrong? (That’s an error rate of about 4 per 1000 checks.)
Personally, I’m not at all convinced that these background checks are effective at keeping guns out of the hands of felons and crazies; nor am I convinced that the system can be fixed, one way or another, to be effective. There’s just too many avenues for getting a gun, and so much legal and safe activity that the illegal stuff is close to statistical noise.
And it isn’t just guns that are like this. Murder rates are similar. In order to even get a handle on typical murder rates, we have to describe them in terms of X per 100,000 (where X is double-digit only in somewhat egregious examples). Even if you can magically make guns disappear, or magically arm every person alive, I don’t think the murder rate is going to be affected all that much, one way or the other.
@Winter: “Please, apply that caution against your own ideas of starting a civil war.”
Aye, that’s a very good idea. Now that I have finished the paper you linked to, however, I would have to say that that advice applies equally well to government.
In any case, I think it’s kindof silly to argue that because insurgents *might* lose a war, they might as well give up their arms *right now*, when the conditions of needing an insurgency are completely nonexistent–and when those conditions might unexpectedly pop up some time in the future.
“And who are the people that start to talk about civil war time and again?”
No, it’s not just Libertarians and Tea Partiers. I see the idea pop up time and again from Democrats as well. Probably has something to do with the fact that our founding document specifically outlined why we decided to resort to Revolution. It’s particularly funny when an anti-gun person calls for Revolution, particularly on a debate about guns–the person is then gently reminded about which side has all the guns…
“Guess who will get the Army on their side?”
I will not provide a guess, because we haven’t yet seen anything remotely resembling the type of error cascade that leads to two sides picking up arms against each other. So far, the “scary” Tea Party has limited their Revolution to the ballot box, both in terms of attempting (and sometimes failing) to primary prominent Republicans, and sometimes even removing an occasional Democrat from office. This, despite them being the side that has lots of guns, and undoubtedly having some sympathy within the military rank-and-file.
If it *did* come to a shooting war, I have no idea how the guns, both private and government, will line up. Indeed, this is one factor that makes revolutions and civil wars so unpredictable. Even all the talk of splitting up between Red and Blue lines is questionable, because while such a decision makes sense *today*, we have no idea what political topics might ignite a population to start a civil war even as recent a date as a year from now.
@Alpheus
“No, it’s not just Libertarians and Tea Partiers. I see the idea pop up time and again from Democrats as well.”
From far away, a lot of this talk sounds like people want a rerun of the previous civil war. I am pretty sure that whatever will come out of a civil war, it will be much worse than what you have now. Because that is in general the outcome of civil wars.
I find it very strange that you rather think about ways to fight a civil war than about ways to mend the existing system. In software terms, that is taking a very old and complex program and claim you have to rewrite it from scratch. That nearly never results in a better product, and most often in no product at all. Instead of trying to drive your political opponents out of the country, you should try to get working arrangements. But that means to make compromises, and I understand that “compromise” is an insult in the US.
If it ever comes to a civil war, you will all regret that you did not work out a compromise.
Winter, there are fundamental principles on which no compromise is possible. The right to keep and bear arms is one such. We’ve already compromised far too much on that one.
@Winter: “I find it very strange that you rather think about ways to fight a civil war than about ways to mend the existing system.”
Who says I don’t think about ways to mend the existing system? Furthermore, thinking about how to fix things doesn’t preclude thinking about what conditions might start a civil war or a revolution, or what one might do if such a thing broke out.
Of course, my idea of “fixing the system” might be a bit different from yours. For example, in Utah, I really would like to see Constitutional Carry (ie, carrying weapons without a permit) passed. I haven’t had the time to pursue such a course, but I’ve given some thought to trying to obtain this via referendum.
“If it ever comes to a civil war, you will all regret that you did not work out a compromise.”
It depends, really. There are some things you shouldn’t compromise on, even if it causes a civil war. On the other hand, the American Civil War was caused by multitudes of compromises. Compromises that enabled slavery to remain viable, for example, and compromises that enabled tariffs (taxes rearing their ugly head again!) are two that immediately come to mind…even compromises on who got admitted to the Union as a State sometimes increased tensions as much as alleviated them…
@Winter “From far away, a lot of this talk sounds like people want a rerun of the previous civil war.”
Winter, may I suggest, in the most friendly and respectful of tones, that this statement and many others you have made are strong indicators that the sources you have for most anything regarding the US are just really off base.
“I find it very strange that you rather think about ways to fight a civil war than about ways to mend the existing system.”
Attempting to fix the existing system is the *only* thing we’ve done – for generations now. It has largely been a big fat failure.
Shall we continue in earnest to do that which is proven time and again to fail?
I say yes. Meanwhile, load up on bullets, beans, and band-aids – because luck favors the prepared.
Jessica Boxer on 2015-12-11 at 14:10:06 said:
> I will support him on this point. Should the government turn the military
> on an armed defense they would win hands down.
If the USG turns the US military on an “Armed Defense” that includes us citizens the military would win THAT battle.
The numbers *are* important here. somewhere north of 80 million US Citizens have an increasing large number of guns. On black friday there were 185 thousand NICs background checks done. On ONE day.
That’s enough guns, as they’ve been saying, to outfit the US Marine Corps. Or it would be if they were all select fire M4s, which they aren’t and which is irrelevant.
So yeah, if a bunch of armed US Citizens decided to “occupy” an area in defiance of teh USG, AND the POTUS (and it would have to be him) ordered the US Military to attack them. AND the Generals in charge agreed, and their staff didn’t resign, and none, or at least not enough of the soldiers mutinied, then yeah they’d probably be able to bring enough of what was needed to win that battle.
But ask Nicolae Ceau?escu how those sorts of orders worked out.
The left generally *severely* misunderestimates the intellectual capacity and free will of the average soldier. They are not mindless automatons. Not even the Marine Grunts (in some respects *especially* Marine grunts).
Every US soldier has to go “home” at some point. Most of them come from the sorts of families that still believe, at least a little, in the notion of a Constitution, and a government of, by, and for the people.
Any movement that gets a large enough number of US citizens behind it that the FBI and state and local LEO resources can’t handle it is going to be a relatively popular movement.
Which means it’s going to have adherents in the US military up through the lower levels of the staff officers that it’s going to tear the US military apart.
But even if it didn’t, there are at least 13 million people in the US who have permits to carry concealed firearms. That right there has the US Army outnumbered well over 12 to 1. Less really since there’s some overlap between permit holders and military personnel. So let’s just say what, 10 to 1? And that’s just folks who’ve bothered to get a CCW .
Where are those soldiers going to live once their CiC made them the enemy of the people? Once their Generals betrayed their trust to power, and their officers lead them to kill their fellow citizens? We had that once, and it was brutally ugly. But it was–at least in large part–fought over slavery and the union.
If it’s just over who’s got the power?
The Army will win every stand up battle. But there won’t be that many fought.
And, without making any specific threats the rate of political turnover will be relatively high.
Just ask Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, Fulgencio Batista, Anastasio Somoza Debayle and a long line of former rulers.
Anyone who claims that an armed revolt (or what have you) wouldn’t stand a chance because of our professional army is operating under many assumptions while ignoring more historical examples than the American Revolution. There’s the American Civil War, which is probably the best example of what happens to a standing Army when loyalties become divided. The entire American Army isn’t going to just start shooting their fellow Americans either (that takes a ton of training beyond simply putting rounds through paper), nor are the rules of engagement going to allow for total war. For one, the lines of battle won’t even be remotely as demarcated as they were in the Civil War. The domestic dynamic of an internal conflict is just too great a variable to discount here.
Moving forward in American history, one look at the anti-war effort of the radical left during the Vietnam era shows just how effective a tiny fraction are at influencing popular opinion and disrupting government operations through selected acts of violence and protest. And on the other side – the outgunned, outclassed NVA and Vietcong knew they didn’t need tactical victory. That conflict also had a much more well-defined battle map than any potential internal American conflict might.
Fast forward to the American involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. Here you have the pride and joys of the professional American army being meaningfully engaged by extremely poorly-trained and equipped fighters whose leaders had much the same strategy as Giap did in Vietnam – focus on the American media by just keeping a body count in the news and screw actually trying to win a battle. Both strategies were remarkably successful against the world’s finest army. Tactical victory isn’t a necessity for achieving your goals in armed conflict.
Now take into account that the veteran population of the US far exceeds that of its professional army. Since firearm ownership is so common, the remainder of a professional US Army would be fighting a much larger, better-trained and equipped force than they have in generations and on their own soil to boot. With the modern understanding of how to engage in asymmetrical warfare, this would hardy be a walk in the park for the US armed forces. A revolt wouldn’t look like it did in 1776 or 1861 with enemy strongholds and supply lines. There is just no easy calculus for a significant domestic armed conflict in the US.
Then consider the catastrophic global disruptions in the economy, energy production, and trade from the US having to withdraw so much of its overseas power to deal with any significant domestic conflict. With such a gargantuan national debt and an compromised ability to provide many social services, I doubt very seriously that the US government could sustain operations for more than a few years. Victory would have to be swift and compete against a likely decentralized enemy spread across too vast an area to be controlled. And the US Army hasn’t really demonstrated the ability to do that in even smaller areas of operations since WWII.
@ Winter
You are the only one on this blog that is pushing the civil war straw man. As many others have commented, civil war in the US is neither likely nor considered to be a welcome development. This is because widespread private gun ownership makes tyranny far less attractive to attempt. And given Europe’s history of spawning tyrants, your continent is much more likely to degenerate into fratricidal war, and then once again look to the US to bail you out.
@ Jessica – “Should the government turn the military on an armed defense they would win hands down.”
I am loath to go here, but this is naive thinking that even our military brass would never support. Our military is designed to fight major conflicts against major opponents. As recent history has clearly demonstrated, no national military is good at fighting a determined insurgency. Aside from the fact that the US military will not go to war against its citizens (a tyrant giving this order would get shot rather quickly), the civil response would not be to organize as a conventional militia to oppose an inland army is conventional warfare. And firearms would not be the civil insurgency’s weapon of choice. Modeling has demonstrated that asymmetrical warfare significantly favors the amorphous civilian population in an existential struggle. Soldiers know how to kill with conventional weapons. Motivated civilians can learn to kill with anything and everything that you find in everyday life.
The biggest danger that we face in growing an internal tyranny is the belief that it can succeed.
> Fast forward to the American involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. Here you
> have the pride and joys of the professional American army being meaningfully
> engaged by extremely poorly-trained and equipped fighters whose leaders had
> much the same strategy as Giap did in Vietnam
Except that in Iraq up through 2010 we had won the war and were winning the peace. A president committed to the notion that basic American ideals–personal liberty, religious freedom, representative government are in some fashion human ideals–would have been able to continue the course with ever decreasing causalities (In Iraq. Afghanistan had additional issues that American Presidents and Western leaders aren’t capable of groking). Ours had another agenda which lead to 10s or 100s of thousands of people being killed and displaced, and this will have ramifications down the road.
Vietnam and Iraq were drastically different wars in almost every way, other than the American Left was on the side of brutality and oppression in both of them.
@William O. B’Livion: “Vietnam and Iraq were drastically different wars in almost every way, other than the American Left was on the side of brutality and oppression in both of them.”
Come to think of it, the United States has proven to be a very odd conqueror. I had a room-mate from the Philippines who explained that American forces had to fight the local population just as hard as other conquerors, but after the conquering, Americans treated the population with dignity and respect, to the point that when they voted to decide whether to become another State or an independent Nation, they narrowly chose to become a nation.
One of the things that needs to be taken account when thinking about revolutions, civil wars, and even invasions, is “How will the winner patch things up with the loser, to best minimize hard feelings?” It’s true, for example, that the British could have been more brutal in their battles, and probably won the war more decisively, but at least one British general had American sympathies, and part of the way those sympathies played out was that he stayed his hand somewhat in the battles he fought, fearing that if he were too brutal, he could win the war, but nonetheless still lose the Americans.
It’s these kinds of things that make it very difficult to know who can win in any given conflict…
@William O. B’Livion
“Except that in Iraq up through 2010 we had won the war and were winning the peace.”
Yes, but it’s the long game that matters. It’s true we had m/l taken control of the whole country. But the insurgent/4GW war that we all knew was coming was barely underway. However, the main point is that everyone knew we wouldn’t stay there for much longer. So in order to win, the enemy didn’t have to win, they just had to wait and make enough trouble that staying would be politically untenable back in the US.
“A president committed to the notion that basic American ideals–personal liberty, religious freedom, representative government are in some fashion human ideals–would have been able to continue the course with ever decreasing causalities ”
For all of Obama’s legendary incompetence I don’t think “losing Iraq” is a charge to be laid at his feet. We were going to leave eventually; everybody knew it. And we knew the unstable situation we had propped-up (at considerable cost) wouldn’t last. To keep Iraq under our thumb would have required ruthlessness, resources and political will that were simply unavailable.
The broader point being that insurgent/4GW wars aren’t about military objectives, they are about political objectives. And they are frighteningly effective.
The civil war is coming (civil war 2). The Trump phenomenon is indicator its coming. Right wing talk has essentially created a parallel universe inside of which its white middle American followers live. It is essentially the madrasas of north America and the conditions it creates on the ground in the minds of its followers are no different than those of a deobandi madrasa in Kandahar or at the foothills of Hindu-Kush mountains.
Unlike the madrasas which churn out battle-ready brigades, the Limbaugh brigades (chickenhawk brigades) will finally make it possible for the French to redeem themselves in the eyes of the world when it comes to battlefield performance.
The civil war will end. It will end with middle America turned into a parking lot and with the kooks of middle america ethnically cleansed into a landlocked territory somewhere along Tornado alley. That will be a fitting ending and the beginning of new glorious times for America.
“But that means to make compromises, and I understand that “compromise” is an insult in the US. If it ever comes to a civil war, you will all regret that you did not work out a compromise.”
You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means. It’s not a word that can be used to describe one party demanding something of another while offering nothing in return.
The gun control act of 1934 was a “compromise.” The gun control act of 1968 was a “compromise.” The FOPA in 1986 was a “compromise.” So what exactly did gun-owning citizens get in return for surrendering more and more of their rights and possessions?
How is this time different? What tangible thing is offered in trade for more of our rights?
To put it in a different perspective, I’d like to discuss a compromise over your personal assets. I think that I should own all of your assets. However I am a very reasonably person, and so am willing to compromise on us each keeping one half. And do not worry, when I come to you in a few years to discuss our next compromise, I promise to be similarly reasonable in how much I will accept. Naturally, as a reasonable person, you are willing to compromise?
will finally make it possible for the French to redeem themselves in the eyes of the world when it comes to battlefield performance.
The civil war will end. It will end with middle America turned into a parking lot and with the kooks of middle america ethnically cleansed into a landlocked territory somewhere along Tornado alley. That will be a fitting ending and the beginning of new glorious times for America.
And now it comes out, you are exactly as bigoted, hateful, genocidal, and all around evil as everyone said you were.
>> FooQuuxman: And now it comes out, you are exactly as bigoted, hateful, genocidal, and all around evil as everyone said you were.
That is another demonstration why you fucktards will be routed so easy. You lack any sense of humor, or any capacity (genetic or cultural) for it. The ability to laugh at oneself is fundamental to a healthy winning mentality – in wars and in life.
Soon as the first bullet gets fired, your tight-assed brethren will start shooting one another and do 90% of the work for us. The remaining 10% will consist of securing the safe passage routes for those amongst you who with enough common sense and functioning grey matter to have made the smart decision of dropping their weapons and heading to the safe-zones designates in tornado alley.
uma on 2015-12-11 at 22:53:42 said:
> The civil war will end. It will end with middle America turned into a parking lot and with the kooks of middle america ethnically cleansed into a landlocked territory somewhere along Tornado alley. That will be a fitting ending and the beginning of new glorious times for America.
Now we know why uma wants to important 85 million muslims.from countries that cannot keep their sewage off their streets, nor clean water running, nor electricity running.
He thinks the reason stuff works in America is that all the good stuff drops from the sky, and those white males managed to get at it and grab it all before anyone else could.
Once all those white males are eliminated, he will be able to help himself to all the good stuff at the supermarket without nasty people making him pay for it.
These guys figure once all the white males in America are dead, everything will be lovely, which is what the Congolese thought. Lot of Jews think that in the new white free America they will not be considered white. Single women of course automatically side with the prospective winners against the prospective losers. Trump will temporarily reverse this single white female vote because he acts like a winner, but the general tendency is for white single females to vote with non white males.
For some insight into what life is like under the rule of an inferior race, I recommend http://tinyurl.com/gllc3xs
Where you will quickly learn that everything in the Congo has gone to shit when they got rid of the white people, and you will slowly discover why everything has gone to shit. A couple decide to drive through the Congo. Everyone wants to harm them and cheat them. Some villages, not a lot, but far too many, want to kill them and eat them. Midway through their trip, they discover that this treatment is not just for whites, the Congolese are eating each other.
Subhumans see that white people have stuff. They think “let us kill them then we can have all that stuff.” To their surprise, never works. Detroiters are still mystified that Detroit turned to shit after they burned the whites out. Similarly, the inner city near you.
@TomA
“You are the only one on this blog that is pushing the civil war straw man. ”
a war between political factions or regions within the same country.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/civil-war
The talk here is to hoard weapons to use against forces of the government. People here talk about fighting political opponents, ie, the phrase was “people like [Winter]”.
That fits in the definition.
But I think the comments of James A Donald are very apt here. The current political crisis in the US is caused by demographic changes.
The support base of one major party, the GOP, is basically concentrated in older white males. In all other demographics, women, young people, hispanics and other minorities, there is a large and growing gap with the Democrats. And before you start denying everything, this was the conclusion of the “authopsy” report written by the Republican party itself after the last elections.
Instead of trying to attract voters from these other demographic groups, the GOP has concentrated on manipulating the voting system itself (gerymandering, making voting difficult for supporters of the Democrats).
But the demographic changes are ongoing and due to the war on women, gay rights, and the anti-hispanic rethoric within the GOP, the gaps with the Democrats are widening. The best illustration of how wide this gap has grown is found in polls that show that an old white Democratic woman would beat the most popular hispanic candidate in the GOP among hispanic voters.
The moment is near that these demographic changes will break through the electional dams of the GOP. Eventually, gerymandering and the super packs will go out of the window, as will other tricks.
The consequences of these demographic changes are that the “current” group in power, white males, are on the brink of loosing their priviliges.
I think James is right when he points out that these are the classical causes of a civil war: an old elite loses power due to demographic changes taking up arms to defend their privileges. All the talk of “revolution” and “civil war” is from white conservatives (mostly Tea Party) who cannot accept that they are just a minority in the US that will have to share power with all the other minorities.
@winter
“Please do. Nowadays, these are quite educational places to visit. You can also ask the people living around it how they think about private gun ownership. At the time of use of these camps, the Germans did kill both people with and without guns. “
Informative, Yes, the Germans were tremendously successful at exterminating unarmed civilians. That is how “the unarmed” are made a victim”, in response to your query, as you appears to have forgotten. But clearly not so educational, you seemed to have missed the lesson entirely. Fairly shameless too, to ignore this, yet claim Americans don’t care about bloodshed. Perhaps “Ann Frank was unreachable for comment,” will put this in terms a Dutchman would understand. The European record of spilling civilian blood in the past century is not something to be proud of.
Additional:
@winter
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” – reposted without irony.
@winter
“And who are the people that start to talk about civil war time and again?”
to quote uma:
“The civil war will end. It will end with middle America turned into a parking lot and with the kooks of middle america ethnically cleansed into a landlocked territory somewhere along Tornado alley. That will be a fitting ending and the beginning of new glorious times for America.” Then ‘uh j/k, for realz!’ – Perhaps this wasn’t the point you intended to make?
@winter
Demographics are destiny, so who are White Hispanics again? Amazing that the left is so race obsessed but insists everyone else is a racist.
