I don't think I see the analogy/comparison as being equal.
A doctor performing spontaneous volunteer medical services has already had four years of medical school, internship, residency, and X years of medical experience, and is licensed after serious examination. Even a new doctor has a lot of training under his or her belt.
As far as I can tell, the requirements for becoming a licensed gun users and/or CCW permit holder are much, much lower.
There are about as many guns in the U.S. as
people. I think that at least half or more of the
population owns zero guns. Some people seem
to own entire arsenals
The usual line is that bad facts make bad law.
Not always but close enough especially in crim
Law and procedure. In civil law, bad facts are
more subjective.
I am curious about what would happen if a CCW holder
did accidentally kill a bystander. We don't have any stories
about this as far as I know. Let's say it was like Aurora,
would the gun lobby mind the CCW holder being charged with
Involuntary Manslaughter because of gross recklessness? What
if the prosecution could prove our CCW defendant was
a very bad shooter even at the firing range?
I generally am suspicious when people say don't "politicize the tragedy"
Maybe at best it can be used to mean, "Let's not enact hasty and poorly written legislation in response to a catastrophic or tragic event"*. However, there are many times when the phrase is simply used as a very blunt tool by one side to silence the opposition and prevent them from bringing up their favorite talking points or prefered policies. It is also used to make the other side look like vulgar opportunists.
Many people in the Democratic Party and/or liberals support gun control laws. We think, possibly correctly or possibly incorrectly, that good regulations would prevent gun massacres like the Aurora shooting from happening. Liberals tend to think that the tougher gun laws in Europe work to lessen gun violence and gun massacre. Not perfectly of course but as far as I can tell European countries tend to suffer many fewer incidents like Aurora or Columbine or Virginia Tech.
Conservatives or pro-gun people tend to think otherwise. They talk about how if everyone was packing heat, things like Aurora would not happen. This strikes me as crazy talk. Concealed Carry stikes me as crazy. pro-Gun people see gun control policies as being fascist. What are we to do?
Politics and policy seek to change the real world and are designed in response to real world events. These are not lofty abstractions for the seminar table to be combined with references to Kant and Hegel. It seems perfectly natural to say "Here is a real world event that is tragic and should not have happened. I think policy X will help reduce the chances of real world event happening again. Let's enact it."
The Depression was a real world tragedy. Much of the New Deal was created to prevent such recklessness from happening again like Glass-Stegal. As far as I can tell, Glass-Stegal worked very well for the fifty or or years it was the law of the land.
In this election, you do seem to be in the minority that might decide the winner.
My blogs have been showing that an overwhelming majority of people have already decided whether the are voting for Obama or Romney. This could change but probably not by much.
I agree with Kazzy though. The platforms of both parties seem so different to me that I have a hardtime comprehending someone being undecided. We are in an age of hyper-polizarization.
Partially. Not necessarily because there are two parties but because I think there are growing perceptions that being an open partisan shows that you are willing to ignore inconvenient facts from the other side.
The Congressional system seems to favor having two parties more than having multiple parties.
What is interesting about the United States is how old our parties are. The Democratic Party is nearly 200 years old (let's say it started with Jackson) and the Republican Party is not that far behind. The demographics of the parties have changed over generations but as far as I can tell there were always key groups that identified with each party from the start.
Previous American parties stayed around for a few generations and then disintergrated like the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, the Whigs, etc.
This is not to say that there are not true independents out there. There are 300 million people in the US. That leads towards a lot of variants but based on everything I've read, it seems that many people who described themselves as Independent are still largely straight-down party voters.
I thought it has been pretty much proven at this pont that almost all Independent voters are really "closet partisans" who do not want register with a party for largely psychological/perception reasons.
It is a myth that people used to go around carrying guns in the Wild West. In many towns, cowboys and others had to check in their guns with the Sherrif when entering town kind of like we have coat checks at restaurants.
The legendary fight at the OK Coral was because the people did not want to check their guns.
The theatre was dark, crowded, and the gunman was wearing body armor and threw out a tear gas type of grenade. CCW bravehearts would have likely made things worse.
