Re: continuing proofs America is wacko [3]

by David H Mon Jul 18, 2016 1:05 pm

Mrs Figg wrote:
btw. the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, is one of them grey?

Yep, that would be Death (it's a pale greenish, ash-coloured shade of grey Nod

)

by malickfan Mon Jul 18, 2016 2:20 pm

Mrs Figg wrote:poor Obama he looked quite crushed. what a thankless job he has. I will miss him when he has gone.

I wonder, if given the choice would many vote for him for a 3rd term over Clinton or Trump?

I like Obama as a person and statesman, and I agree with alot of his policies, but how much has he actually accomplished? Though an exhausted 'lame duck president' would be less likely to start a nuclear war than Clinton or Trump...

by Eldorion Mon Jul 18, 2016 8:04 pm

I think Obama is one of several Presidents who would win a third term if they were eligible (and wanted to run), though that's largely because both Trump and Clinton are the two least popular major party candidates since modern polling started measuring such things.

Speaking of Trump not being popular, the #NeverTrump delegates have cleared some of their hurdles and appear to be able to force a rules vote on the convention floor (on allowing delegates to vote their conscience on the first ballot), though it's still an incredibly long shot from that to denying Trump the nomination, especially since there is no widely-approved of alternative.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/never-trump-delegates-have-support-needed-to-force-rules-vote-225716

by halfwise Mon Jul 18, 2016 9:17 pm

malickfan wrote:
Mrs Figg wrote:poor Obama he looked quite crushed. what a thankless job he has. I will miss him when he has gone.

I wonder, if given the choice would many vote for him for a 3rd term over Clinton or Trump?

I like Obama as a person and statesman, and I agree with alot of his policies, but how much has he actually accomplished? Though an exhausted 'lame duck president' would be less likely to start a nuclear war than Clinton or Trump...

Obama was never really given a chance to accomplish anything. Part of the attraction of Trump (even for the democrats) is the hope that he'll blow the two party system wide open and give American politics a chance to start over.

by Eldorion Mon Jul 18, 2016 10:40 pm

Obama enjoyed huge Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress during his first two years and got quite a bit done then. Post-2010 has been a very different story of course.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress

by David H Mon Jul 18, 2016 11:47 pm

Throughout his presidency, Obama's popularity has stayed remarkably close to Ronald Reagan's. Both were semi-outsiders who tried to do more than they could eventually pull off, both were strongly polarizing figures, and I suspect they'll both be remembered in very much the same way, though with the R's and D's reversed.

Edit: Here's the Gallup comparison tool: http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspx

by Eldorion Tue Jul 19, 2016 12:04 am

Interesting observation. The weirdest thing about Reagan's legacy, to me, is that for as much as he is feted by the current GOP, his actual policies would have him immediately labeled a RINO if he somehow hopped in a time machine and came to the present day. (Or at least, they would have before the success of Trump ruined what everyone thought they knew about conservatism and the GOP.) If the success of Bernie with young voters is any indication, I could actually see something somewhat similar happening with Obama. He gets criticism from the left wing of the Democratic party now but I suspect that will fade with time after he leaves office.

by halfwise Tue Jul 19, 2016 2:40 am

Obama's economic record is very similar to Reagan's if you look at the shape of the joblessness curve. If you look at the magnitude, he dealt with more.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/18/obamas-record-on-jobs-versus-five-other-presidents.html?__source=yahoo%7Cfinance%7Cheadline%7Cheadline%7Cstory&par=yahoo&doc=103796791&yptr=yahoo

Clinton actually has the best record. Of course all if this is based on the premise that presidents are the main influence on the economy, which is a hard argument to support.

by David H Tue Jul 19, 2016 2:47 am

halfwise wrote: Of course all if this is based on the premise that presidents are the main influence on the economy, which is a hard argument to support.

Maybe, but it's not so hard to believe that it works the other way, that the state of the economy is a major influence in presidents' popularity rating and in how they're remembered. Either way the correlation is striking.

by halfwise Fri Aug 26, 2016 11:02 pm

I have to admit some glee here (and the reporter was obviously feeling the same):

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/amp48016/supreme-court-vacancy-lower-courts-voter-id-abortion/

The republicans, led by Mitch McConnell, have refused to fill the vacancy left by Scalia, gambling that they can get a conservative in there if the election goes their way. (They should have accepted Obama's rather moderate pick.) So the lower courts are emboldened by the split votes in the supreme court, meaning whatever the lower courts rule, stands. By attempting to play hardball for half a year, conservatives have arguably lost more than they stood to gain.