@winter
”@daemon
“Also, no “Citation needed” before you agree, winter? Isolated-demand-for-rigor much?”
I have no idea what you mean?”
Yes, your lack of comprehension has been on full and vibrant display.
@michael
“No. They still have to fill out 4479s in Arizona. And if you’re planning mass murder, buying a gun under the table in CA would hardly be a deterrent.”
Nitpick, I believe it is illegal for an FFL to sell to an out-of-state purchaser anyway, so this isn’t even a problem vis-a-vis San Bernardino. No evidence has been offered that the AR pattern rifles used were illegal to sell in Cali. The purchase, however, was likely illegal; Farook wasn’t sure he could pass a background check and the friend knew that evading the check was the reason he was being asked to make the purchase. But since the gun control set has been committed to lying to advance their agenda my entire life, there is no reason to think the failures of these ill-conceived policies will matter to them.
@jessica boxer
“I am drowing in this thread just keeping up, so I feel for Winter who is the one counterpoint to a dozen others.”
Jessica, I’d honestly suggest you review some of winters earlier posts, he isn’t being honest and doesn’t care about having an informed discussion, he wants to engage in little more than name calling. gmmay illustrated this earlier :
“>>“Oh, that was you targeting a number (of shootings) I did not care about because the message was about the cost of private gun ownership. I tried to point that out but I have obviously failed. How you want to define “mass shooting” is irrelevant to me. I consider more than two victims “massive” enough. This amounts to number fetishism.”
You were the one who used the quote which opened with numbers. And then you requested that I show you how it was wrong…”
Sadly this is emotionally satisfying for a certain class of internet warrior, but it doesn’t offer much informative to the discussion. My own contributions were intended to get some data here in case anyone undecided missed it, before I started calling him names.
@daemon
“Yes, the Germans were tremendously successful at exterminating unarmed civilians.”
So you haven’t seen how they fared against armed fighters? The Germans conquered Europe because they were able to defeat all the armed forces on the continent, up to Moscow.
@daemon
“The European record of spilling civilian blood in the past century is not something to be proud of.”
The point here is that you are deluded to think that private gun ownership would have changed anything on the Eurasian continent (this went far beyond the confines of Europe). That faith can only be described as “religious”. It was most certainly not shared by any of the victims of these murders, nor their descendants.
@daemon
“Amazing that the left is so race obsessed but insists everyone else is a racist. ”
It was not me who forced all the non white voters to shun the Republican Party like the plague. It is just telling that Hillary Clinton is much more popular under Hispanics than Marco Rubio.
Also, Trump gets massive support from registered Republican voters for his accusations that all Mexicans are rapists, Hispanic children born on US soil should lose their citizenship, and no Muslims should be allowed to enter the US (which includes all Muslim members of the armed forces now stationed outside of the US).
So, who is the racist here? The party that gets the support of all the non-whites in the USA, and even delivered the first black president, or the supporters of the party that want to deport Hispanics and deny Muslims entrance?
@daemon
“You were the one who used the quote which opened with numbers.”
I adhere to the outdated fashion that you should reproduce quotes as completely as possible. Which does mean that there will occasionally be parts that I do not (fully) endorse. I know such niceties are currently not in vogue anymore.
Your behavior show us why that is so. Because there are people who will look for any excuse, how feeble it might be, to refuse to discuss the arguments. In this case, no one has taken up the challenge to come up with a realistic estimate of the public costs of private gun ownership that counters mu sources. So it is clear why you people are so fanatic about the exact number of mass shootings: It is an excuse to not discuss the public costs of gun ownership.
@daemon
“My own contributions were intended to get some data here in case anyone undecided missed it, before I started calling him names.”
That is appreciated. I would appreciate it even more when people point out immediately when they think I resort to name calling. Because that is not my intention and I could try to remediate it. There is also a possibility that I have not fully understood the meaning of the phrase “calling names” in US English.
@daemon
“Yes, your lack of comprehension has been on full and vibrant display.”
When your audience does not understand you, you can do only two things to mend that: Look for a different audience, or clarify what you mean. Trying to insult your audience does nothing to increase understanding.
Winter:
> Instead of trying to attract voters from these other demographic groups, the GOP has concentrated on manipulating the voting system itself
In an effort to make itself attractive to woman, the GOP voted to fund an organization that does partial birth abortions and sells baby meat. If it gets in a bidding war with the Democrats over affirmative action, the Republicans will promise to shoot every white male, and the Democrats will promise to shoot every white male twice.
@JAD
“In an effort to make itself attractive to woman, the GOP …”
I do not think I understand what you want to say here. I was not aware that the GOP wants “to fund an organization that does partial birth abortions and sells baby meat”. Also, the other policy proposals are new to me.
@uma
“The civil war will end. It will end with middle America turned into a parking lot and with the kooks of middle america ethnically cleansed into a landlocked territory somewhere along Tornado alley. That will be a fitting ending and the beginning of new glorious times for America.”
Note what is in full evidence here: to a Progressive genocide is a good thing. And the way forward is to kill everyone who disagrees with the party line.
@Winter
—quote
The support base of one major party, the GOP, is basically concentrated in older white males. In all other demographics, women, young people, hispanics and other minorities, there is a large and growing gap with the Democrats. And before you start denying everything, this was the conclusion of the “authopsy” report written by the Republican party itself after the last elections.
Instead of trying to attract voters from these other demographic groups, the GOP has concentrated on manipulating the voting system itself (gerymandering, making voting difficult for supporters of the Democrats).
But the demographic changes are ongoing and due to the war on women, gay rights, and the anti-hispanic rethoric within the GOP, the gaps with the Democrats are widening. The best illustration of how wide this gap has grown is found in polls that show that an old white Democratic woman would beat the most popular hispanic candidate in the GOP among hispanic voters.
The moment is near that these demographic changes will break through the electional dams of the GOP. Eventually, gerymandering and the super packs will go out of the window, as will other tricks.
The consequences of these demographic changes are that the “current” group in power, white males, are on the brink of loosing their priviliges.
I think James is right when he points out that these are the classical causes of a civil war: an old elite loses power due to demographic changes taking up arms to defend their privileges. All the talk of “revolution” and “civil war” is from white conservatives (mostly Tea Party) who cannot accept that they are just a minority in the US that will have to share power with all the other minorities.
—end quote
Winter, do you get ALL your information from Salon and HuffPo?
You sure sound like it.
I realize you don’t vote in US elections, but you’d be the perfect poster child for “the low information voter”.
@Michael
“Winter, do you get ALL your information from Salon and HuffPo?”
None of my information is from Salon or HuffPo.
But this source was very informative. It gives many, many more examples of how the GOP is chasing away minorities, women, and young voters:
Growth & opportunity project
http://goproject.gop.com/rnc_growth_opportunity_book_2013.pdf
@Winter:
>>All the talk of “revolution” and “civil war” is from white conservatives (mostly Tea Party) who cannot accept that they are just a minority in the US that will have to share power with all the other minorities.
All the gun-purchasing too. Hence my statement, that much of this gun fetish is borne of a conscious/subconscious preparation for this type of race/civil conflict.
The fact is that ever since white women started their en masse dumping of the toxic angry white male, he’s essentially been priced out genetically and the future for him was looking grim for quite some time now. Also, the new generation of white kids by and large want nothing to do with their older angry male fathers. So expect this insurgency to be fought by 40 yr old or older men – already a lost war if their heads weren’t so up their rear ends.
If Hillary wins though, and we get Huma (her muslim aide) as VP, I think that they will go so ape-shit crazy they might start their war right there and then. Yes! that fuckin soon is when it might happen!
@uma
“If Hillary wins though, and we get Huma (her muslim aide) as VP, I think that they will go so ape-shit crazy they might start their war right there and then.”
Her VP will most likely be Julian Castro to neutralize any appeal to Hispanics left in the GOP when they select Marco Rubio as their candidate for (vice-) president.
I see no reason why Hillary would make things more difficult for herself by selecting a woman as her VP, let alone a Muslim. No doubt she will get a very good post, but a VP is there to attract votes.
@Winter
“But this source was very informative. It gives many, many more examples of how the GOP is chasing away minorities, women, and young voters:”
No. No it isn’t. It shows quite well how the GOP elite are utterly out of touch with the American voter.
The fact you think it informative (even definitive?) just cements my earlier point that you are relying on poor sources for information about the US.
@Winter:
>> Her VP will most likely be Julian Castro to neutralize any appeal to Hispanics left in the GOP when they select Marco Rubio as their candidate for (vice-) president.
Since you live in Europe and not fully immersed in the nuance of American political culture you probably didn’t get the subtlety of the joke there. It happens! Basically it is this: Huma is the perfect VP if Hillary decided to go gung-ho on the GOP’s ass and get her perfect revenge.
@Michael
“No. No it isn’t. It shows quite well how the GOP elite are utterly out of touch with the American voter.”
If you think the GOP elite is out of touch with the American voter, I could not agree more. But these observations are confirmed by every source I cared to check. It is also supported by every poll I have ever seen, including those from Republican sources.
So, if you have super secret information not known by the GOP rank and file nor by any of the pollsters in your country, I am very eager to hear about it.
@uma
“Since you live in Europe and not fully immersed in the nuance of American political culture you probably didn’t get the subtlety of the joke there.”
Sorry, but I am a little careful to suspect jokes on this blog. Too often I have seen comments that I considered hilarious only to find out they were dead serious.
@Michael
“The fact you think it informative (even definitive?) just cements my earlier point that you are relying on poor sources for information about the US.”
Then please, show me better sources. But not Fox News. I have seen Fox’ coverage of my own country and that was so bad, it wasn’t even wrong.
@Winter
“But these observations are confirmed by every source I cared to check. It is also supported by every poll I have ever seen, including those from Republican sources.
So, if you have super secret information not known by the GOP rank and file nor by any of the pollsters in your country, I am very eager to hear about it.”
Why yes, in fact I do have super secret information… (he said jokingly)
These sorts of “observations” all are the same. Their solution is for the Republicans to become Democrats. This won’t work for 2 reasons:
1) The Hispanics and Blacks are not going to vote for them anyways.
2) The absolute last thing this country needs is more Democrats.
The “informative” article is of the endless stream of such that always ends up with the GOP bringing forth an “electable” candidate like Romney, McCain, or Bush III. Who reliably lose to feckless idiots like Obama.
“Then please, show me better sources. But not Fox News. I have seen Fox’ coverage of my own country and that was so bad, it wasn’t even wrong.”
The fact that you even mention Fox News just bolsters my point that your sources are doing you no favors. BTW, the new name of “Fox News” is now “Cuckservative News”. If you somehow include that term in every post it will show you to be well informed and very much on the cutting edge of US politics.
Your best bet would be to follow my Facebook feed for a few hours. But since that’s not very feasible a more practical suggestion is in order, how about these, start at the top:
http://www.drudgereport.com/
http://www.breitbart.com/author/milo-yiannopoulos/
http://themattwalshblog.com/
http://market-ticker.org/
http://www.returnofkings.com/
http://voxday.blogspot.com/
http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/
http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.com/
http://www.dangerandplay.com/
http://www.scifiwright.com/
http://dougwils.com/
I’d like to see others chime in with their suggestions.
@TomA
> Our military is designed to fight major conflicts against major opponents.
That isn’t true. Some of our military is designed to do this, however the thrust of military development has been in developing capabilities to deal specifically with the kinds of situation we have in Iraq and Afghanistan. I find it curious that you think we are doing so terrible there. Our military was extremely successful there. ISIL is a consequence of a lack of political will, not military capability. For sure we had lots of brave men and women getting their limbs blown off, or bodies destroyed by IEDs. But we lost a few thousand troops in ten or fifteen years. In normal wars we would expect to occasionally loose that many troops in ten or fifteen minutes.
What is our kill to loss ratio? !00:1? !000:1?
We lost in the middle east because our politicians are pussy cream puffs pushing a political agenda. Our military did an absolutely awesome job.
And just to be clear the situation in the middle east is comparable to what we might see here in a rebellion. There are many very committed men and women in those countries defending their homes with weapons caches far more extensive than even the best American CCW guys can come up with. Unlikely we could do any better, good chance we would do worse, since we tend to have lighter weapons (pistols verses AK47s, semi auto rifles verses RPGs.) Are lots of them crazy spray and pray guys? Yup. But so would be the rebels too. Certainly there are some very capable soldiers on both sides.
Just to be clear, I am not defending the Taliban or ISIL. They are horrible people who need to (for the most part) die. I am merely commenting on their military capabilities.
What remains is the will of the military to fight, and here is the deal: our military follows orders unless there is a DAMN good reason not to. And that is the way it should be. GI Joe doesn’t get to make these decisions, and he shouldn’t. He is held accountable for his actions, and he should be, but the bar to disobey an order on principle, is very high, and it should be.
So all this putative totalitarian government has to do is to give these soldiers a reasonable pretext to believe what they are doing is right. The framework is already abundantly available to the ministry of truth. “Domestic terrorist”, “right wing militia”, “break down in civil order”, “trying to overthrow democracy”. A smart tyrant could certainly use these to convince the vast majority of the military to fight.
@deamon
> Jessica, I’d honestly suggest you review some of winters earlier posts, he isn’t being honest and doesn’t care about having an informed discussion
I have debated with Winter many times and know his MO. I rarely agree with him but I find him extremely educational and challenging. I have spot read some of it here, and I think he has made some great points, though I am sure it occasional descends into the rhetorical mud occasionally. He is putting his case against about a half dozen other people and keeping up. If the quality of his posts isn’t up to his usual high standard I am sure volume does impact quality.
FWIW, I’ve been there. Any discussion on divorce, women’s rights and fathering obligations tends to leave me in a minority of one around here with very passionate people disagreeing with me. So I’ve walked in Winter’s shoes.
Honestly, I’d suggest you open your mind and listened a little. I think you’d learn a lot. I doubt you’d change your mind, but it would improve the quality of your argument and the depth of your understanding. (And I say that not because I think your argument is poor — I don’t know really one way or the other since I have a hard time keeping up with this thread.)
The best learning usually does come from people you disagree with, and although I almost always disagree with him, Winter is one of my favorite commenters here. He makes me want to learn a lot more about the Netherlands.
Michael, I have but one suggestion to add, and I’m surprised it’s not on your list already:
http://www.powerlineblog.com
@Jessica
“but it would improve the quality of your argument and the depth of your understanding.”
If that could be achieved, I would be very happy. And although we almost always disagree, I have exactly the same reason to keep arguing here as you have.
@Michael
Reading your responses, I a confused about what part of my “analysis” you exactly object to? The demographics? The gap in voter support?
@Michael
“The fact that you even mention Fox News just bolsters my point that your sources are doing you no favors.”
I do not need sources to tell me about Fox news. I have looked at their coverage. Without a single exception, when they report on something I have personal experience with, they get it utterly and completely wrong. The same when they report on something I do have indirect knowledge of. Or are you going to tell me that I have to trust Fox news more than my own eyes, e.g., when they report on my own country?
@Michael
“These sorts of “observations” all are the same. Their solution is for the Republicans to become Democrats. This won’t work for 2 reasons:”
You seem to be unable to distinguish between observations about reality and possible solution that might solve problems. But in this matter you are sort of right. To attract “minority voters” (women are not a minority, but a majority), the GOP should appeal to them. If Republican candidates curse Hispanics, they won’t get Hispanic voters.
Btw, the conclusion of the GOP report was not to become Democrats, but to appeal to the needs and concerns of (conservative) minority voters. At the moment, conservative Hispanic or Black voters have no reason to suspect a Republican candidate would even take note of their concerns and needs.
@Michael
“Your best bet would be to follow my Facebook feed for a few hours. But since that’s not very feasible a more practical suggestion is in order, how about these, start at the top:”
I do not have a Facebook account and I do not plan to come near Facebook if I can avoid it. The same for Twitter.
I know some of these sources. As far as I am aware, none of them will claim that Republican candidates have appeal to minority voters. Nor have I seen any of them disproving the description I gave about the changing demographics of the USA. That does not surprise me as the GOP itself acknowledges that problem publicly.
So, to repeat my question, what is it that you object to in my “analysis”?
@Winter
“I do not need sources to tell me about Fox news.”
I didn’t speak very well, apologies. What I meant is that the very fact you would assume I would mention Fox News means you are grossly out of touch with how people like me think. Cuckservative News does a great job being a mouthpiece for establishment Republicans. The only redeeming quality of FN is that the left hates them. Other than that they can rot with their sugardaddys in the country clubs.
“Without a single exception, when they report on something I have personal experience with, they get it utterly and completely wrong.”
This is reliably true of every mainstream news source. Surely you know that. The closer you are to the source, the more discrepancies you can spot.
“So, to repeat my question, what is it that you object to in my “analysis”?”
First, it didn’t occur to me that your recital of leftist talking points constituted an “analysis”. Having said that I’ll attempt to read it again with more of an eye toward content.
There are two primary problems with your “analysis”:
1) your use of bigoted stereotypes and blatant falsehoods as if they were true,
2) the belief that “such has it always been” constitutes proof of what the future holds.
1) I’ll just point them out and see if you can discern anything:
“manipulating the voting system”
“gerymandering”
“making voting difficult for supporters of the Democrats”
“due to the war on women”
“anti-hispanic rethoric within the GOP”
“gerymandering and the super packs”
“as will other tricks”
“white males, are on the brink of loosing their priviliges”
Any one of those is enough to utterly discredit any concept of analysis you intended. Most are false. And, in the very least, the Democrats have engaged in at least as much election trickery as the Republicans.
Any “analysis” based on a list of false premises isn’t worth much consideration.
2)
The demographic changes in the US are real, that’s not analysis it’s just census numbers. But those changes have been done intentionally as a war against whites and specifically white males. Surely any real analysis would have to point this out.
Will this make the GOP irrelevant in upcoming years? I don’t know and neither do you. Things are changing. Fast. In my 55 year lifetime and 40 or so years of observing politics I’ve never seen anything like Donald Trump. Neither have the RNC or the DNC. His support is widespread and bears little resemblance to the “leading candidate” of past elections. And it doesn’t matter so much whether he wins or not, the game has changed.
And more importantly I don’t care if the GOP can be saved and “appeal to minority voters and women”. I. Don’t. Care.
Having an “appeal to minority voters and women” is just a code phrase for “let’s vote in more leftist statism”. No thanks.
I want someone who will utterly burn down the houses of both the Democrats and Republicans. They are both worthy only of our scorn for what they have done to this country. Can Trump do that, prolly not. But he’s only the prototype.
@Michael
“1) I’ll just point them out and see if you can discern anything:”
> “manipulating the voting system”
6 hour waiting lines for polling stations.
On November 2, 2004, in the State of Ohio, 239,127 votes for President of the United States were dumped, rejected, blocked, lost and left to rot uncounted.
Too many other incidents to recount here. Here is a selection:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_United_States_election_voting_controversies
> “gerymandering”
Please, enlighten me about the rationale of these voting district boundaries?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/05/15/americas-most-gerrymandered-congressional-districts/
> “making voting difficult for supporters of the Democrats”
Requiring sorts of IDs that important Democratic constituencies do not normally have. Shortening early voting times in combination with extremely long waiting times during voting.
> “due to the war on women”
This is how many women feel it. Republicans might not like the term, but there are a lot of GOP policies that are bad for the position of (working) women and their health.
> “anti-hispanic rethoric within the GOP”
Trump, and his imitators about “immigration”.
> “gerymandering and the super packs”
See above. Super-packs are hugely beneficial for the Republicans. This is a recent development that the Democrats will try to roll this back. That will hurt the GOP. My opinions about the superpacs are immaterial. The Democrats will abolish them anyhow.
> “as will other tricks”
See the voting shenanigans in Ohio above. Many other places had the same kind of shenanigans.
> “white males, are on the brink of loosing their privileges”
Do you want to tell me the GOP is not run by white middle aged males? See also the “war on women”.
@Michael
“And, in the very least, the Democrats have engaged in at least as much election trickery as the Republicans.”