American Gun laws are absolutely insane and I am tired of living under rule by the NRA. There is no legitimate reason for local police or civilians to have military grade weapons. There is no legitimate reason for Concealed Carry unless we want to prove that the United States really is a paranoid nation and we all think Escape from New York is around the corner. This is not an anarchy filled with warlords.
The book seems to be your basic conservative screed about how Intellectuals and Professors are ruining America. The interesting twist is that it is written by a Jewish American professor of Computer Science at Yale. His argument is that pushy, leftist Jews are the problem and we should have never destroyed the old quota system.
This might be the first example of right-wing self-loathing Judaism I have ever seen.
The U.S. government is currently holding a lot of money in trust for the Crow or the Sioux (I can't remember which) over the Black Mountains in South Dakota.
The tribe does not want the money. They want their ancestral lands back from the Federal government.
This is also true of Native American artifacts in museums. The tribes don't want money for the artifacts. They want their history and culture back. There is a federal law dealing with Native American tribes being able to reclaim their artifacts back.
I will probably see it this weekend in an afternoon show.
What most interests me without seeing the movie are:
1. The cases of fanboy rage going after dissenting critics. Have we gotten to the point in superhero/fanboy madness that a dissenting viewpoint on a movie needs to be taken down? Is the net just making everything more tribal?
2. I've seen critics attack this movie from the left and the right. The left seeing this as a randian screed aganist OWS. Conservative critics (not Rush L) have seen at as very pro-OWS. Can the movie be both or are we all post-modern now and just view things from our own lens and now everything is all things to all people?
My comment is not to be read that lesbianism is unusual. However it was part of the woman's rebellious year. At the time of her arrest and jailing, her male fiancee (or husband) was an utterly conventional member of the upper-middle class.
And I think there is no way I can talk about this without digging my grave further.
I think things are slowly changing in the Democratic party. Very slowly though:
There are individual Congresspeople who advocate for legalization. There was also a Democratic Congressional primary recently where war on drugs rhetoric failed and the pro-Reform Democratic candidate won his primary race. I think this was in Texas.
Though Kevin Drum brings up a tragic but interesting point on Marijuana legalization and International law today:
Though I suspect a lot of these views are tempermental and about psychology as much as anything else.
I know a lot of people who think that the only way to combat inequity is by dropping out of the system entirely.
I think I can be a lawyer, help do good, while still having a decent lifestyle.
People in group one would probably consider me part of the problem. I consider people in group one to be wrong that their protesting helps do anything besides declare their own purity.
When I was in elementary school, we used to go to a place called Old Bethpage. Old Bethpage was a non-profit enactment of life in the early to mid 1800s. So you saw the hat maker, cheesemaker, and everyone bartering and trading. I will fix your window if you give me some cheese, etc.
This is the kind of sustainablity that the DIY crowd wants but is impossible to achieve. Maybe you can have a few small towns here and there do this kind of stuff but nothing big. I'm a fan of big cities. New York could not survive on this model.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Politicizing the Tragedy in Aurora”
I don't think I see the analogy/comparison as being equal.
A doctor performing spontaneous volunteer medical services has already had four years of medical school, internship, residency, and X years of medical experience, and is licensed after serious examination. Even a new doctor has a lot of training under his or her belt.
As far as I can tell, the requirements for becoming a licensed gun users and/or CCW permit holder are much, much lower.
"
There are about as many guns in the U.S. as
people. I think that at least half or more of the
population owns zero guns. Some people seem
to own entire arsenals
"
The usual line is that bad facts make bad law.
Not always but close enough especially in crim
Law and procedure. In civil law, bad facts are
more subjective.
"
I am curious about what would happen if a CCW holder
did accidentally kill a bystander. We don't have any stories
about this as far as I know. Let's say it was like Aurora,
would the gun lobby mind the CCW holder being charged with
Involuntary Manslaughter because of gross recklessness? What
if the prosecution could prove our CCW defendant was
a very bad shooter even at the firing range?