by halfwise Thu Dec 01, 2016 3:20 pm

This is hopeful, containing statistics which I suspected but didn't know. Gun ownership is becoming increasingly concentrated, so the National Rifle Association may begin losing power.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-debrabander-nra-demographic-20161201-story.html

If this continues we may get some sanity in our gun laws. Then the gun regulation opponents may have time to wake up and realize nobody's trying to take their guns away (though admittedly that does seem to be what happened in other countries).

by David H Mon Jan 09, 2017 9:33 pm

Back to the old gun debate, I thought this was a very good analysis with some real data behind it. I think it suggests why the issue is so divisive depending on where you live in relation to the "hot spots".
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/jan/09/special-report-fixing-gun-violence-in-america

In 2015, there were more than 13,000 gun homicides throughout the US … but half of those deaths were in just 127 cities, which contain almost a quarter of the population

continuing proofs America is wacko [3] - Page 20 USmap-Artboard_2

continuing proofs America is wacko [3] - Page 20 USmap-Artboard_2

by halfwise Mon Jan 09, 2017 10:00 pm

Pretty good study. It's amazing that if you look at city maps of poverty, low education, and gun violence, you can't tell them apart. But how to untangle cause and effect?

by David H Mon Jan 09, 2017 10:45 pm

halfwise wrote: But how to untangle cause and effect?

Like many real-world equations, I'm thinking this one has more than one independent variable. I bet we'd get a pile of good sociology papers on this, if only the politics of the gun debate weren't so toxic....

by Pettytyrant101 Tue Jan 10, 2017 3:37 am

if only the politics of the gun debate weren't so toxic.... - David

{{What I dont get is how it got to the stage where even simple sane proposals even a mad man could see the sense of cant get a hearing- such as checking before you sell someone a gun and ammo they are not say, a mad man! Mad

}}}

by David H Tue Jan 10, 2017 4:52 am

Do you have a quick and simple test for madness on your side of the pond? Otherwise I don't see how you'd make that work.... Suspect

by **Orwell** Tue Jan 10, 2017 10:22 am

Perhaps tests should not be so quick and simple (and easy)? I think this in a nutshell is what people in countries with reasonable gun laws don't understand.

by David H Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:17 pm

I honestly don't understand you either. Let me ask the question another way then.
In your countries, who is in charge of determining which of you is mad and which is not? Are these records public, and is testing mandatory or voluntary?

Common-sense gun laws used to exist in the US as well, but they were different common-sense laws in different regions, just as the laws for driving a car and/or drinking vary from state to state and is some cases city to city. Unfortunately many of them have been lost in the toxicity. Sad

by Pettytyrant101 Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:48 pm

Let me ask the question another way then.
In your countries, who is in charge of determining which of you is mad and which is not?- David

{{ Well you cant get everyone but in the UK at least a lot of those with mental illness, especially if it leads to violent or some other notable behaviour, will have come to the attention of the authorities at some point- either NHS, police, or social work.
So for example in the UK if you want a gun you have to get through the following legislation just to apply for one-

'persons who wish to possess, purchase or acquire firearms or ammunition to which section 1 of the 1968 Act applies should complete the prescribed application form (Form 201). By virtue of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exemptions) Order 1975, the provisions of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 do not apply to an application for the grant or renewal of a firearm certificate. An applicant is therefore not entitled to withhold information about any previous conviction

The judgement about whether a person is fit to be entrusted with firearms rests in law with the police and, ultimately, with the courts.

Applicants must have a 'Good Reason' for all firearms they may wish to possess. This may be evidenced by having authority to shoot over land, or membership of a Target Shooting Club. In respect of renewals, 'Good Reason' will be shown through regular use of all firearms possessed.

The application form for firearm certificates requires the applicant to give consent to the sharing of factual medical information between their General Practitioner (GP) and the
police, both during the application process and following grant of the certificate while it remains valid.
If an applicant does not have a GP in the UK they do not fulfil the criteria to be issued with a firearm certificate as they cannot complete the application form.

Any final decision as to the applicant’s fitness, whether on medical or other grounds, should be taken by the properly authorised officer in the usual way.

Following grant of the certificate the police will contact each certificate holder’s GP to ask them to place an encoded reminder on the patient record so that the GP is aware the person is a firearm certificate holder. The code indicates that the person concerned ‘has a shotgun certificate’ and/or ‘has a firearm certificate.’ This enables the GP to discuss the issue with the patient and if necessary inform police if they have concerns about the person’s medical fitness which arise during the validity of the certificate.'