That is irrelevant at the moment. This was also not a moral judgement, but purely electoral mechanics. The Democrats can win the popular vote hands down for purely demographic reasons, as Obama showed. It pays for the Democrats to fight manipulations of the voting process.
@Michael
“Any “analysis” based on a list of false premises isn’t worth much consideration.”
These were not premises, but observations. They show why the GOP can win elections while their voters are a “minority”. Which means that the GOP is vulnerable to changes in the electoral process. Also, these “idiosyncrasies” of the US voting system will eventually not stem the tide of the demographic changes.
Furthermore, you should learn that an analysis can be very instructive, even if some of its premises are wrong.
@ Jessica
Given your history, I am quite surprised by your misunderstanding of military reality.
The US military is the most potent fighting force in the history of the planet. The nuclear triad alone assures that it cannot be defeated in an existential conflict, and no enemy wants to take on our armed forces in a conventional conflict either. That said, our military personnel absolutely detest being misused for civilian pacification in nation-building mini wars.
You need to study military history. In the distant past, pacifying a foreign population meant conquering and absorbing (usually by killing all fighting age males and enslaving the women and children) or by committing genocide. These tactics are not on the menu in our current culture, so we resort to political bribery, ineffective policing, low-grade conflict, and try not to get too many of our soldiers killed or maimed in the process. This misery continues until the political/economic cost or body count becomes untenable and then we leave.
You are utterly wrong in your assessment; our boots-on-the-ground military is not strong enough to be bled to death in slow motion for years on end; and psychologically it cannot sustain ruthless oppression or genocide without losing its legitimacy. The Iraq and Afganistan insurgencies were nothing compared to what an occupying military would face in the US. We have some very competent people in our military, but without a draft, the best of us are still to found in civilian life (and these numbers matter). An incipient tyrant may delude him/herself into believing that they can order the US military into battle against its citizenry, but that will not happen. Better to beware of a Gestapo-like paramilitary organization with loyalty to a charismatic demagogue and an incremental strategy of weakening our ethos, strength, and ability to fight back.
@Michael
“But those changes have been done intentionally as a war against whites and specifically white males. Surely any real analysis would have to point this out.”
No, I am looking at the changes in the demographics. They will affect the elections however these changes came about. But as you see the immigration as a premeditated “war against whites and specifically white males” I was right about the role of “white males” in GOP politics.
My understanding was that the immigrants were let in to press down the wages. Especially the agricultural sector needed cheap labor to survive. But I am not in any way knowledgeable about this subject so I would welcome better insights.
@Michael
“In my 55 year lifetime and 40 or so years of observing politics I’ve never seen anything like Donald Trump.”
I have seen several politicians like him. Europe is littered with parties that say the same as he does. They rarely get support beyond the local Tea Party crowd. In special circumstances, they get beyond 30%, but that is very rare.
@Michael
“Having an “appeal to minority voters and women” is just a code phrase for “let’s vote in more leftist statism”. No thanks.”
No, that means that you must get them to vote for you. Which means that you must take note of their concerns. You might be surprised, but there are conservative minority voters as well as conservative women. But they won’t vote for a party that does not listen to them.
@Michael
“They are both worthy only of our scorn for what they have done to this country.”
They let in foreigners? But was that not the basis of the USA. I am pretty sure some of your ancestors were immigrants. For the rest, the economy has growing for years and the US is the strongest country in the world and one of the richest.
@TomA
“You are utterly wrong in your assessment; our boots-on-the-ground military is not strong enough to be bled to death in slow motion for years on end; and psychologically it cannot sustain ruthless oppression or genocide without losing its legitimacy. ”
During your civil war the armies on both sides (both US) were perfectly willing to occupy US cities with “American” people who did hate them.
Winter on 2015-12-12 at 07:56:21 said:
> I do not think I understand what you want to say here. I was not aware that the GOP wants “to fund an organization that does partial birth abortions and sells baby meat”. Also, the other policy proposals are new to me.
The house of reps decides the budget, and the Republicans control the house of reps. So to ascertain Republican policy, look at the budget.
The GOP voted a budget that funds planned parenthood, an organization that performs very late term abortions and sells baby meat. Similarly, affirmative action, special privileges for blacks and Hispanics, the demonization of masculinity and maleness in school, and so on and so forth.
The Justice department is arranging for whites to be ethnically cleansed out of various areas such as Ferguson, and the Republicans utter not a peep, and in their budget fund HUD efforts to support the ethnic cleansing of whites.
@Winter
I have seen several politicians like him. Europe is littered with parties that say the same as he does. They rarely get support beyond the local Tea Party crowd. In special circumstances, they get beyond 30%, but that is very rare.
You are confusing European politics with American politics. Remember: our far left are your conservatives, our mind-boggling extreme leftists are your left. This means that a candidate that would be hopeless in Europe can easily be mainstream here.
This is even reflected in the polls, you say that the Trump-likes can sometimes get 30% in special circumstances in Europe, Trump is starting at 30%. The other Republican candidates are burning through money so fast you would think they were in the center of a star, Trump is using only the smallest trickle.
The Republican establishment can’t stand Trump, and have openly speculated on cheating if he wins the primary, which has everyone (including his opponents) up in arms for obvious reasons.
If they do force their candidate through Trump goes independent; Republican party dies due to split voter base. If Trump wins he breaks their control over candidates, the party dies. Either way its over for them, conservatives have been furious at the Republican establishment for years now, this is simply the first time that someone has come along who refused to play their games and had enough money to not be bribed. Also none of the mud thrown at him has stuck, and any time someone throws mud he throws back a wrecking ball.
And if ESR is right about Obozo The Clown being a trump (hah) card then the Democrat party is going down as well. Combine this with the internet eroding the media lockin that the Democrats have relied on for decades……
A more interesting detail is that blacks have been showing remarkably strong support for Trump, possibly because the wonder president that was supposed to solve everything failed miserably. Blacks are the key demographic for the Democrats, if blacks go for Trump it is OVER. Both parties will become piles of wreckage.
I just wish that Trump would crack open an Economics 101 text, but you take what you can get.
Also, every time Republicans vote amnesty for illegal immigrants, they say “But then we will build a wall across the border”. We recently saw in Europe that you can whip up a mighty impressive wall in just a few days if you seriously want to, but needless to say, the Republican budget does not provide any funding for this wall.
@JAD
“The GOP voted a budget that funds planned parenthood, an organization that performs very late term abortions and sells baby meat. ”
No they don’t. You are just playing silly word games baiting us.
I also think your obsession with Democrats and Feminist shooting white males is projecting your own fantasies about shooting them (and males from various minorities).
@JAD
“We recently saw in Europe that you can whip up a mighty impressive wall in just a few days if you seriously want to, ”
You obviously have not compared the landscape between Hungary and the US? And the refugies do not even want to go to Hungary, but to Germany.
@FooQuuxman
“This means that a candidate that would be hopeless in Europe can easily be mainstream here.”
Still, his messages is eerily similar. And so are his supporters. And I believe the 30% percent when I see them. Trump does not even get 30% of Republicans in the polls.
But you are right, it assumes that there is actually a choice. Elections in Europe are rarely between only two parties. When the race is between Trump and Clinton, then the choice is for whom you hate least. Then you can easily get over 30%.
@Winter
Uh…. i’m gonna have to 2nd? 3rd? Nth? the recommendation for you to get better sources. Trump has been polling <35% and creeping up a little each day for days.
Dammit That is >35%
@FooQuuxman
I see. I obviously did not watch this closely enough.
I must say, this is an interesting race. Let’s see whether the US is really special and Trump can get the nomination and presidency.
The betting odds are still for Rubio as Republican candidate and Clinton for president:
http://www.paddypower.com/bet/politics/other-politics/us-politics?ev_oc_grp_ids=791149
http://www.oddsshark.com/entertainment/us-presidential-odds-2016-futures
> My understanding was that the immigrants were let in to press down the wages.
This is PC doctrine among leftists and nazis (but I repeat myself).
If that was the case, we would bring in the working class. We are bringing in the underclass to live on crime and welfare. It is illegal for them to get jobs in the formal economy, legal for them to live on welfare and the informal economy. (Mostly they sponge of their girlfriends, and their girlfriends live on aid to their numerous children) If we wanted them to press down wages, would be the other way around.
@JAD
> > “The GOP voted a budget that funds planned parenthood, an organization that performs very late term abortions and sells baby meat. ”
Winter:
> No they don’t
http://blog.jim.com/culture/intact-fetal-cadavers/
> The betting odds are still for Rubio as Republican candidate and Clinton for president:
That is because everyone expects the Republican party to violate the rules, ignore the outcome of the primaries, and anoint Rubio as candidate even if few or no republicans want him, in order to split the vote so that Hillary will win. Also, if Trump wins the election despite Rubio splitting the vote, probably Clinton or Obama will be declared president regardless.
Pretty much like the numerous referenda you have had on membership of the EU,
James: have I missed an announcement? Is there an Obama in the race?
> Is there an Obama in the race?
He is currently exercising Judicial, Legislative, and Fiscal powers as well as executive powers. His judicial power should enable him to extend his terms. It is as constitutional as most of the other stuff he has done. Pretty sure that the commerce clause covers it.
@Winter:
Because you don’t live here, and you come from the most-relaxed and tolerant Germanic culture (Holland) and because such ideas as “public good”, “public space”, “consensus”, “compromise” are inherent to the Germanic temperament, the vocabulary used by the fucktards here carries a completely different meaning that. The dutch (who practically all speak far better English than Americans) will still require quite a bit of explanation to wrap their heads around this fucktardian-jargon. So allow me to explain:
– “High Information Voter”. This is basically a middle-American angry white male, who practically lives inside of Rush Limbaugh’s rear end. Besides Limbaugh, he gets his information from such sources as Drudge report, O’Reilly and Hannity on Fox news, and the blond bimbos of Fox news (most notably Megyn Kelly when she is not on her period).
– “Republican Elites”. Those are basically the republicans who haven’t totally dislodged themselves out of the real world, into the parallel universe of the ‘high information voter’. You know, the universe where the recent gun-buying binge can be explained by single moms buying hand pistols to protect themselves from rapists.
– “Conservative”. A significant swath of white people encompassing mostly white supremacists and their associated ideologies (e.g. their toxic brands of christianity). Their economic beliefs are largely secondary to their social beliefs even if they go to great lengths trying to camouflage that and pretend otherwise. They usually try to paper over their economic idiocy by throwing big names at you (e.g. Milton Friedman, Ronald Reagan). At the time of Reagan, of course, these so-called conservatives were largely voting ‘southern democrats’ (basically, a moralizing white supremacist christian zealot who believes in big government projects and handouts for his white/christian constituents. A type of democrat has since largely gone extinct). So you know right there there is absolutely no correlation between economics and their ‘conservatism’.
…well, that was a wonderful glimpse into the world of the negative information voter. We’re still not feeding trolls, right?
Here in Australia, the police have tasers, although it’s not what I’d call a production deployment (at least until they stop saying “Oops, I didn’t know zapping him 28 times in the torso for lolz would stop his heart….”).
Does anybody know if there is such a thing as a man-portable taser that reliably puts down someone full of PCP and rage without reliably killing them?
What I’d *like* is a sonic stunner, but no-one has invented one yet…
@uma
Friendly advice: You can abuse ESR to an extent, if you are interesting. You can abuse the other commenters to a far lesser extent, if you are interesting. But content free spewage gets people banned here.
I’m being nicer about this than what Jay or Eric will give you, and a hell of a lot nicer than you deserve. Please take note and change your behavior accordingly.
@James
“That is because everyone expects the Republican party to violate the rules, ignore the outcome of the primaries, and anoint Rubio as candidate even if few or no republicans want him, in order to split the vote so that Hillary will win. ”
Is there a contest for worst conspiracy theory in politics? If so, you should definitely enter.
The GOP plotting to make Hillary president. How do you make up such things?
True genius.
@Winter: you might also be interested in what @uma means by the “real world”:
Biology is a social construct, invented by evil dead white males for the sole purpose of oppressing, enslaving and disenfranchising otherkin. Any dissent (e.g. observing that females are less expendable in warfare due to their greater involvement in reproduction, or that males statistically have superior upper body strength) is prima facie proof evidence of ignorance and blind, unreasoning hatred of women.
All cultures and civilizations are equal, except for Western Anglo-Saxon culture which is uniquely evil for having suppressed such practices as suttee in India, slavery in Africa, and genocide in Europe.
It’s an unquestionable good to bias selection in favor of racially black college applicants and against racially Asian and Jewish applicants, because all three groups have been unfairly treated by angry whites in the past.
Orchestra audition procedures that hide the sex and race of an aspiring musician are inherently racist because they often result in ensembles with an ethnic composition at variance with the population at large.
A white Christian pizza parlor waitresses’ off-the-cuff reticence to hypothetically cater a homosexual wedding requires her public condemnation and destruction of her’s and her employers’ livelihood, but the domestic killing of rebellious daughters and internationally televised public executions of suspected gays by Islamic fundamentalists is accepted as merely part of the beautiful tapestry of human diversity.
No person would ever work harder if they were rewarded with more food, wealth, status, sex, or any other natural desire; instead, all people will happily and voluntarily work as hard as they can and accept whatever emoluments their government provides with heartfelt gratitude. In fact, the opposite is true–people are much more likely to work hard and contribute to society if they never live in fear of going hungry, cold, hot, wet, or even without air conditioning and iPad Pros.
It’s just as moral and appropriate to put a gun to a stranger’s head to steal her cash to feed a stray animal asit is to buy food for the stray out of your own earnings. (OK, well, maybe you also need an act of Congress to sanctify the armed robbery.)
Elimination of price signals in favor of central planning will result in a more efficient, abundant, and equitable economy.
Violence never solved anything (including Italian Fascism, German National Socialism, Japanese militarism, Arab enslavement of black African tribesmen and white European sailors, the Russian White counter-revolution, or the Chinese Nationalist threat to Mao’s communists).
James: I don’t foresee any circumstance in which Hilary and co would acquiesce in Obama (or any other rival) attempting a third term.
James: regarding illegal immigrants, I suppose you realise that all those law-and-order southern republicans are letting those Latinos run wild instead of rounding them up and driving them over the Rio Grande?
If you imagine that the white folks who complain of foreigners taking their jobs are just making that up, I suggest you kindly explain their error to them, in person.
@James
“If that was the case, we would bring in the working class.”
Indeed, and so the USA does. 11million undocumented immigrants pay $11B in taxes. That is $1000 per illegal immigrant. Their undocumented status prevents them from paying more (over $2B extra).
http://www.itep.org/immigration/
@Parallel
Is your message that the people in the US are all insane? Or is it just people on talk radio?
My personal impresions from earlier encounters and visits was that the people in the US are quite normal. But if you insist, I won’t challenge your opinion.
@Parallel:
>> All cultures and civilizations are equal, except for Western Anglo-Saxon culture which is uniquely evil for having suppressed such practices as suttee in India, slavery in Africa, and genocide in Europe.
Western anglo saxon culture belongs in Britain. It does not belong in north America. That is what an elementary school geography/history lesson would teach you. And that is indeed the answer to your question. If you love it so much I would encourage you to identify the island of britain on map, buy a one way plane ticket, and head over there, and take a few James Donalds’ with you. You’ll find they speak far better English there, and even though you may find their zeal for their very own culture may not match your zeal for it, I am sure they’d welcome your enthusiastic support.
@uma – the history of mankind is one of constant migratory flux. Your assertion that certain groups of people ‘belong’ in only certain places is just mind-bendingly stupid.
Red Indians didn’t just sprout out of the ground here…or is there some kind of time limit you have in mind to establish ‘legitimacy’?
Taken to its demented illogical conclusion, you would have the human population move back to the region of Africa in the neighborhood of Ethiopia.
Dumbass.
@TomA –
There’s a third alternative you forgot, used as recently as the end of WWII. In the cases of both Germany and (especially) Japan, the US, after completely conquering them, we took over their political apparatus and remade their cultures to eliminate their desires to make war on the West. This ended up being quite successful.
Our Gracious Host has commented on just this idea here with respect to the parts of the world that currently wish to destroy us. We could have done that in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it would have been very expensive and time-consuming. The top political (and military?) leadership of our country chickened out.
@uma
“Western anglo saxon culture belongs in Britain. It does not belong in north America. ”
I must disagree here, at least partially. You can “live” British, Chinese, Japanese, or Arabic culture in the US. There are even “traditional” Dutch communities in the US and Canada (that would kick me out). But I agree that they are different than their home land.
I also agree with you that the qualities of Anglo saxon British culture are irrelevant to the US as that is a totally different culture. It is also not cultures that should be condemned, but practices. Torture and human sacrifice are wrong irrespective of the culture of those who practice them.
I do not care whether an Afghan was totured to death by a Muslim Taliban or a Christian US soldier. Anyone who does care is a hypocrit.
Dan:
>>the history of mankind is one of constant migratory flux. Your assertion that certain groups of people ‘belong’ in only certain places is just mind-bendingly stupid.
That means an unlimited number of Mexicans should be allowed to come here as part of their migratory flux too. And any human being should be allowed to move anywhere they want on the planet. Ditto with Europe. Every African should be able to move there as part of a constant migratory flux.
>> Red Indians didn’t just sprout out of the ground here…or is there some kind of time limit you have in mind to establish ‘legitimacy’?
For all practical/legitimacy purposes they did. I’d take their continued existence on the continent for 12,000 yrs as legitimacy. I’d take it as more legitimacy over your “constant migratory flux” BS anytime of the day, and your very own people (I am assuming you are of European origin) are asking for the same concept of legitimacy to be applied to them on the continent that they inhabited since the ice melted.
Last, if you talk to many white Americans they will tell you how they are 1/8th cherokee, or 1/16th Navajo etc etc. Some of them even get affirmative action as a result of that. Of course modern DNA science (the same science which told who the father of Anna Nicole Smith’s baby was) tells that the vast majority of these claims are bunk. Bunk that whites collectively invented in their heads to justify their existence on this continent, because in their own fucking collective mind they did not have legitimacy.
>Bunk that whites collectively invented in their heads to justify their existence on this continent, because in their own fucking collective mind they did not have legitimacy.
You’re talking ahistorical nonsense. I am a “white” who has never even once thought of my part-Amerind ancestry as any kind of legitimizing, because I don’t need any legitimization. I belong here because my ancestors (white and Amerind) worked hard to make this country a fit place to live. The fact that they fought among themselves hardly seems even relevant; after all, I didn’t scalp any palefaces or shoot any Injuns.
@Winter:
>> I must disagree here, at least partially. You can “live” British, Chinese, Japanese, or Arabic culture in the US. There are even “traditional” Dutch communities in the US and Canada (that would kick me out). But I agree that they are different than their home land.
Your statement is more true in the case of Canada than the US. The US is more of a melting pot. Canada is more of multi-kulti society.
@esr:
>>You’re talking ahistorical nonsense. I am a “white” who has never even once thought of my part-Amerind ancestry as any kind of legitimizing, because I don’t need any legitimization.
Great. So explain to me why so many whites imagined that they have Amerind ancestry. DNA evidence doesn’t lie. I also don’t know that you have Amerind ancestry for a fact. If you tell me that you’ve taken a DNA test and it came positive then great. If not, then more likely than not (in fact much more likely than not) you’re merely imagining that you have Amerind ancestry
I belong here because my ancestors (white and Amerind) worked hard to make this country a fit place to live. The fact that they fought among themselves hardly seems even relevant
Sounds like it was lifted from an Obama “Yes we Can” speech. Amen!
>So explain to me why so many whites imagined that they have Amerind ancestry.
Why does it matter? I’m not concerned with that, I’m just reporting that your “legitimization” theory is nonsense. The only “white” Americans who think they need “legitimization” are so irrationally racked by PC guilt that having Amerind ancestors wouldn’t help them.
>I also don’t know that you have Amerind ancestry for a fact.