"
I generally am suspicious when people say don't "politicize the tragedy"
Maybe at best it can be used to mean, "Let's not enact hasty and poorly written legislation in response to a catastrophic or tragic event"*. However, there are many times when the phrase is simply used as a very blunt tool by one side to silence the opposition and prevent them from bringing up their favorite talking points or prefered policies. It is also used to make the other side look like vulgar opportunists.
Many people in the Democratic Party and/or liberals support gun control laws. We think, possibly correctly or possibly incorrectly, that good regulations would prevent gun massacres like the Aurora shooting from happening. Liberals tend to think that the tougher gun laws in Europe work to lessen gun violence and gun massacre. Not perfectly of course but as far as I can tell European countries tend to suffer many fewer incidents like Aurora or Columbine or Virginia Tech.
Conservatives or pro-gun people tend to think otherwise. They talk about how if everyone was packing heat, things like Aurora would not happen. This strikes me as crazy talk. Concealed Carry stikes me as crazy. pro-Gun people see gun control policies as being fascist. What are we to do?
Politics and policy seek to change the real world and are designed in response to real world events. These are not lofty abstractions for the seminar table to be combined with references to Kant and Hegel. It seems perfectly natural to say "Here is a real world event that is tragic and should not have happened. I think policy X will help reduce the chances of real world event happening again. Let's enact it."
The Depression was a real world tragedy. Much of the New Deal was created to prevent such recklessness from happening again like Glass-Stegal. As far as I can tell, Glass-Stegal worked very well for the fifty or or years it was the law of the land.
On “Batman Silly Season Weekend Open Thread”
In this election, you do seem to be in the minority that might decide the winner.
My blogs have been showing that an overwhelming majority of people have already decided whether the are voting for Obama or Romney. This could change but probably not by much.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/president-obama-mitt-romney-deadlocked-in-race-poll-finds/2012/07/09/gJQAaJwdZW_story.html?hpid=z1
I agree with Kazzy though. The platforms of both parties seem so different to me that I have a hardtime comprehending someone being undecided. We are in an age of hyper-polizarization.
"
Partially. Not necessarily because there are two parties but because I think there are growing perceptions that being an open partisan shows that you are willing to ignore inconvenient facts from the other side.
The Congressional system seems to favor having two parties more than having multiple parties.
What is interesting about the United States is how old our parties are. The Democratic Party is nearly 200 years old (let's say it started with Jackson) and the Republican Party is not that far behind. The demographics of the parties have changed over generations but as far as I can tell there were always key groups that identified with each party from the start.
Previous American parties stayed around for a few generations and then disintergrated like the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, the Whigs, etc.
"
http://www.npr.org/2012/03/26/149402358/just-how-independent-are-independent-voters
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/are-independent-leaners-closet-partisans-or-true-independents/
http://www.center-forward.org/2012/05/17/washington-post-five-myths-about-independent-voters/
This is not to say that there are not true independents out there. There are 300 million people in the US. That leads towards a lot of variants but based on everything I've read, it seems that many people who described themselves as Independent are still largely straight-down party voters.
"
I thought it has been pretty much proven at this pont that almost all Independent voters are really "closet partisans" who do not want register with a party for largely psychological/perception reasons.
"
George Turner,
It is a myth that people used to go around carrying guns in the Wild West. In many towns, cowboys and others had to check in their guns with the Sherrif when entering town kind of like we have coat checks at restaurants.
The legendary fight at the OK Coral was because the people did not want to check their guns.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/23/nation/la-na-tombstone-20110123
"
Chief Justice Burger did say that.
"
Unlikely.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/07/20/could_a_brave_citizen_with_a_concealed_weapon_have_prevented_the_aurora_shootings_.html
The theatre was dark, crowded, and the gunman was wearing body armor and threw out a tear gas type of grenade. CCW bravehearts would have likely made things worse.
"
For damned good reason:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/07/aurora-movie-shooting-one-more-massacre.html#ixzz21BpEZtmr
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/07/the-certainty-of-more-shootings/260133/
American Gun laws are absolutely insane and I am tired of living under rule by the NRA. There is no legitimate reason for local police or civilians to have military grade weapons. There is no legitimate reason for Concealed Carry unless we want to prove that the United States really is a paranoid nation and we all think Escape from New York is around the corner. This is not an anarchy filled with warlords.