So no you cant catch everyone- but thats no excuse not to bother trying to screen everyone though before giving them access to deadly weaponry and at least detecting the trouble you already know is there. So yeah, in comparison from here looking at America, being able to sell automatic weapons to people at gun fairs without any sort of checks does look bat-shit insane and like the actions of a bunch of crazy people!}}

by halfwise Tue Jan 10, 2017 1:29 pm

Even the NRA has agreed that laws should include prohibition of sale to those with mental illness. But then they try to argue against background checks, which is where the legal insanity comes from.

by Pettytyrant101 Tue Jan 10, 2017 2:49 pm

{{{ You cant prohibit against someone with a mental illness without a means of first determining if they have a mental illness- not accepting that basic and obvious factor is a form of mental illness! Upon which basis the entire NRA should have their weapons confiscated for being obviously off their rockers. Nod

}}}

by David H Tue Jan 10, 2017 4:26 pm

I'm prepared to declare that everybody who chooses to live in any of those 127 cities is mentally ill and should not be allowed to own or use a firearm. There, I just cut US gun violence in half! Very Happy

by David H Tue Jan 10, 2017 4:55 pm

Just to clarify though, there are lots of people who are not allowed to own a firearm for a number of reasons, especially if they've ever run afoul of the courts. I have a good friend who had to sell his hunting rifles because he was no longer allowed to own them after being found guilty of collecting unemployment compensation from the state while doing some small side-jobs that he hadn't reported. That's a felony. No guns for life!

Edit: Washington State's laws on unlawful possession of a firearm, short version:

RCW 9.41.040
Unlawful possession of firearms—Ownership, possession by certain persons—Restoration of right to possess—Penalties.
(1)(a) A person, whether an adult or juvenile, is guilty of the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm in the first degree, if the person owns, has in his or her possession, or has in his or her control any firearm after having previously been convicted or found not guilty by reason of insanity in this state or elsewhere of any serious offense as defined in this chapter.
(b) Unlawful possession of a firearm in the first degree is a class B felony punishable according to chapter 9A.20 RCW.
(2)(a) A person, whether an adult or juvenile, is guilty of the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm in the second degree, if the person does not qualify under subsection (1) of this section for the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm in the first degree and the person owns, has in his or her possession, or has in his or her control any firearm:
(i) After having previously been convicted or found not guilty by reason of insanity in this state or elsewhere of any felony not specifically listed as prohibiting firearm possession under subsection (1) of this section, or any of the following crimes when committed by one family or household member against another, committed on or after July 1, 1993: Assault in the fourth degree, coercion, stalking, reckless endangerment, criminal trespass in the first degree, or violation of the provisions of a protection order or no-contact order restraining the person or excluding the person from a residence (RCW 26.50.060, 26.50.070, 26.50.130, or 10.99.040);
(ii) During any period of time that the person is subject to a court order issued under chapter 7.90, 7.92, 9A.46, 10.14, 10.99, 26.09, 26.10, 26.26, or 26.50 RCW that:
(A) Was issued after a hearing of which the person received actual notice, and at which the person had an opportunity to participate;
(B) Restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of the person or child of the intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and
(C)(I) Includes a finding that the person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of the intimate partner or child; and
(II) By its terms, explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury;
(iii) After having previously been involuntarily committed for mental health treatment under RCW 71.05.240, 71.05.320, 71.34.740, 71.34.750, chapter 10.77 RCW, or equivalent statutes of another jurisdiction, unless his or her right to possess a firearm has been restored as provided in RCW 9.41.047;
(iv) If the person is under eighteen years of age, except as provided in RCW 9.41.042; and/or
(v) If the person is free on bond or personal recognizance pending trial, appeal, or sentencing for a serious offense as defined in RCW 9.41.010.
(b) Unlawful possession of a firearm in the second degree is a class C felony punishable according to chapter 9A.20 RCW.
(3) Notwithstanding RCW 9.41.047 or any other provisions of law, as used in this chapter, a person has been "convicted", whether in an adult court or adjudicated in a juvenile court, at such time as a plea of guilty has been accepted, or a verdict of guilty has been filed, notwithstanding the pendency of any future proceedings including but not limited to sentencing or disposition, post-trial or post-fact-finding motions, and appeals. Conviction includes a dismissal entered after a period of probation, suspension or deferral of sentence, and also includes equivalent dispositions by courts in jurisdictions other than Washington state. A person shall not be precluded from possession of a firearm if the conviction has been the subject of a pardon, annulment, certificate of rehabilitation, or other equivalent procedure based on a finding of the rehabilitation of the person convicted or the conviction or disposition has been the subject of a pardon, annulment, or other equivalent procedure based on a finding of innocence. Where no record of the court's disposition of the charges can be found, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the person was not convicted of the charge.
(4)(a) Notwithstanding subsection (1) or (2) of this section, a person convicted or found not guilty by reason of insanity of an offense prohibiting the possession of a firearm under this section other than murder, manslaughter, robbery, rape, indecent liberties, arson, assault, kidnapping, extortion, burglary, or violations with respect to controlled substances under RCW 69.50.401 and 69.50.410, who received a probationary sentence under RCW 9.95.200, and who received a dismissal of the charge under RCW 9.95.240, shall not be precluded from possession of a firearm as a result of the conviction or finding of not guilty by reason of insanity. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, if a person is prohibited from possession of a firearm under subsection (1) or (2) of this section and has not previously been convicted or found not guilty by reason of insanity of a sex offense prohibiting firearm ownership under subsection (1) or (2) of this section and/or any felony defined under any law as a class A felony or with a maximum sentence of at least twenty years, or both, the individual may petition a court of record to have his or her right to possess a firearm restored:
(i) Under RCW 9.41.047; and/or
(ii)(A) If the conviction or finding of not guilty by reason of insanity was for a felony offense, after five or more consecutive years in the community without being convicted or found not guilty by reason of insanity or currently charged with any felony, gross misdemeanor, or misdemeanor crimes, if the individual has no prior felony convictions that prohibit the possession of a firearm counted as part of the offender score under RCW 9.94A.525; or
(B) If the conviction or finding of not guilty by reason of insanity was for a nonfelony offense, after three or more consecutive years in the community without being convicted or found not guilty by reason of insanity or currently charged with any felony, gross misdemeanor, or misdemeanor crimes, if the individual has no prior felony convictions that prohibit the possession of a firearm counted as part of the offender score under RCW 9.94A.525 and the individual has completed all conditions of the sentence.
(b) An individual may petition a court of record to have his or her right to possess a firearm restored under (a) of this subsection (4) only at:
(i) The court of record that ordered the petitioner's prohibition on possession of a firearm; or
(ii) The superior court in the county in which the petitioner resides.
(5) In addition to any other penalty provided for by law, if a person under the age of eighteen years is found by a court to have possessed a firearm in a vehicle in violation of subsection (1) or (2) of this section or to have committed an offense while armed with a firearm during which offense a motor vehicle served an integral function, the court shall notify the department of licensing within twenty-four hours and the person's privilege to drive shall be revoked under RCW 46.20.265, unless the offense is the juvenile's first offense in violation of this section and has not committed an offense while armed with a firearm, an unlawful possession of a firearm offense, or an offense in violation of chapter 66.44, 69.52, 69.41, or 69.50 RCW.
(6) Nothing in chapter 129, Laws of 1995 shall ever be construed or interpreted as preventing an offender from being charged and subsequently convicted for the separate felony crimes of theft of a firearm or possession of a stolen firearm, or both, in addition to being charged and subsequently convicted under this section for unlawful possession of a firearm in the first or second degree. Notwithstanding any other law, if the offender is convicted under this section for unlawful possession of a firearm in the first or second degree and for the felony crimes of theft of a firearm or possession of a stolen firearm, or both, then the offender shall serve consecutive sentences for each of the felony crimes of conviction listed in this subsection.
(7) Each firearm unlawfully possessed under this section shall be a separate offense.
(8 ) For purposes of this section, "intimate partner" includes: A spouse, a domestic partner, a former spouse, a former domestic partner, a person with whom the restrained person has a child in common, or a person with whom the restrained person has cohabitated or is cohabitating as part of a dating relationship.

by Pettytyrant101 Tue Jan 10, 2017 5:44 pm

{{That seems a bit like bolting the stable door after the horses have bolted! You need the checks before folk get the lethal weaponry not afterwards! I mean if its fine to remove the gun from someone who commits an illegal act- why cant you check before someone buys a gun if they have committed an illegal act or have a history of mental illness? What the hell is the objection? scratch

}}

by David H Tue Jan 10, 2017 8:15 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{ I mean if its fine to remove the gun from someone who commits an illegal act- why cant you check before someone buys a gun if they have committed an illegal act}}

You can. It's actually a legal requirement for buying a gun from a shop and has been for a very long time, and many gun owners support it.

{{... or have a history of mental illness? What the hell is the objection? }}

Those are medical records and they're confidential here. Remember, our heathcare is private so your records are your own, like discussions with your attorney.