No, and comes to that I don’t have what you’d probably consider “fact” either, just some family records from my mother’s side. It doesn’t matter, because I’ve never tried to jawbone anyone into giving me a racial preference (I find the thought of doing so revolting).
For purposes of refuting your argument, it doesn’t even matter whether my belief that I have some Amerind DNA is correct. It only matters that I didn’t form that belief to “legitimize” myself, and find the idea that I might have to be deeply silly.
“Last, if you talk to many white Americans they will tell you how they are 1/8th cherokee, or 1/16th Navajo etc etc. Some of them even get affirmative action as a result of that.”
Yeah, like a hard-left Senator who’s no doubt a heroine of yours, Elizabeth Warren.
In relation to your discussion of ancestries. A question from a complete outsider. How much is the infamous “one drop of blood rule” still alive?
@esr:
>> For purposes of refuting your argument, it doesn’t even matter whether my belief that I have some Amerind DNA is correct. It only matters that I didn’t form that belief to “legitimize” myself,
As an individual ‘Yes’. You are too intelligent to think along those lines. As a member of a larger group, that holds similar beliefs that are not backed up by science, I am afraid the answer is ‘No’. It is a legitimate question for social scientists to study why whites engage in that type of collective self deception? Is it part of a collective guilt complex that predates the modern PC culture and etiquette? Is it part of a subconscious desire to have a deeper connection to the land (ie legitimacy)? Is it some other root cause. What is it? If my theory is nonsense, what is your theory?
>Is it part of a collective guilt complex that predates the modern PC culture and etiquette?
I don’t think so.
>Is it part of a subconscious desire to have a deeper connection to the land (ie legitimacy)?
You’ve confused two different issues here. I think “a subconscious desire to have a deeper connection to the land” may well be part of it, but in the U.S. “legitimacy” is different from that.
I think you are confused about this because you come from a part of the world where the concept of ancient tribal heimats and the “legitimacy” that flows from them is politically and psychologically very real. It’s not like that for Americans – we know we’re mostly a nation of immigrants, for most of us part-Amerind ancestry is a sort of romantic ornamental flourish that has no political meaning at all. It’s not like the Middle East, where which “people” and which heimat you come from matters a great deal to what kind of political claims you have.
@Winter: yes, I am convinced that a significant portion of the American electorate is insane, where insane is defined as willing ignorance and defiance of objective truth.
We no longer require even a single drop of blood to establish one as black or white; see the case of Rachel Dolezal (http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/16/us/washington-rachel-dolezal-naacp/) or the phenomenon of inner city youths facing severe peer pressure, ostracization, or even physical violence for “acting white” (e.g. getting good grades in school, speaking without poor Scots-Irish vocal dialect affectations like “axe” for “ask”, etc.).
uma,
The historian Sarah Vowell (whom you would recognize as the voice of Violet Parr in The Incredibles has noted that “being part Cherokee in Oklahoma is like being a Cubs fan in Chicago”. Interbreeding happens, and it doesn’t take much of it to produce many descendants in the present day. That’s why so many whites claim to have Amerind ancestry: in some parts of the nation where native-settler interaction was frequent, many whites do have such ancestry.
(A close friend of mine used to self-describe as full-blooded Amerind — until she took a DNA test and found out she was like 1/16 black!)
As for Rachel Dolezal, fuck her. She made me think of Iron Eyes Cody, except Iron Eyes went to lengths to live as one of his adopted people. Rachel, by contrast, presents as white or black when it is to her advantage to do so. If she wants to live as black, she has to deal with the good and bad of all that it means to be black in America: limited job and social opportunities, limited social capital, extra scrutiny and harassment by police. Then maybe the black community will accept her. As it is they’re throwing her white ass under the bus, meaning she doesn’t count as black.
@ John D. Bell – “There’s a third alternative you forgot”
By distant past, I was referring to the archetype exemplified by such historical figures as Genghis Khan. This mode of conquest became common throughout Asia and Europe and persisted over millennia simply because it worked best. It is a part of over evolutionary history and these ingrained cultural traits do not fade easily.
The post WWII period is part of contemporary history, and the pacification of Germany and Japan are indeed examples of dramatic societal conversion that was largely accomplished via military occupation. These successes are quite rare however, and there are also many contemporary failure examples; e.g. Vietnam and the Soviet occupation of Afganistan. In these endeavors, our military is not the weak link, but as you point out, it is the poor quality of our political leadership.
Hence my original point, any domestic tyrant (or really really bad President) that would attempt to order the US military into battle against our civilian population is doomed to failure, but could cause a great deal of harm and death in the process.
“It’s not like that for Americans – we know we’re mostly a nation of immigrants”
Indeed. I do not know very much about my ancestry other than that three of the four grandparents’ birth names were English, Scottish, and German (the fourth, my own, was assumed by my grandfather as a young boy, and we do not know the original). Family legend traces one branch back to one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, but that connection doesn’t really resonate for us.
I think of myself as Texan, nothing more, nothing less. I don’t care whether any of my family is Amerind; it would not change who and what I am the tiniest bit.
@esr:
> You’ve confused two different issues here. I think “a subconscious desire to have a deeper connection to the land” may well be part of it, but “legitimacy” is different from that.
A deep connection to the land is almost synonymous with “legitimacy”. Let’s have the following thought experiment. Let’s say you, James Donald, Michael, and 50k other people like you, descend down on Bolivia, and with your sharp-shooting skills machine gun half its population and settle down there. Most of you would inbreed with the sharpshooting gals that went down there with you, while some of you (with different taste in mating, and not as fanatic devotions to James Donalds ideas) mate with some Amerindian bolivian sex slaves. 50 years later, do any of you have “legitimacy” to be there? Given that a few whites mated with natives, can James Donald’s children tell the others in Bolivia, that they’re 1/16th bolivian too, and that you’re all part of one happy existence there?
>> I think you are confused about this because you come from a part of the world where the concept of ancient tribal heimats and the “legitimacy” that flows from them is politically and psychologically very real. It’s not like that for Americans – we know we’re mostly a nation of immigrants, for most of us part-Amerind ancestry is a sort of romantic ornamental flourish that has no political meaning at all. It’s not at all like the Middle East, where which “people” you come from matters a great deal.
First of all, you’re making too many assumptions about the Mid-east and my background. Contrary to what you believe, it matters not a great in the middle east which “people” you come from. If that were the case, the Roma (Gypsies) would have been in as miserable a condition as they are in Hungary or Romania or the Czech republic, when in reality they have almost totally melted in the larger population. If that mattered too much, the mid-east would have looked like the homogenous (religiously and ethnically) nation states of Europe, not the heterogenous mosaic of peoples and sects that it is.
>can James Donald’s children tell the others in Bolivia, that they’re 1/16th bolivian too, and that you’re all part of one happy existence there?
The question has a mistaken assumption (I mean, aside from the obvious absurdity of me machine-gunning people who have done me no harm). If we were to do that, we could not acquire “legitimacy” by mating with the natives. Some of us might do it for other reasons.
@esr:
Clarification and just so that we don’t go on some irrelevant mid-eastern tangents.
– ‘Legitimacy’ in my post is not the same as legitimacy in “legitimate child”.
– It is ‘Legitimacy’ is as in “legitimate claim”. ie, in the legal, ethical sense of the word.
esr:
>>The question has a mistaken assumption (I mean, aside from the obvious absurdity of me machine-gunning people who have done me no harm).
It is not absurd at all, if you have James Donald’s ideas about the world, his religion, and his god.
Was it absurd for King Leopald of Belgium who declared the Congo as his personal posession, and perpetrated a near-total genocide of its population (Congolese genocide) ?
If we were to do that, we could not acquire “legitimacy” by mating with the natives. Some of us might do it for other reasons.
I take that as a ‘No’. What was founded on wrong is wrong (legitimacy). Moreover, you cannot use the little that is right (the beautiful white/bolivian children) to justify the much that was wrong. Much less spread lies and propaganda that there was too much of the beautiful thing when in fact there was too little of it.
@esr:
>>The question has a mistaken assumption (I mean, aside from the obvious absurdity of me machine-gunning people who have done me no harm).
It is not absurd at all, if you have James Donald’s ideas about the world, his religion, and his god.
Was it absurd for King Leopald of Belgium who declared the Congo as his personal possession, and perpetrated a near-total genocide of its population (Congolese genocide) ?
>>If we were to do that, we could not acquire “legitimacy” by mating with the natives. Some of us might do it for other reasons.
I take that as a ‘No’. What was founded on wrong is wrong (legitimacy). Moreover, you cannot use the little that is right (the beautiful white/bolivian children) to justify the much that was wrong. Much less spread lies and propaganda that there was too much of the beautiful thing when in fact there was too little of it.
The Belgian Congo is a mess since the Europeans left. James McDonald shared a really good link about some German or maybe Dutch people going on an extended vacation there recently. (If you scroll up or do an edit/find in your browser, you can probably find it) They nearly got eaten. The infrastructure is even more decayed than Detroit’s.
Oops, sorry, I meant to say James Donald. It is easier to think of him as Foghorn Leghorn the big white rooster.
Also, I am an ignorant American, so I do not know if the Congo is the same as King Leopold of Belgium’s Congo. I was referring to the Democratic Republic of Congo, see here for photos of massive post-colonial infrastructure decay and corruption. This is what Foghorn Leghorn was referring to.
>>”Vietnam and Iraq were drastically different wars in almost every way, other than the American Left was on the side of brutality and oppression in both of them.”
I’m aware of how different they were, but my point was about the similarities of the opposing forces with regards to strategic center of gravity. Western nations simply don’t have the appetite for prolonged conflict or total war. The Islamist insurgency in Iraq exploited that fact in the same way that the NVA did in Vietnam.
The tactics and cultures were both wildly different, but the center of gravity remained the same – American popular opinion. Any force that can maintain an American body count in the news, in spite of their own horrendous losses, will have a reasonable chance at achieving their longterm goals. The insurgency in Iraq had nowhere near the capabilities of the NVA/Vietcong and as a result weren’t able to inflict a comparable casualty rate.
Which goes to show that until the US engages in total war, its highly trained, incomparably equipped professional armed forces are not some unstoppable juggernaut.
I meant to add at the end of my second paragraph: And yet the Islamists – with much, much less – accomplished the same goal in Iraq as the NVA did in Vietnam.
Hey @uma, why are you such a reactionary? Do you really mean to advocate returning to the explicit and blatant racist society with race-based laws like Jim Crow and widespread attitudes and assumptions that produced a fertile ground for such organizations as the armed wing of the Democratic Party (Ku Klux Klan)?
In your opinion, was the Democratic administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt justified in the forced internment of ethnic Japanese for the duration of World War II? Were the ethnic Japanese volunteers to the 442nd Infantry Division traitors to their race because they fought and died on behalf of the very society that was imprisoning them and their families? Was mainstream American society wrong to re-evaluate the loyalty of ethnic Japanese when they saw the 9,486 Purple Hearts and 22 Congressional Medals of Honor won by that unit?
In your opinion, was the election of John Fitzgerald Kennedy a mistake? You see, he was an Irish Catholic (one of the prime targets of KKK oppression) and lots of people were afraid he would be more loyal to the Papacy than the Constitution.
In your opinion, were the Tuskegee Airmen traitors to their race by fighting so heroically on behalf of American society and the United Nations against Germany?
In your opinion, was it a mistake for American society to answer the call by Martin Luther King for America to live up to its founding ideals and accept that “all men are created equal”?
I have no idea about the color of your skin. But by King’s standard of character content, it doesn’t really matter does it?
> Let’s say you, James Donald, Michael, and 50k other people like you, descend down on Bolivia, and with your sharp-shooting skills machine gun half its population and settle down there. Most of you would inbreed with the sharpshooting gals that went down there with you, while some of you (with different taste in mating, and not as fanatic devotions to James Donalds ideas) mate with some Amerindian bolivian sex slaves. 50 years later, do any of you have “legitimacy” to be there? Given that a few whites mated with natives, can James Donald’s children tell the others in Bolivia, that they’re 1/16th bolivian too, and that you’re all part of one happy existence there?
If you go back far enough, and sometimes you do not need to go back very far at all, that is pretty much the origins of every people in history.
Today’s amerindians are the most recent of wave after wave of genocides. The population of the Americas has suffered near total replacement umpteen times. Recall what happened to the Romanized Britons when Rome fell.
What seems to happen is that a people get too civilized, and then too decadent, and then the empire that protected them falls, and then the wolves come in and devour the sheep. It is pretty repetitious actually.
Today’s white women smell another one coming.
uma on 2015-12-13 at 19:05:24 said:
> Was it absurd for King Leopald of Belgium who declared the Congo as his personal possession, and perpetrated a near-total genocide of its population (Congolese genocide) ?
The “near total genocide” was just normal Congo levels of murder and cannibalism. King Leopold was condemned for his failure to wave a magic wand and instantly make the Congo as nice as Belgium. Some of the people killing and eating each other were arguably allied to King Leopold.
But pretty soon they did make the Congo almost as nice as Belgium, and then when the whites (many of them born there) were driven out, the place went to hell again.
Today, while we venomously condemn poor King Leopold for his failure to instantly make the place orderly, no one seems to worry when the army of the Congo, funded, armed and militarily supported by the west, attempts to impose equality and social justice by vaginally impaling Tutsi women with objects larger than themselves.
@Parallel:
If whites somehow manage to elect Trump, I would advocate non-stop protest and civil disobedience, until mass non-white immigration is enacted by law. Of course I would not favor a law based on skin color (e.g. similar to the affirmative action laws). I would instead take a page from the white man’s forked tongue book and favor a law based setting zero quotas for countries/regions/continents that have already sent too many immigrants to the US. Nothing short of that will cure Trump’s white America of its mental delusions, and the hubris/shit it is so full of.
This election is about this one issue: “Immigration of non-whites”. There are two camps. The “America is white and Christian” camp. The “everybody else” camp.
The fact that “conservatives” , have all rallied up behind a divisive demagogue advocating protectionist economics (how quickly they forgot their “Reaganomics” religion) tells you all you need to know about what this “conservative movement” is really all about.
@JAD
>> The “near total genocide” was just normal Congo levels of murder and cannibalism.
Ok genius. So explain to us why did the genocide stop when control of the territory was turned over to the government of Belgium as opposed to being King Leopald’s personal property. The congo did not gain its independence from belgium until 1960. Many decades after control of the territory was transferred to the government of Belgium.
uma
> If whites somehow manage to elect Trump, I would advocate non-stop protest and civil disobedience, until mass non-white immigration is enacted by law.
Notice that the person who believes whites have no right to exist in America, has fantasies of whites in America being massacred, and who enthusiastically endorses the recent mass expulsions of white “settlers” from various world countries that subsequently went to hell wants unlimited mass immigration.
These people think that the only purpose of cash registers in supermarkets is to gratuitously make nonwhites suffer.
uma on 2015-12-14 at 02:28:52 said:
> Ok genius. So explain to us why did the genocide stop when control of the territory was turned over to the government of Belgium
It takes a while to impose order. King Leopold had made good progress in imposing order, so seems to me that the genocide had pretty much stopped long before the territory was handed over.
>>”The fact that “conservatives”, have all rallied up behind a divisive demagogue advocating protectionist economics (how quickly they forgot their “Reaganomics” religion) tells you all you need to know about what this “conservative movement” is really all about.”
Do you have some evidence that conservatives have “all” rallied behind Trump, or did you just want to keep your own divisive demagoguery cranked up to eleven?
I won’t bother asking for evidence of your “two camps” idea since it’s obviously based on febrile ravings.
@JAD:
>> and who enthusiastically endorses the recent mass expulsions of white “settlers” from various world countries
There were no “mass expulsions” of white settlers from any of those world countries. So you’re talking out your read once again. Their home governments repatriated them back to their home countries with some significant numbers choosing to remain.
In the case of Algeria, significant numbers did indeed remain, and a lot of them slowly returned to France only in the years/decades that followed after independence. Mainly to pursue better economic opportunities in their home countries.
Remainder of your post – nothing worth responding to.
To give some perspective of the future of Trump’s bid for the presidency.
Marie Le Pen is the long running French example for Trump. Same message, same type of supporters. She got 30% of the votes in regional elections in France and her party was the biggest in 6 out of 13 regions (provinces). In the second round, her party failed to win in a single regions. The rest of the parties and their voter banded together to deny her even a single region.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/french-regional-elections-marine-le-pens-front-national-beaten-into-third-place-say-exit-polls-1533152
That is the harvest from hate politics. Trump is vilifying all other parties and their news media and their voters. Just like Le Pen’s Front National does in France. The result is that they harvest unity from their opponents and do not get a majority.
Fun:
Is Donald Trump a Democratic secret agent?
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35066940
@Parallel
“@Winter: yes, I am convinced that a significant portion of the American electorate is insane, where insane is defined as willing ignorance and defiance of objective truth.”
That is a different insanity altogether than what you described earlier. Those were utterly stupid actions.
@Parallel
“We no longer require even a single drop of blood to establish one as black or white; see the case of Rachel Dolezal”
Why do you try to deceive us?
Rachel Dolezal lied about her ancestry. As you cannot determine whether someone is “black” by US standards by looking at their skin, there was no way for her “peers” to check her words other than by a DNA test. When they found out, she was booted from her position. So, if her case shows anything, you do need a “drop of blood” to qualify. It is just that it is difficult to find a single drop of black blood in an otherwise white person.
That she herself identifies with black people is totally irrelevant. Some people identify as certain animals or even to be dead (Cotard delusion). That does not make them animals nor zombies.
@gmmay:
>> Do you have some evidence that conservatives have “all” rallied behind Trump
Yes. It is called the “polls”.
“Conservatives” are for Trump + Cruz(distant 2nd in polls). The other candidates – well let’s just say they’re the candidates of the republican establishment and they haven’t excited the “conservative base”.
uma:
>There were no “mass expulsions” of white settlers from any of those world countries
In the case of the Congo they raped, murdered, and ate, (not necessarily in that order) every white they could get their hands on.
Every Algerian white that did not leave was murdered.
In Zimbabwe, expulsion was pretty violent, though not as absurdly violent as the Congo.
Whites left Detroit because blacks kept setting fire to their homes.
@James
“In the case of the Congo they raped, murdered, and ate, (not necessarily in that order) every white they could get their hands on.”
There was a loss of millions of lives due to Belgian rule (anywhere from 15-50% of the initial population).
Congo Free State
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_Free_State#Death_toll
This thoroughly horrible outcome of independence can be understood as resulting from the destruction of all social structure and a brutal civil war (in which the Western countries had their hands too).
Congo Crisis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_Crisis
For those who did not follow the news. There has been an international war in the Congo in 1998-2003 (after the Rwanda genocide) that involved most of its neighboring countries. Around 5 million people died as a result of that war, and it is still not completely over.
Second Congo War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Congo_War
I must say that I think that anyone who tries to travel these war fields as a tourist is stupid.
uma
> Their home governments repatriated them back to their home countries with some significant numbers choosing to remain.
Could you identify a particular white Belgian that chose to remain and survived?
It is now possible, though not very safe, for whites to visit the Congo, but in the initial days of independence, they tended to blame whites for the fact that everything was mysteriously going to hell in a handbasket. This did not result in a systematic planned program of killing all whites, but it did result in an unsystematic unplanned very grave danger to white people, which made it impossible to stay, and impossible to leave.
There are indeed some whites remaining in Zimbabwe, partly because no country will accept them as refugees but there is a lot of violence and systematic dispossession. Farms and other property are confiscated, often by irregular violence Most white property has been confiscated. As a result many of those whites remaining in Zimbabwe are desperately poor, and exposed to extremely high rates of crime, which crime is not exactly a racial pogrom, and not exactly not a racial pogrom either.
For those who want to read more about the events after the independence of the Congo:
http://www.africafederation.net/End_Belgium_Congo.htm
As usual, history is somewhat more complex (and interesting) that James’ fairy tales.