On “A Note for the Sake of Historical Accuracy”
I saw this book review today.
The book seems to be your basic conservative screed about how Intellectuals and Professors are ruining America. The interesting twist is that it is written by a Jewish American professor of Computer Science at Yale. His argument is that pushy, leftist Jews are the problem and we should have never destroyed the old quota system.
This might be the first example of right-wing self-loathing Judaism I have ever seen.
http://chronicle.com/article/Dreaming-of-a-World-Without/132813/
On “Libertarianism: Some Clarifications”
The U.S. government is currently holding a lot of money in trust for the Crow or the Sioux (I can't remember which) over the Black Mountains in South Dakota.
The tribe does not want the money. They want their ancestral lands back from the Federal government.
This is also true of Native American artifacts in museums. The tribes don't want money for the artifacts. They want their history and culture back. There is a federal law dealing with Native American tribes being able to reclaim their artifacts back.
On “Batman Silly Season Weekend Open Thread”
I will probably see it this weekend in an afternoon show.
What most interests me without seeing the movie are:
1. The cases of fanboy rage going after dissenting critics. Have we gotten to the point in superhero/fanboy madness that a dissenting viewpoint on a movie needs to be taken down? Is the net just making everything more tribal?
2. I've seen critics attack this movie from the left and the right. The left seeing this as a randian screed aganist OWS. Conservative critics (not Rush L) have seen at as very pro-OWS. Can the movie be both or are we all post-modern now and just view things from our own lens and now everything is all things to all people?
On “Sometimes Too Much Agreement is the Worst of All”
Andrew Sullivan publishes info showing that somewhere around 50 percent of the electorate favors legalization or decriminalization at least.
On “Libertarianism: Some Clarifications”
They can suck it then.
Reality needs to be recognized and a society in which this happens is unjust and coercive.
"
I think problems like this highlight the problems with libertarianism for me.
On “Sometimes Too Much Agreement is the Worst of All”
I think Obama is practicing real-politik and worried about how the kulturkamph right-wing is going to trash him considering:
1. He has admitted to smoking pot and snorting cocaine.
2. He is black.
If he wins reelection, we shall see how he acts.
On “Libertarianism: Some Clarifications”
I drank your milkshake.
On “Sometimes Too Much Agreement is the Worst of All”
My comment is not to be read that lesbianism is unusual. However it was part of the woman's rebellious year. At the time of her arrest and jailing, her male fiancee (or husband) was an utterly conventional member of the upper-middle class.
And I think there is no way I can talk about this without digging my grave further.
"
I think things are slowly changing in the Democratic party. Very slowly though:
There are individual Congresspeople who advocate for legalization. There was also a Democratic Congressional primary recently where war on drugs rhetoric failed and the pro-Reform Democratic candidate won his primary race. I think this was in Texas.
Though Kevin Drum brings up a tragic but interesting point on Marijuana legalization and International law today:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/07/why-pot-illegal-everywhere-world
But you are right about the cynicism. The war on drugs is nothing but a war against the poor. In the case of Mexicans, it is simple murder.
On “Libertarianism: Some Clarifications”
Though I suspect a lot of these views are tempermental and about psychology as much as anything else.
I know a lot of people who think that the only way to combat inequity is by dropping out of the system entirely.
I think I can be a lawyer, help do good, while still having a decent lifestyle.
People in group one would probably consider me part of the problem. I consider people in group one to be wrong that their protesting helps do anything besides declare their own purity.
"
Pretty much.
When I was in elementary school, we used to go to a place called Old Bethpage. Old Bethpage was a non-profit enactment of life in the early to mid 1800s. So you saw the hat maker, cheesemaker, and everyone bartering and trading. I will fix your window if you give me some cheese, etc.
This is the kind of sustainablity that the DIY crowd wants but is impossible to achieve. Maybe you can have a few small towns here and there do this kind of stuff but nothing big. I'm a fan of big cities. New York could not survive on this model.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.