@JAD
>> Could you identify a particular white Belgian that chose to remain and survived?
That is a valid question. It has no relation to your original false claim -which you pulled out of your rear end- that there were mass expulsions of whites. Violence, revenge attacks, etc are different from “mass expulsion”
>> In Zimbabwe, expulsion was pretty violent, though not as absurdly violent as the Congo.
There was no mass expulsion of whites from Zimbabwe. When whites lost the land they farmed they left. And a lot of them left to nearby african countries. The farmland “owned” by a few thousand farmers was close to the size of Iowa. Some sweet deals those fuckers had while it lasted? No?
uma: You’re so full of shit it’s leaking out your ears.
“The fact that “conservatives” , have all rallied up behind a divisive demagogue advocating protectionist economics (how quickly they forgot their “Reaganomics” religion) tells you all you need to know about what this “conservative movement” is really all about.”
Donald Trump is no conservative. The majority of conservatives recognize that. You’re conflating “conservative” with “Republican”. Further, 30% (Trump’s pretty constant standing in the polls for a while now) is not “all rall[ying] up”.
“>> Do you have some evidence that conservatives have “all” rallied behind Trump
Yes. It is called the “polls”.”
Which you apparently haven’t read. Trump has the highest unfavorable ratings of any Republican primary candidate, and the highest numbers of “no way I’ll vote for him” of any. He may well peak out right where he is now. That won’t win him the nomination…but if he decides he’s been treated unfairly, for whatever that means to him, he’ll pull out and run as a third party candidate – and hand the election to Hillary Clinton.
I am a conservative who thinks Donald Trump needs to drop out and go away.
>Donald Trump is no conservative.
Jay is right about this. I’m not a conservative myself and have no tribal allegiance to conservatives, so I can take an objective view of the matter. Trump’s positions reflect neither cultural conservatism nor the small-government classical liberalism that is mingled with it in the U.S.
Trump is a throwback to an older style of populism in U.S.politics, exemplified by William Jennings Bryan, that doesn’t map easily to modern political categories. Figures like him tend to rise when the national power elites are widely seen as ineffectual, corrupt, and systematic liars – and in present time that is certainly the case for both Democrats and Republicans.
@Jay Maynard
Conservative = Trump+Cruz in this election. The others either have the wrong position on immigration (eg Rubio, Bush) or are polling at microscopically small levels they can be ignored. I think Kasich and Rubio are the most electable candidates but I don’t see them winning the primary. Carson can safely be ignored
@Jay Maynard
“I am a conservative who thinks Donald Trump needs to drop out and go away.”
The polls are telling us that none of the GOP candidates is likely to win against Hillary. So if Trump drops out, who will be able to win against Hillary?
I read somewhere else a suggestion that even a Rubio-Fiorina ticket will lose against Hillary and only a ticket with Susana Martinez as candidate with Colin Powell as VP might be able to make Hillary sweat. But I suspect that would throw the Tea Party into a terminal fit and they would break away.
@esr
“Trump is a throwback to an older style of populism in U.S.politics, exemplified by William Jennings Bryan, that doesn’t map easily to modern political categories.”
And he is equivalent to the European populists, like Marie Le Pen and IIRC like Argentinian Peron.
This is “Santa Claus” politics. A populist promises that he will fill the voters’ stockings with whatever is on their wish-list. There is absolutely no method or thought behind the promises.
>And [Trump] is equivalent to the European populists, like Marie Le Pen and IIRC like Argentinian Peron.
Peron is a fair comparison. Like Trump, his appeal had nothing to do with any of his political economics; there were both pro-free-market and socialist Peronist factions.
Marine Le Pen perhaps less so; her party is rather more socialist than Trump’s platform or Peron’s party, which is why the free-market insurgent parties further east want nothing to do with the FN. Even the UKIP is keeping its distance.
@ESR
Trump’s positions reflect neither cultural conservatism nor the small-government classical liberalism that is mingled with it in the U.S.
I think the correct term for this would be “Classical Conservative”, by generalization of “Classical Liberal”
Also, after watching the monkey fight between JAD and uma (complete with appropriate screaming and stray pieces of flying shit!), I hereby nominate this thread for Most Surreal Discussion Ever Seen Of A&D.
“Conservative = Trump+Cruz in this election.”
No. Again, you are so full of shit it’s leaking out your ears.
Donald Trump is in favor of single-payer government medicine.
Donald Trump favors a ban on so-called “assault weapons”.
Donald Trump thinks affirmative action is all right.
Donald Trump supports a “progressive” income tax.
Donald Trump doesn’t want to cut Medicare or Social Security.
And I got that list not from the other candidates in the race, but from Mother Jones.
Donald Trump is not a conservative. He says the right things about immigration, but there’s far more to the story than that.
Amendment to my last: Mother Jones didn’t include the first, but it’s easily found all over the web. A Google for “Donald Trump single payer” will turn up lots of links.
@ Winter & uma
Your strategy of strident whining is working as predicted. Gun sales in the US spiked again following Obama’s speech. Keep that tight focus on the Donald Trump boogeyman; and by all means, please keep funding our federal debt by purchasing treasury bonds. And when the day comes that this Ponzi scheme is revealed, you can take solace in your righteousness. But don’t come here to collect, impotence is a poor substitute for firearms and ammunition.
Ideally we would put Trump and Ron Paul (or someone similar) in a blender, and then through the mechanism of ooohhh look a handwave! get the best of both.
From Trump:
Recognizing Islam for what it is and that it needs to be dealt with.
How to handle opponents to make fools of them.
From Ron:
Not getting economic ideas from the equivalent of the Flat Earth Society.
Understanding that closing up the internet is a direct path to tyranny.
Understanding that banning guns for people on the no fly list is ALL THE NOPE IN THE UNIVERSE.
Not falling for “This is the holding tank of a sewage treatment plant, but because we put a sign on it that says ‘National Greatness’ you will take a swim and call it the best beach resort ever.”.
Sadly we would probably end up with the worst of both.
>>”Yes. It is called the “polls”.
“Conservatives” are for Trump + Cruz(distant 2nd in polls). The other candidates – well let’s just say they’re the candidates of the republican establishment and they haven’t excited the “conservative base”.
Then you have a poor understanding of “polls”. The “polls” are still in their early stages and won’t really start to reflect reality for quite awhile yet. A couple of weeks ago, Carson was in a solid second place and plenty of Carson supporters despise Trump.
But let’s run with your original thesis. “All Conservatives are behind Trump.” The latest Iowa “polls” suggest something different.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2015/12/12/big-shakeup-iowa-poll-cruz-soars-lead/77199800/
That “poll” also showed that Carson was leading at one point (I only say this to show the unpredictability early polling).
By the “logic” you’re using here – just because some blue collar Democrats are tentatively supporting Trump – you could then say that “All Liberals and Independents are behind Trump.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-iduskcn0sp0hx20151031
http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-forges-new-blue-collar-coalition-among-republicans-1449272326
As other have already corrected you – Trump is no conservative. He’s a creature of the Left and most conservatives seem to know this. Were he running as a Democrat, he’d probably have similar or better numbers as he does now given that most of his policy positions are solidly Democrat.
So now that you’re trying to move the goalposts, do you have any evidence to support the claim that “all conservatives” want Trump/Cruz?
Winter:
> For those who want to read more about the events after the independence of the Congo:
http://www.africafederation.net/End_Belgium_Congo.htm
Liar
According to your source:
“the main object was to liquidate the Belgians, and this was largely achieved”
Your source agrees with me: That nonwhite rule has frequently expelled, and often attempted genocide, against whites.
@JAD
Belgian != White
Trump might not be a True Conservative, but he mops up most of the Tea Party support base. So Trump denies the True Conservatives their natural votes.
Maybe your own ideas about True Conservatives lost contact with reality?
@gmmay
“As other have already corrected you – Trump is no conservative. He’s a creature of the Left and most conservatives seem to know this”
But his voters disagree. They trade in conservative GOP candidates for Trump.
I will take their judgment over yours. If you claim the voters are wrong, then you are in bigger trouble than you realize.
“Trump might not be a True Conservative, but he mops up most of the Tea Party support base.”
Actually, no. That support is going to Ted Cruz, and Cruz is surging. He’s been a Tea Party favorite for years.
Trump’s support comes from single-issue immigration voters and people more concerned with fighting the Washington establishment than with what the fight is about. That’s about it. If any other candidate had taken on immigration as an issue early – and there was plenty of demand for it! – they’d have owned that segment of the primary electorate.
The voters are going for Trump as a personality, not because he’s a conservative.
@Winter
Trump is popular with nationalists because of his anti-immigration stance. Please note that I do not say “nationalist” with any pejorative connotation. I am not a big fan of globalism. Lots of Republicans love globalism. Libertarians like isolationism but they also like open borders.
Trump is also popular with certain Democrats who are ardently pro-labor. These people are not liberal progressives. Some are what might be called socialists. They did not want to see American manufacturing outsourced to other countries, while Americans are left without jobs or viable futures for careers, families. (That’s what the entire “more education” canard is intended to do: distract us from that reality. Knowledge workers! Sharing economy! Millennials demand freelancing! No, they don’t. They would like full-time jobs with salaries including dental insurance, so that there is some hope of ever owning a home, getting married, having a family.) No, they do not want more H1-B visas. Notice that there isn’t a single candidate, whether Democrat or GOP, who talks about ending that! No, ultimately, they are all captured by big business interests. I digress.
Anyway, there are more similarities between what JAD wants and the more sensible parts of the far Left. I would even go so far as to say that JAD’s seeming racism, although he doesn’t mention Hispanics, is due more to resentment over having irrationally pro-immigration, pro-multicultural diversity shoved down his throat for too long. Do you have any idea how many other people are sick of it too? I know that I am. Interracial marriage and integration, for example, are not objectively good for their own sakes. There shouldn’t be rules against it, but it is not inherently superior than marrying people of one’s own race. Many (most?) people like being with other people who share their values, language, religion and worldview. I think Israel’s nationalism is awesome, except for the fact that Israel and Jews in general don’t seem to want any other country to do that. It gets more than a little tiresome and hypocritical; I suspect others have noticed. There’s nothing I can do it about it, as one lone Jew, but at least I can acknowledge it.
When I visit The Conservative Treehouse, they support Trump for the most part. As the big conservative sloth says, “Trump is against open borders and immigration, and that is all that matters to us now”. As long as Trump doesn’t take away my guns, and doesn’t insist that I have to share the ladies room at work with transgender men, I will consider his presidential candidacy with an open mind. I only wish he were pro-nuclear energy, against corrupt and nutty sustainability crap and wouldn’t let big companies fire me and my fellow engineer co-workers (after forcing us to train our unskilled low wage foreign replacements).
Winter, it takes a long time to figure all this out. We (including me) barely seem to understand what is going on here, and we are Americans. Obviously, we, the collective readers of ESR’s blog are not idiots or stupid. You haven’t said we were. I mention this only to emphasize that if we don’t know what is going on, it might be equally difficult to discern from Switzerland. I think Uma said you are Swiss. (My half-brother is a Swiss citizen. All he ever wants me to do is mail expensive consumer electronics to him, because they cost less here. He doesn’t have a clue about American politics.)
Winter:
> Belgian != White
Do you think illiterate cannibals check people’s passports?
Checking the sources there seems some disagreement as whether this was planned expulsion and genocide, or it just turned out that way. Given the general chaos and the difficulty of organizing illiterate savages to do anything, this is a distinction without a difference. Some people intended expulsion, some people intended genocide, and some people did not intend much of anything, but enough people intended to kill or harm whites that it did not make a whole lot of difference.
Michael on 2015-12-11 at 19:21:11 said:
> @William O. B’Livion
> “Except that in Iraq up through 2010 we had won the war and were winning the peace.”
> Yes, but it’s the long game that matters. It’s true we had m/l taken control of the whole
> country. But the insurgent/4GW war that we all knew was coming was barely underway.
I doubt you’d remember, even if you were here then, but I was in Iraq in 2009, and I have a couple friends who were there even earlier.
We had won the war and were winning the peace.
> However, the main point is that everyone knew we wouldn’t stay there for much longer.
We STILL have troops in Germany, Korea, and the Balkans. We still have troops in Afghanistan.
We could have maintained reasonably sized garrisons and QRFs for a generation if the trendline of violence had continued the direction it was going when Obama took office.
>> “A president committed to the notion that basic American ideals–personal liberty,
>> religious freedom, representative government are in some fashion human ideals–would
>> have been able to continue the course with ever decreasing causalities ”
> For all of Obama’s legendary incompetence I don’t think “losing Iraq” is a charge to
> be laid at his feet.
Bullshit. Pure unmitigated bullshit. The al-Malik government was trying to re-negotiate the SOFA with the USG. Prior to Obama being sworn in GW Bush would have a weekly meeting with al-Malik to discuss the situation. Obama **NEVER** talked with him, delegating this task to others, and thus insulting the head of the Iraqi government, and thus ensuring that the SOFA was not negotiated.
We did know that if we withdrew our support there would be problems, but the longer we stayed the better chance the institutions we were trying to stand up would survive.
If that progressive fuqtard in the oval office had a scintilla of concern for the things that the left has been drum beating for years he would have gotten the rest of the leftist fools in Europe to help push for liberal democratic ideals.
But he didn’t.
Like I said, I was there. And not as a soldier on some FOB in the middle of nowhere. I was a technician on Camp Victory working at the JNCC. I’m not saying I was well connected, but I was in the place where plans were being made, solutions being suggested and long term plans being discussed.
I know–because I was there–that there were plans in place to keep large parts of VBC and the Green Zone running long term.
> To keep Iraq under our thumb would have required ruthlessness, resources and
> political will that were simply unavailable.
See, that betrays your politics and beliefs. We were never going to “keep Iraq under our thumb” any more than we did with Germany, the Philippines, Japan, or South Korea. The goal was nation building (which utterly failed in Korea, Japan, the Phillipines…). It was more challenging in Iraq because of cultural issues and because our nominal allies (Saudi Arabia for example) and our long term enemies (Russia, Iran) were using Iraq as a proxy in their war against the US.
But it comes right back down to Obama had the chance to *TRY*, and he didn’t.
> The broader point being that insurgent/4GW wars aren’t about military objectives,
> they are about political objectives. And they are frighteningly effective.
And they can be fought the same way, but modern governments lack the very things needed to effectively fight this sort of warfare.
Then don’t have the integrity, they don’t have the honesty, and people straight out don’t believe them.
Well, that and too many times “our” governments are actually on their side.
uma on 2015-12-11 at 22:53:42 said:
> The civil war is coming (civil war 2). The Trump phenomenon is indicator its coming.
> Right wing talk has essentially created a parallel universe inside of which its white
> middle American followers live. It is essentially the madrasas of north America and the
> conditions it creates on the ground in the minds of its followers are no different than those
> of a deobandi madrasa in Kandahar or at the foothills of Hindu-Kush mountains.
What bridge do live under?
Jeff Read on 2015-12-08 at 21:49:54 said:
Umm, planning on voting for Hilliary?
Sorry, in that last comment something got eaten by brackets:
( comments about Zimmerman’s questionable character )
>> Could you identify a particular white Belgian that chose to remain and survived?
uma
> That is a valid question. It has no relation to your original false claim -which you pulled out of your rear end- that there were mass expulsions of whites.
We don’t know of any whites that chose to remain, for if any did choose to remain, they were murdered..
>>”I will take their judgment over yours. If you claim the voters are wrong, then you are in bigger trouble than you realize.”
Perhaps you misread. I made no judgment call here. I was simply showing how uma’s assertion was obviously false. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? I see that you’re now claiming that Trump mops up Tea Party types. Do you have evidence for that too? If not, I’ll trust what my eyes are telling me and not your sincerest wishes.
Jay Maynard on 2015-12-14 at 13:21:20 said:
> The voters are going for Trump as a personality, not because he’s a conservative.
First off there’s significant question in my mind if “voters” are, or if “people” are. In the US these are two very different things.
Secondly it’s not just that Trump is a personality, it’s that he’s a personality saying things that focus on two areas were Americans of many colors and creeds feel pressure and fear.
Unchecked, open border immigration puts significant wage pressure on the sorts of jobs that have no to minimal training requirements, and on jobs that can be done “good enough”. This is everything from cooking fries at McDonalds to house cleaning and lawn care–the latter two of which are lower middle class jobs in pay, if not in status.
We see migration of gangs like MS13 up from Mexico, along with some of their practices (like kiddnaping etc.). We see Muslims coming in and insisting that they be NOT accountable to our laws, but to Sharia which we find incompatible with the American ideal of everyone being held to the same standard (yeah, we could be better at it. But saying “we’re not perfect so f*k it” is a REALLY bad idea).
We see Speed Bump and his brother killing people in Boston after being granted Asylum, we see what happened in San Bernadino. We see Ft. Hood blamed on “workplace violence” by our government. We see both Bush and Obama refuse to accept that regardless of whether we think we’re in a war with Islam, THEY think they are in a war with us.
We see an VA that is UTTERLY out of control, we see an IRS that is a law unto itself.
And we see our *Republican* leaders play along to get along as our insurance markets are blown up, as the government pours money into politically connected banks instead of letting them fail.
So then you get some chowderhead like Trump who talks about things in ways that speak to the very real fears of middle and lower middle classes.
We *know* he’s lying–hell he’s donated more money to Democrats than Republicans over the years, he’s talked about being in favor of the ACA, he’s *hired* illegal aliens in his company, but that analysis doesn’t make it into prime time.
So it’s not just personality, it’s that he’s speaking to people’s fears. Which is a bit scarier.
>So it’s not just personality, it’s that he’s speaking to people’s fears. Which is a bit scarier.
Can’t remember where, but I ran across a report on some major poll recently that said the emotion currently driving the U.S. electorate is not fear, it’s anger. Anger at political-class lies and politically correct evasions of reality. Specifically, lies about terrorism, mass immigration, and the state of the economy.
I think this is right. It explains the emotional tone of Trumpism better than fear would.
I agree, Eric. The commenters I’ve engaged with on sites like Power Line that are Trump supporters are mad as hell and they’re not gonna take it any more. They feel totally, utterly betrayed by a Republican establishment that takes them for granted, and they’ve had it.
>[Trump supporters] feel totally, utterly betrayed by a Republican establishment that takes them for granted, and they’ve had it.
And it’s pretty difficult to argue with them on that. I’m not a Republican and even I can see what a screwing they’ve gotten.
I think Glenn Reynolds is right – Trump is the doom the political class has brought on itself with fifteen years of lies and evasions about Islam, immigration, and the state of the economy. We’ll be lucky if we escape having a Trump presidency – the question then is whether the political class will have have learned anything, or go right back to the same old bullshit.
If they don’t, I fear the next demagogue will be worse than Trump. And harder to stop. We’re sliding into Weimar Republic territory, here.
Jay and ESR:
Here you go! One word explains Donald Trump’s rise (ANGER):
The author is my favorite data journalist, Christopher Ingraham, who ironically has a background in religion rather than statistics. He wrote it in July 2015, but I don’t think anything has changed.
A little food for thought regarding any future civil war – http://bearingarms.com/rifles-next-civil-war/
If you really want to quell your anger at the failures of our federal government, go out and buy a firearm today (or some more ammunition if you prefer). The political elites no longer pay much attention to citizen anger or even how they vote, but they do take note of tangible factors such as firearm sales and what it represents. If purchasing a firearm is a little too radical for you, then I suggest purchasing a 3D printer or perhaps a box full of those $5 Raspberry Pi’s. Nothing scares an incipient tyrant like a well armed libertarian with a penchant for innovative thinking.
@ William O. B’Livion –
I do remember your having commented here about things that you had see/done “in country”.
I’m curious why you see the US as having failed in any of those three nations. All are today (relatively) peaceful, aligned with the US, and more-or-less imbued with the values of the so-called Western Enlightenment (obviously, with an Asian flavor). What have I missed?
Hello John D. Bell,
I wondered about that too. The only thing that I can think of is that William O. B’livion was being ironic (sardonic? sarcastic?) in making that remark, as in fact, we DID succeed in nation building in Japan and South Korea, and for the most part, in the Philippines.
William’s remarks are quite astute in general, I believe. 0bama is well-known for his arrogance; his unwillingness to meet with the Iraqi government head, al-Malik, is a typical of his haughtiness… with the typical expected consequences.
Remember when ESR said Adobe was screwing itself and its customers by converting to subscriptions?
http://techcrunch.com/2015/12/12/adobes-record-revenue-proves-successful-business-transformation-is-possible/
Yeah, not so much:
http://techcrunch.com/2015/12/12/adobes-record-revenue-proves-successful-business-transformation-is-possible/
esr:
> If they don’t, I fear the next demagogue will be worse than Trump. And harder to stop. We’re sliding into Weimar Republic territory, here.
This is the May 1924 Weimar elections
If they succeed in getting rid of Trump by doing something undemocratic, which they probably will, it will be the December 1924 Weimar elections.
Then an election or two after that will be the 1930 Weimar elections, where they proceeded to delay doom by doing one undemocratic thing after another, while never quite going all the way and instituting a military dictatorship.
Michael, the GOP don’t have to mimic, let alone become, the Dems to draw Black and Hispanic voters. These people don’t want big, intrusive government and high taxes. Despite the news focus on rioters, looters, parasites and other scum, most people of every ethnicity want to work, earn and climb the social ladder with the pride of knowing they deserved by the sweat of their brow, just as, I hope, do you.
In Australia the conservatives have always pitched to this instinct in the voter, and a lot of immigrants, as well as more and more aboriginals, find the appeal to the work ethic, budgetary restraint and traditional values attractive.
The GOP needs to be strong in itself and project these positive values to all Americans, not retreat into its den like a wounded bear.
I won’t vote Con unless other things change, but a strong two-or-more party system is necessary to a functioning representative political system. I wouldn’t want either side to rule forever: the corruption would be like Noah’s flood plus an excremental stench.
PS: My ideal system is direct democracy, cutting out the politicians, lobbyists and fundraisers and all the stupid hoopla along with the cult of the leader. But until most people are willing to bite the bullet on this and take personal responsibility for their own nation, that day will remain remote.
@ Dan – “A little food for thought regarding any future civil war ”
The referenced weblink article is more of an example of testosterone bravado rather than actual prognostication. Another civil war in the US is a very, very low probability and if something like that were to occur, it will probably happen in Europe first.
The optimum strategy for bringing tyranny to the US incorporates a slow and incremental weakening of our society, largely via memetic infection. That said, modeling has revealed many effective countermeasures. And rifles will not be the weapon of choice in countering an elitist oligarchy sowing tyranny in slow motion. Rather, firearms are needed to protect the productive from the desperate attacks of the parasitic needy. Restoring liberty will require high intelligence, innovation, and resourcefulness (which we still have in abundance in this country).
Oh yes…Trump is *exactly* what the GOP deserves.
The revulsion that so many liberty-minded people have for such a farcical fuckwit is practically a meteorological indicator of how utterly shattered the GOP is going to find itself in the coming months.
But this is healthy. It needs to happen.
There is certainly no hope to be found for the masses throwing their grunting ‘democratic’ weight behind the Dems…yet people may find themselves having to contend with a competition between an abject oik like Trump, and a ludicrous fraud like Shrillary.
Pass the popcorn…
…The referenced weblink article is more of an example of testosterone bravado rather than actual prognostication.
Did you read the other referenced article?
> Michael, the GOP don’t have to mimic, let alone become, the Dems to draw Black and Hispanic voters. These people don’t want big, intrusive government and high taxes.
There are quite a few hispanics that are racially white, and a lot more that are culturally white, such as George Zimmerman. A lot of mestizos aspire to being culturally white.
But when you add them up, the overwhelming majority of nonwhite voters want their obamaphones, want free stuff, and believe that the cash registers in the supermarkets are just white racism gratuitously making colored folk suffer.
The only way the GOP can win a significant colored vote is by engaging in a bidding contest with the Democrats as to which party will burn America to the ground the fastest.
“If they succeed in getting rid of Trump by doing something undemocratic, which they probably will”
The Republicans will not get rid of Trump. They may push him out of the party, but they will not get rid of him. All they will succeed in doing is handing the keys to the White House to Hillary Clinton.
@ Dan – “Did you read the other referenced article?”
There is only one weblink in your post above at 16:19:13 on the 14th.
@JAD
“Do you think illiterate cannibals check people’s passports?”
As the source I linked to already stated, there was no “popular uprising”. The expulsion of the Belgians was planned by people high up in the power chain. These people were literate. Those “mutinying soldiers” themselves were claiming they were ordered to rise up against the Belgians. With the secession of provinces, this became an all out civil war.
And the most remarkable thing was that most “whites” were able to flee alive. This was more of an expulsion of an occupying force than anything else. Just like was done in many places to Germans and Japanese after WWII.
I think the situation in Congo after independence can very easily be understood when you assume that the Congolese are humans with a history. But I know that assumption is unacceptable to you.
@esr
“If they don’t, I fear the next demagogue will be worse than Trump. And harder to stop. We’re sliding into Weimar Republic territory, here.”
You do not have to speculate much on this. In the Netherlands we have seen the nightmare scenario play out. Our populist uprising started in around 2001. Some lunatic murdered their leader, Pim Fortuin. After a lot of chaos we ended up with Geert Wilders who is much, much worse. He has the same talking points as Trump: Take citizenship away from ethnic groups, ethnic cleansing, Apartheid, and a dismantling of the rule of law. Here, North Africans, and muslims in general, play the role of Hispanics, but that is all of the difference.
But neither the USA nor Western Europe is in Weimar territory here. The Weimar Republic was a first attempt of Germans to come up with a democracy. It was weak and the population had no idea how to handle democracy. You see the same now in Poland, Slovakia, and Hungary. Also, they had drifted into civil war earlier and were still on the brink.
There is nothing like that in the US or Western Europe.
The problem with the supporters of populists is that they demand fast, short term solutions for long term problems. They care more for action and faith than for evidence and caution. And they also tend to think that shooting helps, and if not, more shooting will certainly help.
Historically, in older democracies the populists get only a minority of the voters behind them, maximally around 30%. And the rest of the voters tend to unite against them, see the recent elections in France.
> And the most remarkable thing was that most “whites” were able to flee alive.
Whites were able to flee alive because the Belgian army rescued them – something that in today’s political circumstances would be unthinkable.
@esr
“Can’t remember where, but I ran across a report on some major poll recently that said the emotion currently driving the U.S. electorate is not fear, it’s anger. Anger at political-class lies and politically correct evasions of reality. Specifically, lies about terrorism, mass immigration, and the state of the economy.”
Yes, they are angry. But the reason of the anger is personal. These are not people that actually understand the risks of modern society (smoking, drinking, and cars will kill you, terrorism won’t). The reason these people are angry in the US and everywhere else in the Western world is that their wages do not rise. That they cannot get by with a single job anymore, while their parents easily could.
Obviously, they will blame foreigners, and the powers that be. People always blame foreigners for their woes first. Even infectious diseases are always blamed on foreigners (remember the French disease = Italian disease = Spanish disease = Columbus’ disease, guess which countries call them that way).
Also, these people care mostly for themselves and their relatives. So, they could not care less about free market economics and small government, they just want their money. They want their welfare and their medicare, and every other government service they benefit from, and they do not want to pay taxes. They also cannot stand that other people benefit too (which should be forbidden).
The GOP was the worst in promising the voters would personally benefit from their politicians. But they still need to pay taxes and still are paid too little. The GOP promised the stars, but all they got were lemons. Now, Trump doubled the stakes and promised the universe. His supporters will not even get lemons from him.
@James
“Whites were able to flee alive because the Belgian army rescued them – something that in today’s political circumstances would be unthinkable.”
The army could rescue them because the Congolese wanted them out of the country, fast. They could have killed them all if they wanted. But they did not want to (for practical reasons). It was just that the Congo is very big and has no borders where you can kick out Belgians from.
What you cannot accept is that the Congolese can plan such things as an ethnic cleansing and use the Belgian army to execute it.
James Donald on 2015-12-12 at 19:28:22 said:
> My understanding was that the immigrants were let in to press down the wages.
This is PC doctrine among leftists and nazis (but I repeat myself).
If that was the case, we would bring in the working class. We are bringing in the underclass to live on crime and welfare. It is illegal for them to get jobs in the formal economy…
It’s also illegal to commit crime and to collect welfare as an illegal alien. That doesn’t stop those activities, and it doesn’t stop them working. Use of fraudulent SSNs is rampant. There is a program (e-Verify) which stops SSN fraud, but the business operatives in the Republican Party, and of course the Democrats, have kept it from being used to more than modest effect. Illegals are heavily used in agriculture and the meat-packing industry.
In any case, illegals have little trouble finding work in the “informal economy”: as kitchen staff in restaurants, in landscape service, and other small, largely cash businesses.
There are also programs to bring in immigrant labor “legally”. H-1B allows companies to import tech workers (mostly from India); H-1A allows importation of farm labor. In both cases, the prospective employer must certify that American workers are not available. This requirement is a complete dead letter, routinely evaded in both categories. Southern California Edison recently brought in a large cohort of H-1Bs for their IT operations. They ordered their present IT staff to train the H-1Bs to replace them. H-1As are imported in large numbers to areas like central Mississippi, where there is no shortage of poor black farm laborers.
(Incidentally, the H-1A program is supported by Sen. Bernie Sanders.)
Whoops! The ag-labor program is H-2A.
I should also point out that any immigrant with an H-1A, H-1B, or H-2A visa has to leave the U.S. if he quits the job or is fired. These “employees” are de facto indentured servants. There are also hundreds of thousands of illegals who are informally indentured to the smugglers who brought them in, or the employers who acquired them from the smugglers. They are de facto slaves.
@Jay Maynad:
>>Donald Trump is not a conservative. He says the right things about immigration, but there’s far more to the story than that.
When I say ‘Conservative = Trump + Cruz’, I don’t mean that Trump himself is a conservative. We have established that he is not a conservative earlier. What I am saying is that he attracted the conservatives. Your typical middle-age white guy who listens to talk radio, watches Fox news, and calls himself a conservative is in the Trump camp.
Cruz has positioned himself to pick up ‘Trumps’s conservatives’ if Trump implodes.
That is how Trump+Cruz = conservative in this election. One of them is a demoagogue. The other is a fuckin douche with a smirk. Together they’re polling at 60% combined. Those two are what the ‘conservatives’ want. Either that, or ‘conservative’ is for all practical purposes a invisible percentage of those who vote republican and those who vote for the republican party.
I maintain there is no such thing as ‘conservative’ (the one you have in mind) in American political life. Their percentage is insignificant. What we have is is a dark mass of [white] people led by the demagogues of ‘conservative’ talk radio and now demagogues like Trump. Economics and the devotion to laissez faire free market capitalism would be way down the list of reasons a social scientist would identify to explain the rise of the conservative horde.
@uma
“Economics and the devotion to laissez faire free market capitalism would be way down the list of reasons a social scientist would identify to explain the rise of the conservative horde.”
Ever read Revolt of the masses by José Ortega Y Gasset? It was published in 1930!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Revolt_of_the_Masses
Text:
http://aecau.ro/userfiles/files/ebooks/523/TheRevoltoftheMasses.pdf
It is pretty good.
@Winter
“@daemon
“The European record of spilling civilian blood in the past century is not something to be proud of.”
The point here is that you are deluded to think that private gun ownership would have changed anything on the Eurasian continent (this went far beyond the confines of Europe). That faith can only be described as “religious”. It was most certainly not shared by any of the victims of these murders, nor their descendants.
@daemon
“My own contributions were intended to get some data here in case anyone undecided missed it, before I started calling him names.”
That is appreciated. I would appreciate it even more when people point out immediately when they think I resort to name calling. Because that is not my intention and I could try to remediate it. There is also a possibility that I have not fully understood the meaning of the phrase “calling names” in US English.
“
Name Calling: You’ve called me deluded, and suggested my positions are based on “faith” not evidence. I see no citations made, and I suppose you are an accredited Psychoanalyst with a specialization in internet diagnostics? You insinuate I’ve quoted you misleadingly to Jessica Boxer, while I reproduced the relevant section in full and pointed out that the full post should be read in its entirety. You also say no one has disputed your position or offered a value-based defense of privately owned firearms as national policy, and demanded data while ignoring the links I posted. And you have played fast and loose with the history of the Holocaust. German armies conquered Europe, but it wasn’t Army Group East that was tasked with eliminating unarmed Civilians, it was the Gestapo, using little more than police power. Should I provide more evidence that you are arguing this issue dishonestly?
@winter
“@JAD
Belgian != White “
Sure, so what Race is Islam. Or Hispanic? Is there are Marcus Aurelius constituency? Or can I call everyone who oppose Cruz or Rubio a racist?
@winter
“When your audience does not understand you, you can do only two things to mend that: Look for a different audience, or clarify what you mean. Trying to insult your audience does nothing to increase understanding.”
You may be mistaken if you think You are my intended audience. This is a public forum, after all.
Regarding the value-based position of private firearms ownership, I will put the US’s policies up against Europe’s posturing any day; there is no meaningful comparison in civilian bloodshed. Even pitifully armed and starving, civilians in the Warsaw Ghetto were able to hold off the fabled German war machine for a month. And you say it would be impossible to magnify these effects in the face of the Gestapo? I’d say its well worth the chance, and a damn sight better than the alternative, 10 million civilians deliberately exterminated by the Germans in Europe alone. And its no comparison to anything in US history.
Also, it seems rather funny to fret about America’s Political Right, when the Left is busily engaging in so many fantasies about violently disarming America’s gun owners and eliminating the Left’s political opponents.
@daemon
“Should I provide more evidence that you are arguing this issue dishonestly?”
I grew up among people who survived German occupation. WWII was part of all our history lessons. Do you really think I need advice from someone from the USA who has heard something about the WWII?
@daemon
“Even pitifully armed and starving, civilians in the Warsaw Ghetto were able to hold off the fabled German war machine for a month.”
They all died. For the rest, the Germans simply murdered all men in every village where a shot was fired. And that was in the Netherlands, a Germanic brother people. In Eastern Europe, they murdered everyone. And civilians do not effectively fight against tanks.
@daemon
“Name Calling: You’ve called me deluded, and suggested my positions are based on “faith” not evidence.”
Fair point. My intention was to describe your statement, but I can see I have been influenced by the general tone of conversation.
@daemon
“Regarding the value-based position of private firearms ownership, I will put the US’s policies up against Europe’s posturing any day; there is no meaningful comparison in civilian bloodshed. ”
A five times higher homicide rate and 20,000 deaths by fire arms in the USA. Sounds as a good comparison to me.
@daemon
“Sure, so what Race is Islam. Or Hispanic? Is there are Marcus Aurelius constituency? Or can I call everyone who oppose Cruz or Rubio a racist?”
I have no idea what you are talking about. A faction of the Congolese wanted to expel their former occupiers, the Belgians. What need is served by involving race?
@Winter:
“””@daemon “Even pitifully armed and starving, civilians in the Warsaw Ghetto were able to hold off the fabled German war machine for a month.”
“””They all died. For the rest, the Germans simply murdered all men in every village where a shot was fired. And that was in the Netherlands, a Germanic brother people. In Eastern Europe, they murdered everyone. And civilians do not effectively fight against tanks.”””
Sure they died. So what? The alternative was to be rounded up like cattle, and sent to concentration camps. I can’t recall *precisely* what was done in those camps, but I don’t seem to recall that very many people earning merit badges or making crafts or becoming one with nature…
I, for one, would rather die as a thorn in the side of those who wish to kill me.
Again, I find this notion that we must not even think of fighting against evil, because we just might lose, just a tad offensive. Death is not the worst of all evils, you know.
>I, for one, would rather die as a thorn in the side of those who wish to kill me.
That is because you are a man, rather than a sheeple. Winter fails the test.
>>”Yes, they are angry. But the reason of the anger is personal. These are not people that actually understand the risks of modern society (smoking, drinking, and cars will kill you, terrorism won’t). The reason these people are angry in the US and everywhere else in the Western world is that their wages do not rise. That they cannot get by with a single job anymore, while their parents easily could.”
I’m quite sure that the thousands who have been killed by terrorists would disagree with your asinine proposition that terrorism won’t kill you; or that the hundreds of millions of people who make the personal choices to smoke, drink, and drive cars for decades without dying think you’re hysterical. People are quite capable of being angry about more than one topic.
When they see foreign criminals taking entry-level, low-skilled jobs (which further depresses wages and exacerbates the dreaded Income Inequality) that they used to use to supplement their income in tough times, they get angry. They get angry when they see politicians doing nothing to prevent or even curb this trend. In fact, both parties are committed to expanding the problem. When its quite obvious that terrorists are actively using Western immigration policies to further their murderous agenda, it just pours fuel on the fire.
Reducing illegal immigration polls fairly well – and highly – among the entire electorate, and yet this preference has no serious representation among their available politicians. Americans have had a long history of anger at a lack of representation. They sure aren’t angry about Global Warming, but by golly their politicians are on the job.
On a side note, but perhaps more in line with the original subject, its amusing to see your lack of concern with terrorism (no doubt due to low probabilities) but your concern with law-abiding gun owners (who are far less likely to shoot you in the US than terrorists or even deranged leftists, registered Democrats, or Democrat constituents). So is your personal position that only the statistically highest threat should be dealt with, and the others safely ignored?
>>”I grew up among people who survived German occupation. WWII was part of all our history lessons. Do you really think I need advice from someone from the USA who has heard something about the WWII?”
So you basically heard something about WWII as well then.
>>”When I say ‘Conservative = Trump + Cruz’, I don’t mean that Trump himself is a conservative. We have established that he is not a conservative earlier. What I am saying is that he attracted the conservatives. Your typical middle-age white guy who listens to talk radio, watches Fox news, and calls himself a conservative is in the Trump camp.”
Well, it IS easier to beat up on caricatures and bogeymen, so you’ve got that going for you.
@esr
“>I, for one, would rather die as a thorn in the side of those who wish to kill me.
That is because you are a man, rather than a sheeple. Winter fails the test.”
Then, private gun ownership is just a way to commit group suicide?
But that is what I have always said.
Let’s look closer at this (single?) example:
“Even pitifully armed and starving, civilians in the Warsaw Ghetto were able to hold off the fabled German war machine for a month.”
The civilians in the Ghetto rose against the Germans and were all killed within a month. That was even though at the same time the Germans were fighting a losing battle against the Russians close to Warsaw. So, in the midst of a hellish battle where the Germans were outnumbered and beaten, trying to halt the enemies in a last ditch attempt to protect the fatherland, a concerted uprising in a fortified area of Warsaw was unable to do much more than get everyone killed.
The people in the ghetto were heroic fighters and I have nothing than the deepest respect for their fight. But it is a disgrace of their memory to say this was an intended suicide battle. They knew the Russian armies were close by and they were let to believe that they would get help from the Russian armies. But Stalin betrayed them and even stopped the Western allies to help them.
http://www.historynet.com/warsaw-rising-hope-and-betrayal.htm
@gmmay
“So you basically heard something about WWII as well then.”
I do not know about you, but I take eye witnesses as evidence over vague people on the internet any time. And if these eye witnesses are my closest relatives, that is even better.
@gmmay
“I’m quite sure that the thousands who have been killed by terrorists would disagree with your asinine proposition that terrorism won’t kill you;”
Above, there are hundreds of comments arguing guns do not kill many people in the US. Now you say they do kill?
Since the 9/11 attack, lightening has killed more people in the US than Islamic terrorism. The US police kill more people in the US than Islamic terrorists. So, for supporters of Trump, it is true that they will not get killed by Islamic terrorism.
@gmmay
“or that the hundreds of millions of people who make the personal choices to smoke, drink, and drive cars for decades without dying think you’re hysterical. People are quite capable of being angry about more than one topic.”
They are hysterical when they get worked up over terrorism in the US (they really do not care about foreigners getting killed) but ignore the risks of being killed by some moron behind a wheel or some trigger happy LEO. They are even more likely to be killed by a dog than an Islamic terrorist.
What is revealing is that they do get so worked up over Islamic terrorists, but not over non-Islamic compatriots that attack schools and clinics. I see this whole “terrorism” hysteria only as nothing more than an excuse to cleanse the US of Muslims.
@ Winter – “The GOP was the worst in promising the voters would personally benefit from their politicians.”
You cannot earn any credibility here by making statements like this. In the US, the Democrats are the party of bribing voters with endless handouts and entitlements in order to purchase their votes and sustain their incumbency. Republicans are now trying to imitate the Democrats in this policy, but they have to pretend to be conservative in public, hide their complicity, and are amateurs in comparison to Democrats.
This is the source of the anger that the productive element of our society is feeling. We know that all of the borrowing that is fueling this entitlement spending insanity cannot be paid back by either current or future taxpayers. A devaluation or default is inevitable, and the longer the can is kicked down the road, the worse it will be.
Illegal immigrants are being imported in the hope that they will labor tirelessly at low wages and stave off this day of reckoning as long as possible. But this is a temporary fix at best. A majority of US citizens are now dependent upon at least some amount of handouts and are systematically becoming incapable of self-reliance. Government policy of endless entitlement growth is killing the personal work ethic.
You can hide your head in the sand and pray for more government to save you, but the day will come when you wish you had taken my advice, purchased a firearm, and learned to use it.
… Death is not the worst of all evils, you know.
Indeed.
Great line from “Open Range” – There are things that gnaw at a man worse than dyin’
That is because you are a man, rather than a sheeple. Winter fails the test.
And fails it with such hilarious, oblivious shamelessness. Not surprising to me, really – many Afrikaner friends have told me of the ‘qualities’ of Dutchmen.
@TomA
“You cannot earn any credibility here by making statements like this.”
Then ask Democrats and Republicans about how they were deceived by their parties. Compare the answers. Care to guess whose voters are more angry?
@TomA
“A devaluation or default is inevitable, and the longer the can is kicked down the road, the worse it will be.”
Strange, but the lenders do not think so. And it is their money that is on the line. Even the interest the US is required to pay is low. Actually, this is just another Fox News myth. That you actually believe this myth mystifies me.
@TomA
“You can hide your head in the sand and pray for more government to save you, but the day will come when you wish you had taken my advice, purchased a firearm, and learned to use it.”
In 4 centuries, there has not been such a situation in my country. And how often has it happened in 2 centuries of the US?
And I have said so before, the government is us. And according to the polls, most of my compatriots feel that way.
“And I have said so before, the government is us. And according to the polls, most of my compatriots feel that way.”
You and your compatriots may well feel that way.
I and my compatriots do not.
@Jay Maynard
“You and your compatriots may well feel that way. I and my compatriots do not.”
But, tell me then, why should I collect guns to shoot at my government?
Your indefatigable naivete is quite a spectacle, Winter.
Good luck.
“But, tell me then, why should I collect guns to shoot at my government?”
You *shouldn’t* collect guns to shoot at your government.
But you should have means to protect yourself in the unlikely event that your life is endangered by criminals. You should have means to protect yourself in the unlikely event that the government decides to come to shoot you.
Nobody is required to protect you but you. Good Luck.
@ Winter – “but the lenders do not think so. And it is their money that is on the line.”
They are banking on the power of the US economy and military to confiscate foreign wealth in service to this debt. You have been deluded into believing that a homegrown US tyrant will use the military against its citizens in order to secure repayment. But you forget that progressive policies have seduced much of our population into parasitic dependence and there will be no ability to pay; hence it will be more advantageous to send the military overseas.
You need not worry however. I don’t think windmills are a high priority on the target list.
@James Noyes
“But you should have means to protect yourself in the unlikely event that your life is endangered by criminals. ”
The probabilities are such that I or someone near to me are much more likely to be killed by my gun than that it saves any of our lives. Overhere, a gun at home makes you less save. I was told the same by someone I know in the states.
Innocent civilians being killed by criminals is a vanishingly small probability.
@TomA
“You have been deluded into believing that a homegrown US tyrant will use the military against its citizens in order to secure repayment.”
You are the first to suggest this option. Personally, I think there are much cheaper options. Devaluation and legal tricks are too.
@TomA
“But you forget that progressive policies have seduced much of our population into parasitic dependence and there will be no ability to pay”
Fox News myths and talk radio banter. There is quite a lot of information available about the US economy. Even a lot beyond the official statistics.
On the other hand, Fox News et al. have done everything to spread the idea that the US is in a worse state than Greece. Which is nonsense.
I trust the international interest rates more than random conservative talk hosts.
I received this bit of insight from a British computer scientist whom I saw give a talk:
By developed world standards, the American view of guns is… peculiar to say the least, because a gun is like a scalpel to a surgeon: a tool used by professionals in their daily work. Since the daily work of police, military, and criminals involves use of potentially deadly force, it’s understandable that they would carry guns. But for law-abiding civilians that is not the case, so there is no reason for them to carry.
All of which makes the silly caricature of “hoplophobia” seem all the more silly.
@Jeff
“But for law-abiding civilians that is not the case, so there is no reason for them to carry.”
Racing stripes?
@ Winter – “Fox News myths and talk radio banter. There is quite a lot of information available about the US economy. Even a lot beyond the official statistics.”
I don’t partake of any national news outlets (Fox included), so you will have to find another excuse for your prejudice. And I am pleased that you are ignorant of our country’s financial balance sheet; please keep buying those treasury bonds with your hard earned money.
If, however, you wish to do some homework (and you will only believe your own study effort), take a quick look at the US national debt, unfunded future liabilities for promised entitlement payments, and the imminent retirement of our baby boom generation. Add to that, the housing mortgage bubble Part II, the student debt bubble, the credit card bubble, and the brand spanking new auto loan bubble. If you think the Gen Xer’s and illegals are going to be able to foot this bill, I got a bridge I want to sell ya.
OTOH, I now agree with you on the firearm issue. You absolutely should not own a firearm.
@Winter. “The people in the ghetto were heroic fighters and I have nothing than the deepest respect for their fight. But it is a disgrace of their memory to say this was an intended suicide battle.”
If you know someone is coming to kill you, or even just enslave you, I do not consider it suicide to fight back, even if the odds are not in your favor.
@Jeff Read: “By developed world standards, the American view of guns is… peculiar to say the least….”
Why, yes, yes it is. But so is the American view on free speech (how often has Winter defended government suppression of anti-holocaust neo-Nazi propaganda, for example?); so is the American view, theoretically at least, on search and seizure, and on torture and confessions, among other things.
These are just a few of the things that make Americans peculiar, though. Among other things: we tend to dislike war, but when we’re in it, we like it to be as brutal and short as possible; when we conquer a country, we tend to give that country autonomy rather than make it a colony; we like to know the rules, and if something isn’t explicitly forbidden, we assume it’s allowed (although we can sometimes chafe when a rule simply doesn’t make sense); we like tradition, but are willing to try something new, at least once.
I’m sure there are other ways that we’re peculiar, and some of these things may even be contradictory. But I like it. And I like the fact that there’s at least one place in the world that is at least somewhat like this!
“….because a gun is like a scalpel to a surgeon: a tool used by professionals in their daily work.”
And one of the things I like about America, is that I can collect all sorts of tools, be they scalpels, microscopes, typewriters, caterpillars, cars, hammers, lathes and mills, welding torches and acetylene, bows and arrows, knives and swords, and who knows what else, without the government having a say in the matter, one way or the other, despite the lethality that these tools may possess.
I honestly don’t see how guns are that much of a problem, especially when you factor out criminal-on-criminal murder and suicides–both of which seem to me, to be more problems of society, than they are of tools.
“But for law-abiding civilians that is not the case, so there is no reason for them to carry.”
That’s insane!
The reason you carry a precise weapon is to minimize the risks to others if you need to defend yourself.
The probabilities are such that I or someone near to me are much more likely to be killed by my gun than that it saves any of our lives. Overhere, a gun at home makes you less save.
I’d like to see the math behind that ‘probability’ – but if I concede its validity, it means you Dutch are one moronically incompetent bunch of dopes.
80-100 million gun owners in possession of 350+ million guns, and we have a statistically insignificant level of accidental death.
If a person dies from a gunshot over here, it’s essentially either (1) suicide, or (2) criminal homicide…neither of which can be reasonably attributed to a ‘probability’ of accidental shooting – they’re both very much intentional. Throw in a few handfuls of [intentional] lawful self defense shoots and we’re basically all done.
Wisest for you to stay away from firearms. If you get competent when you grow up, give it another think.
>>”I do not know about you, but I take eye witnesses as evidence over vague people on the internet any time. And if these eye witnesses are my closest relatives, that is even better.”
So you still heard about it then. Though it pleases me to be the first to inform you that we’ve also had eyewitness testimony to WWII in the US.
“Above, there are hundreds of comments arguing guns do not kill many people in the US. Now you say they do kill?”
No, but I do understand the twisted reading that would lead you to pose such an absurd question. This is not your first foray into intellectual dishonesty, and I’m sure it won’t be your last.
>>”Since the 9/11 attack, lightening has killed more people in the US than Islamic terrorism. The US police kill more people in the US than Islamic terrorists. So, for supporters of Trump, it is true that they will not get killed by Islamic terrorism.”
And of course this doesn’t negate the fact that terrorists still kill people, or that terrorists have been foiled at their attempts, or that many plots have failed without the intervention of security apparatus. And of course since you feel lightning deaths are somehow relevant to this discussion – swimming pools have killed more people than unjustified police shootings, accidental shootings, domestic terrorists, or mass shooters but your deep and abiding concern for your fellow man seems to have rather strict boundaries.
>>”They are hysterical when they get worked up over terrorism in the US (they really do not care about foreigners getting killed) but ignore the risks of being killed by some moron behind a wheel or some trigger happy LEO. They are even more likely to be killed by a dog than an Islamic terrorist.
So people who don’t share your priorities are hysterical. Got it. Also, do you have some evidence that people don’t care about foreigners getting killed or their own personal safety when it comes to vehicles or police? Or are you just pounding on the caricatures in your head here?
>>”What is revealing is that they do get so worked up over Islamic terrorists, but not over non-Islamic compatriots that attack schools and clinics. I see this whole “terrorism” hysteria only as nothing more than an excuse to cleanse the US of Muslims.”
You must live under a rock, since I’ve seen plenty of concern from all angles over people shooting up schools and clinics. But it just seems easier for you to impute the worst motives you can conjure up to people who do not share your opinion on how to solve that problem. Which really says more about you than the people you’re attempting to demonize.
>>>”80-100 million gun owners in possession of 350+ million guns, and we have a statistically insignificant level of accidental death.”
Same really goes for any shooting death in the US.
Once you understand Winter’s selective concern over statistical outliers…
Sorry, of course you do.
>>”I received this bit of insight from a British computer scientist whom I saw give a talk:
By developed world standards, the American view of guns is… peculiar to say the least, because a gun is like a scalpel to a surgeon: a tool used by professionals in their daily work.”
I love it when people trot out the “Rest Of The Developed World” canard. Is Switzerland an undeveloped country? How does the rest of the developed world view Voter ID? How about official state religions? The rest of the industrialized world was waging war on itself within living memory and required US assistance to extricate itself from oblivion. In fact, the rest of the developed world – particularly Europe – depends on the US for security, while criticizing the US for its lack of EU-style policies which are only possible at current levels due to US-provided security.
Since this computer scientist defers to professionals and criminals regarding guns, why should you or I care for his opinion on the subject? You consider this insight?
Then again, it’s not like firearm proficiency requires a graduate degree. But this computer scientist also seems to defer to criminals as well. So LEOs, military, and criminals need guns, but law-abiding people don’t? I can’t believe that this guy worded it this inartfully, but the entire proposition rests on the idea that the need for self defense doesn’t exist.
It seems that neither you nor he thought about this very deeply at all.
There is a rather sickening undertone in the all-too-common view of old-worlders (like Winter) that places people in the role of livestock, and that ‘government’ is responsible for managing said herd and holding losses to a statistically acceptable level.
Provided that losses do not exceed X, a policy is considered a success. The sociopathic lack of regard for individual life is nauseating.
Every single human has the right to defense against violence. Every single human has the right to use technology to improve their life.
Governments are just a gang of people. The very same technology and tactics that they employ to protect their lives is of similar utility to the rest of the population. To deny this to them is sociopathic and evil.
Winter has chosen to be a supplicant to the forces of evil. His [?] kind is not welcome among civilized free people.
We walk a different, higher, path. Let his kind rot.
@Dan&Gmmay
“If a person dies from a gunshot over here, it’s essentially either (1) suicide, or (2) criminal homicide…neither of which can be reasonably attributed to a ‘probability’ of accidental shooting – they’re both very much intentional. Throw in a few handfuls of [intentional] lawful self defense shoots and we’re basically all done.”
If I look at the statistics in the Netherlands, I see that a gun in my house is much more likely to take a life than to save one. Even if I ignore dead criminals as self defense.
Prove me wrong.
Note that if some depressed person takes my gun and kills him/herself in an impulse (which most of the suicides are), then that too is a life taken (which I would never forgive myself for).
How do you call a person who takes precautions that are more cause more harm than they prevent? I call him stupid.
@Dan
“There is a rather sickening undertone in the all-too-common view of old-worlders (like Winter) that places people in the role of livestock, and that ‘government’ is responsible for managing said herd and holding losses to a statistically acceptable level.”
Wrong. Government is the institution we use to manage our community. Just as your government keeps you safe. If you do not believe me, talk to a LEO near you. Or talk to a refugee from, say, Central America or the Middle East.
@Dan
“Winter has chosen to be a supplicant to the forces of evil. His [?] kind is not welcome among civilized free people.”
I am male, indeed. And wherever I go, I have been welcome. That includes the USA.
@Dan
“We walk a different, higher, path. Let his kind rot.”
I think the latter sentence negates the former.
@gmmay
“No, but I do understand the twisted reading that would lead you to pose such an absurd question. This is not your first foray into intellectual dishonesty, and I’m sure it won’t be your last.”
Let me reside two quotes:
What you are saying is that because of the actions of a few Muslims, the supporters of Trump are justified to want to bar every Muslim from the soil of the USA. Negating these two quotes, that I was always told were the foundations of US society. The real damages done by these few Muslims is small in every comparison with that done by Christian compatriots.
Who is intellectual dishonest here?
@gmmay
“So you still heard about it then. Though it pleases me to be the first to inform you that we’ve also had eyewitness testimony to WWII in the US.”
And what did they tell you about the benefits of private gun ownership during German occupation?
@gmmay
“I don’t partake of any national news outlets (Fox included), so you will have to find another excuse for your prejudice. ”
So, instead of being badly informed, you are ununformed? How is that an improvement?
Sorry, previous comment was addressed to TomA.
@TomA
“If, however, you wish to do some homework (and you will only believe your own study effort), take a quick look at the US national debt, unfunded future liabilities for promised entitlement payments, and the imminent retirement of our baby boom generation. ”
For a better understanding of the economics of national debts, read Nial Ferguson’s The Cash Nexus and The Ascent of Money.
It is less simple than you seem to think.
The cash nexus
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2001/feb/25/historybooks.features
The ascent of money
http://www.economist.com/node/12376642
I can’t speak for the specific metrics of Dutch statistics, but you’re almost certainly committing the broken-window fallacy. At an obvious level, gun-use statistics usually overlook instances where guns are displayed but not fired, which by U.S. surveys in the mid-90s (before widespread legalized concealed-carry) were a significant majority of DGUs.
On a broader scale, though, statistics can almost never account for the effect of the presence of firearms on the general level of violent crime. Britain has had a massive increase in violent crimes, now frequently using weapons such as knives, since banning handguns, and most tellingly home invasions, which are the single crime most likely to be deterred by private ownership of handguns without widespread carrying, have skyrocketed.
>At an obvious level, gun-use statistics usually overlook instances where guns are displayed but not fired, which by U.S. surveys in the mid-90s (before widespread legalized concealed-carry) were a significant majority of DGUs.
Kleck, 1993, found a ratio of 6:1. That is, in 5 of 6 self-defense uses the gun was not fired.
You raise the possibility that this figure might have changed since the post-Heller CCW liberalizations, and I agree that is possible. But I have seen no research so indicating, and I follow the field closely enough that this means 6:1 is almost certainly still the state of our knowledge.
Well, if we needed any more proof winter doesn’t want to discuss the issue honestly, I still see no response to the links I posted, which could have begun to address his original request for such info, if he had chosen to investigate any of it. And the claim that No-one has a value-based position for the holding of private arms is simply false for anyone with even a passing interest in the issue. Such information is easy to find, even without my points. The internet is an amazing tool for gaining access to new ideas and information if one has the curiosity to employ it.
Higher homicide rates in the USA have yet to surpass the civilian death toll of Europe’s fairly regular tradition of ethnic bloodletting, even if just constrained to in the 20th century. If a thousand civilians can hold off the German war machine for a month in Warsaw, could ten times as many have held out longer? Would five or 10 Million more armed have changed the course of the Holocaust? Impossible! Since everyone winter knows agrees with him. I wonder if he has ever heard of selection Bias? Or wonders why there are so few vibrant Jewish communities in Europe these days.
Quote:
“But Stalin betrayed them and even stopped the Western allies to help them.” This is hardly a point for the relying on the State to Defend you.
Quote:
“In 4 centuries, there has not been such a situation in my country.” I stand corrected, THIS may be the ultimate evidence of winters dishonest argumentation. No such situation in four centuries? I wonder if the Frank Family would agree? But this appears irrelevant to winter, since they aren’t around for him to hear from.
Yet I must commend winter for recognizing that he has let his passions get away from him and has sometimes engaged in low personal attacks in the course of this discussion. It takes much to admit publicly when you are mistaken. If he does genuinely seek, as he has said, to remediate his error, I would encourage him to honestly investigate the positions of those who would stand for the private ownership of arms, and live up to the ideal of data driven search for knowledge I think we should all share. Bombast and anti-Republican asides are far less productive.
I have a few additional links I can supply. Admittedly these are US and 2nd Amendment focused, but such issues are inexplicably linked for us Americans.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/gun-facts/
http://www.guncite.com/
http://www.guncite.com/journals/reycrit.html
http://drgo.us/
Switzerland actually has relatively strict gun control.
In Switzerland all men are required to do military service and thus are issued a rifle and ammo; but are not allowed to use the rifle or ammo for non-militia purposes. They may purchase the rifle — or any other permitted firearm — and acquire private ammo, but doing so requires a weapons acquisition permit. All guns — and gun owners — are registered with the government, and both weapons acquisition permits (for reasons other than sport or hunting) and permits to openly carry require justification (e.g., you are employed as a police officer or armed security guard).
Switzerland is nothing like the USA when it comes to guns. It is much more like the rest of Europe. And gun ownership among the general population is falling. Irrespective, there is nothing like the gun culture of the USA, where every Joe-Bob is allowed to carry a loaded piece in case the gubmint men come ’round to round up the Christians and herd them into New World Order camps. And even that is losing ground here: an increasing number of buildings in Texas, for instance, post signs stating “Firearms are prohibited on these premises notwithstanding state or local laws permitting carry of firearms.”
The property owners don’t want the legal liability for death or injury by gunshot that they would risk by allowing guns on their property.
@Winter:
>> Ever read Revolt of the masses by José Ortega Y Gasset? It was published in 1930!
No. But it seems like an interesting read. I have always wondered whether the ‘conservative horde’ was there first, and in turn gave rise right wing talk and fox news and then a positive feedback loop allowed made the whole thing explode. Or whether it was the other the other way around and the rise was engineered by by design (ie some some smart men knew what the savages wanted and gave them what they wanted)
Not sure whether you actually believe this or whether I should invoke Frankfurt; nevertheless, for the benefit of people who might accidentally believe you, I will note that (1) I’ve never seen any such sign and (2) there has been, since the introduction of concealed carry in Texas, a specific notice that property owners may post forbidding carrying firearms on the premises, and so your alleged posturing signage is both chickenhawkish (because the law provides a means to do exactly that) and legally meaningless (because the sign fails to comply with the law).
@daemon
“And the claim that No-one has a value-based position for the holding of private arms is simply false for anyone with even a passing interest in the issue. Such information is easy to find, even without my points.”
I know, I gave some myself that gave rather definite numbers. The other numbers I saw did not exactly include all the costs. Eg, the costs for damage and security. I must have forgotten to respond then. Will have a look again later (tomorrow?) as I am now at a meeting.
@deamon
“And the claim that No-one has a value-based position for the holding of private arms is simply false for anyone with even a passing interest in the issue.”
Sorry, but if you are not more specific, I have no idea what it is exactly what you claim. I have posted public costs of private ownership. I remember that someone made a comment that only included the direct costs of gun and ammunition. But I cannot find it anymore. For the rest, I have no idea what you mean.
@deamon
“I wonder if the Frank Family would agree? But this appears irrelevant to winter, since they aren’t around for him to hear from.”
Otto Frank died a few years ago. As far as I know, neither he, nor his daughter ever mentioned that a private gun, or any type of armament, would have made a difference. They also did not lament the lack of guns. What the Frank’s did lament was that the USA had turned down their visa application.
@deamon
“Higher homicide rates in the USA have yet to surpass the civilian death toll of Europe’s fairly regular tradition of ethnic bloodletting, even if just constrained to in the 20th century.”
Western Europe has done extremely well since the end of WWII, i.e., for the last 70 years. Note that this is the longest peaceful stretch of history since the Roman empire.
@deamon
” I wonder if he has ever heard of selection Bias? Or wonders why there are so few vibrant Jewish communities in Europe these days. ”
Then show me contemporary sources asking for private gun ownership to protect themselves. I have never seen anyone who was present argue that they would have done better if they had more private guns. Please, educate me and show me these sources.
@deamon
“Admittedly these are US and 2nd Amendment focused, but such issues are inexplicably linked for us Americans.”
It is difficult for me to see the relevance of your links for the situation in Europe. You seem to think that my position is something from the political fringe. But, most Europeans think that Europe’s gun laws are too lax. Yes, most Europeans, a majority of the people, would want to have even more restrictions on gun ownership.
@Christpher Smith
“At an obvious level, gun-use statistics usually overlook instances where guns are displayed but not fired, which by U.S. surveys in the mid-90s (before widespread legalized concealed-carry) were a significant majority of DGUs.”
Practically no one caries a gun in the Netherlands, except for professionals (Leo&criminals). So we can state that the Dutch murder rate of innocent people by criminals is “pure”. These few victims are the maximum number that can be saved by any measure or policy. That rate is vanishingly small, half a dozen a year on 17 million people.
http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2015/01/dutch-murder-rate-drops-to-a-22-year-low/
So, prove that I am wrong when I think that a gun in my house is more likely to take a life than save one.
I am not as studied or scholarly as some of the members of this blog.
But beyond all this debate about gun ownership, I see this basically as a war between socialism and modern day capitalism. Socialism basically says that individuals are subservient and the State can determine how much you can own or even what you can own. Communism simply states no private ownership – everything is the State’s property.
Basically in the modern age, socialism is dead in democratic societies purely because socialism wants to severely limit individual freedom in the name of “greater good”.
Basically as an individual you simply cannot aspire for something higher than what the State allows you to own or possess or gather for yourself, no matter how hard you work or how much you deserve the success.
Which is all well and good, but what socialism essentially achieved was the continuing impoverishment of the masses, supression of the growth of a more prosperous middle class and the enrichment of a few who are close to the power centres of Government.
So instead of legislation and regulations by the force of dictatorship, modern day socialists are determined to impose the same by means of propaganda and guilt-inducing an aspirational middle class into giving up the seeking of a more prosperous life or more freedom of ownership. And at the same time, try to preserve or continue imposing new regulations by means of the democratically elected governments.
I know this is simplification of a political theory, but sometimes, one best understands a political theory by cutting through all the propaganda and scholarship and getting down to the basics.
Socialism is socialism, no mater how much you disguise it cleverly, when you start seeing its fundamental principles operate under the garb of different “isms”. Hint: it’s usually about adding yet another restriction on the individual’s freedom and/or aspirations.
@Christopher Smith
I’m a bit confused. Is your entire point a nitpick about the exact wording in his post based on offhand memory vs the actual wording on the actual signs?
>>”If I look at the statistics in the Netherlands, I see that a gun in my house is much more likely to take a life than to save one. Even if I ignore dead criminals as self defense.
Prove me wrong.”
You are not wrong.
The mere presence of a toaster in your house increases your chances of getting killed by it. In fact, you’re much more likely to be killed by an exploding toaster (statistically speaking) than you are by a self-animated firearm. When you remove human agency from a gun, you get an inanimate object that is decidedly less dangerous than gas, water, and electricity.
>>”Note that if some depressed person takes my gun and kills him/herself in an impulse (which most of the suicides are), then that too is a life taken (which I would never forgive myself for).”
Again, human agency is the issue here. That person also has numerous other easy options available – overdose, gravity, asphyxiation, electrocution, or driving into a telephone pole. Do you really think that if you manage a complete gun ban that the number of suicides will drop accordingly? I refuse to believe that you do. Should we also ban medicine, buildings with more than 3 floors, rope (belts, extension cords, bed sheets, etc), bathtubs, vehicles, natural gas, and electricity?
>>”How do you call a person who takes precautions that are more cause more harm than they prevent? I call him stupid.”
Is there some other forum where you expend even more effort railing against the scourge of swimming pools and choking hazards? Because these clear and present dangers pose a much greater risk to our society than inanimate objects that you can’t choke on. It seems your statistically-motivated priorities are a little out of whack here, but if you’re also carpet bombing pool owners with conspicuous virtue and histrionic concern then please, carry on.
@gmmay
“Is there some other forum where you expend even more effort railing against the scourge of swimming pools and choking hazards? ”
No one is telling me to take a swimming pool to protect my life. However, you are telling me to take a gun to protect me and my loved ones. I claim that the risks of owning a gun are bigger than its benefits in protecting the lives of me and my loved ones.
The risks of owning a gun are low, but the probability that it saves a (any) life are even much lower.
So, prove me wrong and show me that owning a gun will save more lives than it will take.
>>”No one is telling me to take a swimming pool to protect my life. However, you are telling me to take a gun to protect me and my loved ones.”
This coming from the person who previously thought lightning strikes were somehow relevant to this discussion.
You’ve got a weird sort of projection going on here. No one, including me, is telling you to take a gun to protect you and your loved ones. If you don’t want own a gun, then don’t. The concept is just soothingly simple.
You, however, are the one telling me that I shouldn’t be allowed to protect my family as I see fit. Your lack of trust in yourself and your family is not my problem.
Please try to keep straight who’s doing the demanding here.
The civilians in the Ghetto rose against the Germans and were all killed within a month. That was even though at the same time the Germans were fighting a losing battle against the Russians close to Warsaw. So, in the midst of a hellish battle where the Germans were outnumbered and beaten, trying to halt the enemies in a last ditch attempt to protect the fatherland, a concerted uprising in a fortified area of Warsaw was unable to do much more than get everyone killed.
You do realize that they would’ve all been murdered in only a slightly longer time frame, and that they knew it, don’t you? You don’t suppose that might’ve had something to with their decision? At least they made their deaths count for a lot more than the millions that went peaceably to the death camps, and they took some of the bastards with them as well diverting scarce German resources. Which do you think was the better death?
Later on, you seem to be conflating the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising in spring, 1943 with that of the much later Polish Home Army in fall, 1944.
@gmmay
“Please try to keep straight who’s doing the demanding here.”
I was responding to:
@James Noyes
“But you should have means to protect yourself in the unlikely event that your life is endangered by criminals. ”
I interpreted “you” as refering to “Winter” as he was addressing me directly.
Lightening and dogs as a cause of death are more important than Islamic terrorism. Therefore I see this reference to Islamic terrorism as an excuse to attack the freedom of religion in the US.
It’s not a nitpick; this is actually a very widely known law in Texas, based in large part on the “coincidental” location of the requirement in section 30.06 of the Penal Code. The “notwithstanding any state law…” is pure absurd posturing, and the actual legal requirement for a sign couldn’t possibly be confused with his description.
We have shifting burden of proof, moving goalposts, broken windows, and black swan all in one post, folks!
>By developed world standards, the American view of guns is… peculiar to say the least, because a gun is like a scalpel to a surgeon: a tool used by professionals in their daily work. Since the daily work of police, military, and criminals involves use of potentially deadly force, it’s understandable that they would carry guns. But for law-abiding civilians that is not the case, so there is no reason for them to carry.
I just can’t resist.
Do you own a hammer? A screwdriver? Any kind of fire-fighting implement, like a fire extinguisher? Own a lawn mower? A snow shovel? Why?!? These are professional tools, carried only by carpentry, fire-fighting professionals, lawn care and snow removal professionals, respectively. Are you a professional carpenter, fireman, lawn care or snow removal specialist? (Don’t even get me started on cookware and appliances.)
I’m not sure if that fellow is better described as an elitist blowhard, or an overspecialized insect.
>>”I interpreted “you” as refering to “Winter” as he was addressing me directly.”
Now, since you understand the use of the pronoun “you” and directed that pronoun toward me when I haven’t said anything of the sort, perhaps you could tighten up your own use of it. And do you think “should” carries the weight of a demand, or have you completely lost track of your own argument?
>>”Lightening and dogs as a cause of death are more important than Islamic terrorism. Therefore I see this reference to Islamic terrorism as an excuse to attack the freedom of religion in the US.”
Good, then I can bring swimming pools and choking hazards into the mix here since those are more important than accidental shootings. I won’t bother with your specious connection to a 1st Amendment assault. Because again, the chances that you’ll get shot by anyone in the US are statistically improbable and your concern is simply tendentious and dishonest.
@Winter.
>>”Who is intellectual dishonest here?”
Answering your final question first – you. I’ll explain.
>>”What you are saying is that because of the actions of a few Muslims, the supporters of Trump are justified to want to bar every Muslim from the soil of the USA.”
I never said anything of the sort. This is simply your dishonest method of argumentation. The fact that you thought a couple of wistful quotes bolstered a strawman just shows a shitty rhetorical style framing a worhtless argument. I’m getting tired of pointing this out to you, so this will be the last time. I lack the time and effort to address the reams of nonsense you pound out here. Like this bit of obvious trolling:
>>”The real damages done by these few Muslims is small in every comparison with that done by Christian compatriots.”
We’re done here. You’re just a bloviating jackass. This isn’t name-calling or ad hominem, but an observation that I’ve taken care to illustrate throughout the thread.
@Jeff Read
And yet the Swiss have a high per capita private gun ownership rate and aren’t engaging in murderous rampages.
>>”In Switzerland all men are required to do military service and thus are issued a rifle and ammo; but are not allowed to use the rifle or ammo for non-militia purposes.”
In case you’re unaware, no one in the US is allowed to use firearms for criminal purposes, and yet it still happens.
I didn’t say that Switzerland was just like the US (though there are many similarities depending on the state), please pay attention. I was commenting in the context of your comment that only professionals should have a use for guns. Militia aren’t professionals. Laws quite obviously don’t prevent people from going on murderous rampages. A gun registry isn’t going to prevent a mass shooting.
So with such a high private ownership rate, what is it about the Swiss that keeps them from having a high death rate from firearms?
@gmmay:
> So with such a high private ownership rate, what is it about the Swiss that keeps
> them from having a high death rate from firearms?
From my knowledge of the country I’d guess:
– Widespread firearm possession, indeed, but as has been pointed out earlier not so widespread availability or possession of ammunition.
– Acceptance of recreational firearms use (for target shooting, hunting etc), so those who are interested can indulge in such as a normal social activity without being forced to become outcasts.
– All males having undergone military training (with the self discipline that that involves). Obligations on those who won’t or can’t serve, so no easy let off.
– Residence rights and citizenship difficult to obtain and not automatic – which combined with:
– A social system that encourages self reliance and provision: time restricted unemployment benefits with obligations attached, an insurance based medical system, and minimal state provided housing – lead to:
– Generally homogenous population – very few and very small inner city ghettos or banlieues.
winter on 2015-12-15 at 13:43:46 said:
>The probabilities are such that I or someone near to me are much more likely to be killed by my gun than that it saves any of our lives.
It is extremely rare for law abiding people to be killed by their own guns, except for suicides who have plenty of ways of killing themselves if guns are not available.
In particular, cases of people with a concealed carry license being convicted for wrongful use of a gun are almost nonexistent, whereas cases of people with a concealed carry license using guns to prevent a crime are so common that they rarely attract attention.
And, since we are talking terrorism, almost every day in Israel there is a terrorist attack which is ended by people with concealed carry. Concealed carry saves lives in Israel almost every day. Go to you tube and search for attacks. When was the last time a person lawfully carrying a concealed gun in Israel was convicted of committing a crime with that gun? Pretty sure it was a few years back.
Winter, you have been unusually quiet lately. Could this have something to do with it?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3363895/Riot-police-fire-warning-shots-THOUSANDS-protesters-storm-site-planned-asylum-centre-1-500-migrants-Holland.html
Our rightwing wackos have yet to riot quite like this. Perhaps your condescension of the US is a bit misplaced.
>Our rightwing wackos have yet to riot quite like this. Perhaps your condescension of the US is a bit misplaced.
Tom Wolfe: “The dark night of fascism is always descending in the United States and yet lands only in Europe.”
Anybody want to open a pool on when we’ll have to go over there and liberate the Europeans again? They seem chronically incapable of cleaning their own messes.
Anybody want to open a pool on when we’ll have to go over there and liberate the Europeans again? They seem chronically incapable of cleaning their own messes.
Hmmm, let’s see.
Option 1: Save their sorry asses again, wait N years, repeat.
Option 2: Save their sorry asses, perform involuntary spine transplants on the survivors.
Option 3: Move the Earth’s crust so that the Yellowstone Hotspot is directly under Europe, and then crack the lid open.
I think 3 would be simpler and might even be the better option ethically.
> Anybody want to open a pool on when we’ll have to go over there and liberate the Europeans again?
We may not bother, especially if the Eurofascists win. Even if the Islamofascists win, we might let them have Europe, and become the analog of the Byzantine Empire to Europe’s Western-Empire-fallen-to-the-barbarians.
@TomA
“Winter, you have been unusually quiet lately. Could this have something to do with it?”
Sorry, very busy with offline life. Still am. Just a short note.
@TomA
“Our rightwing wackos have yet to riot quite like this. Perhaps your condescension of the US is a bit misplaced.”
Indeed, we have people protesting against 1500 “suspected” extremists being housed in their village, by showing they can do extremism so much better. There was one severely wounded person. She was beaten by the police, I heard. There will be a long investigation, no doubt.
I do not see the relevance with respect to shooting sprees and murder rates?
@esr
“Tom Wolfe: “The dark night of fascism is always descending in the United States and yet lands only in Europe.””
Indeed, fascism is a European vice with deep roots (Sparta?). But I would not go as far as saying these were all fascists anymore than saying all Tea Party supporters are fascists. And as I have written before, we also have a long history of populists like Le Pen.
Now I have to get going again. Happy Xmas New Year etc.
@Winter
“I do not see the relevance with respect to shooting sprees and murder rates?”
With all your rhetorical maundering, do you even remember your original point?
@Winter
“A lot of hot air is streaming, but I do not see anyone taking up the task of telling us how the costs of free firearms are balanced against its benefits.
Maybe because everyone here knows that the benefits are ephemeral but the costs are far too real.”
I see you still have no answers as to why Europe is so prone to ethnic cleansing in a way the US is not.
daemon: you might like to discuss ethnic cleansing with the surviving full-blood First Americans.
When Europeans have been in America for ten or twenty thousand years, perhaps we’ll see the intense rivalries that have arisen in Europe and elsewhere. Already I see divisions arising as old identities fracture and new ones form. This very forum is evidence of that continuing process.
@winter
“Western Europe has done extremely well since the end of WWII, i.e., for the last 70 years. Note that this is the longest peaceful stretch of history since the Roman empire.” Bosnia notwithstanding, the best 70 years in the past 2000 is faint praise indeed.
Of course, if winter is correct and the only thing keeping Europe’s ghastly history of slaughter in check is American suzerainty, perhaps he should be more circumspect about changing American policy.
Winter: Let me reside two quotes:
“We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable…”
“Give me your tired, your poor…”
What you are saying is that because of the actions of a few Muslims, the supporters of Trump are justified to want to bar every Muslim from the soil of the USA. Negating these two quotes, that I was always told were the foundations of US society.
The first quotation asserts the natural right of people to govern themselves. That is a founding principle of the United States. But it does not assert a right of anyone in the world to go anywhere they want regardless of the wishes of the people who live there, much less the right of everyone in the world to enter the U.S.
The second quotation is a line of poetry, not a binding legal commitment. That the U.S. at one time accepted large numbers of immigrants does not mean the U.S. must do so forever. And in fact the U.S. decided to reduce immigration to low levels for forty years (starting in 1924), and still restricts immigration to much less than it would be with “open borders”. The Statue of Liberty did not weep.
The U.S. has no moral obligation to accept unlimited numbers of immigrants (even refugees), including people who are overtly hostile to the principles of American society, or people who are criminals by our standards.
Many of the governments of Europe do seem to think their countries have such obligations. This will not end well. They may succeed in committing national suicide by overwhelming their own populations with immigrants.Or they may provoke their own removal by election. Or, as seems possible to me, they may circumvent democracy through procedural cheats to prevent the unenlightened masses from interfering. In which case there may be open violent rebellion, spearheaded by extreme reactionaries and fascists – they being the only ones willing to speak out against the folly of the Establishment.
@Winter
“A lot of hot air is streaming, but I do not see anyone taking up the task of telling us how the costs of free firearms are balanced against its benefits.
Maybe because everyone here knows that the benefits are ephemeral but the costs are far too real.”
Many of us tend to think of the cost-benefit equation as being exactly the opposite.
Geoffrey Tobin on 2015-12-24 at 07:17:18 said:
> daemon: you might like to discuss ethnic cleansing with the surviving full-blood First Americans.
Do note that at the time that US Settlers were engaging in “Ethnic Cleansing” Winters antecedents were still buying Africans from Obama’s ancestors and selling them over here, the Spanish were doing their best (which isn’t saying much) to depopulate large parts of Mexico and what is now the American West. The English were still trying to subjugate the Irish by shipping them off as indentured servants or slaves, they were occupying India, and were starting in on the Australian Aboriginals. Portugal was misbehaving itself in Asia and parts of Africa.
And let’s not even talk about what the Mohammedans were doing in in Africa and the “near east”.
So yeah, our (The USA’s) behavior towards the Native Americans was very much less than honorable, but not out of line with the behavior of the countries “we” had immigrated from.
Oh, and at least some of what you’ve heard about the “Genocide” were utter fabrications:
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/plag/5240451.0001.009/–did-the-us-army-distribute-smallpox-blankets-to-indians?rgn=main;view=fulltext and the one documented case where it was *considered* (we do not know if they attempted it) was not by an “American”, but rather by a British officer engaged in the French and Indian war:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1088/did-whites-ever-give-native-americans-blankets-infected-with-smallpox
Note also the comment “I wish we could make use of the Spaniard’s Method and hunt them with English Dogs”.
Yeah, if *only* us Backwards Colonials had behaved like our European Betters.