My Photo


David Thompson
Subscribe
Blog powered by Typepad

« Friday Ephemera | Main | The Cheese and Onion Gave Him Away »

August 04, 2014

Comments

Karen M

The clue's in the headline: "Do I have your attention now?"

Connor

I think it’s fair to say that a mutual understanding wasn’t reached on this particular outing, and the intended consciousness-raising concludes with the following exchange:

“Can I talk?”

“No.”

Calling gun owners "nuts" and "ammo-sexuals" isn't a great way to start a discussion or change anyone's mind. But I think she knew that.

TDK

"Oy! The face is up here - the tits are down there. Will you stop looking at my face!"

David

Calling gun owners “nuts” and “ammo-sexuals” isn’t a great way to start a discussion or change anyone’s mind. But I think she knew that.

Well, quite. I don’t know enough about Texan law, open carry activists or the preferences of the Texan electorate to have much of an opinion on the ostensible issue. What caught my attention, though, is the disingenuous air of Ms Masters’ stated position. The topless protest is presented as a consciousness-raising exercise, an attempt to “draw attention” to the issue and inspire discussion. And yet she and her associate stake out their credentials by pre-emptively dismissing their opponents as “ammo-sexuals,” “fetishists” and “open-carry chuckleheads” who are “taking a gun out for a date” and compensating for the possession of tiny genitals.

Which rather casts doubt on any genuine openness to debate.

Despite setting the low tone of any subsequent exchange, Ms Masters then complains that the gun rights activists “insulted [her] appearance.” As if such comments had nothing whatsoever to do with her own statements and behaviour. When she insults them, at length, it’s righteous; but when some of them repay the favour we’re expected to see her as being unfairly mocked. Ms Masters (who claims not to be against firearms per se) would have us believe that, unlike breasts, “guns only bring death.” Though I suspect that the hundreds of thousands of people who in any year have used guns to defend themselves and their families against violent predation – including those, the majority, who did so without needing to actually shoot the attacker - might argue otherwise.

Robert the Biker

Funny thing, I can pretty much guarantee that if that stupid mare had found herself accosted by some (desperate) low-life and screamed for help, EVERY SINGLE ONE of those gun owners would have come to her defence.
Of course as a typical femi-loon, the idea that others might have a valid alternate view does not occur.
Hint to the gunnies, shouts of 'get em out, get em out' shortl followed by 'Arrrghhh, put em back, put em back' will work wonders.

Steve 2: Steveageddon

I like her sign:

"MORE BOOBS, LESS GUNS".

I hate to be pendantic but I think it's *fewer* guns. And why not have both? But if you're going to try to make people choose, it's probably not a good idea to flaunt pendulous granny boobs as an alternative to the sexy engineering craftsmanship of a SCAR-H. That comparison only works on Wayne Rooney and Harold and Maude fans.

"10 OUT OF 10 BABIES AGREE" - yes, but babies are idiots. My baby thinks the cat's tail is a fluffy baguette. He poops himself at the dinner table, then grins at his achievement. He is terrified of the shower but enjoys chewing on electrical cables. He believes music attained perfection with "What Does The Fox Say".

Is she saying gun control enthusiasts are like babies?

Well, she does stress how she wants to constrain the liberties of "random" (i.e. other) people so she can "feel safe", and that speaks of a child-like mentality.

But the reality is that all the new Austin hipsters could care less about their big weapons, my own kids are cringing at how they make Texas look, and my peers here are simply passionate into different things.

Unfortunately...

1) Hipsters "could care less"? So what? The appeal to what babies think was more persuasive. The only thing I want to hear from a hipster is "Here's your coffee, sir."

2) I'm sure her kids are cringing at seeing Mum's leathery National Geographic teats flailing around on the news like an obese pipistrelle.

3) It's nice that her peers are passionate about different things. The "ammosexuals" aren't the ones trying to ban other people's pursuits.

She also seems to be straying into Laurie Penny style fabulism in her account of how she and her sun-dried udders courageously faced down "skinheads". According to the gun guys quoted in a local paper:

open carry advocate Tom Jefferson said the women harassed gun advocates: "They followed us into a small coffee shop and called us the Aryan Brotherhood. They continually used terms like white pride and white power."

Who to believe, eh? :)

sk60

OT (or maybe not):

"Is the decline in topless sunbathing a backward step for feminism?"

http://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2014/aug/02/is-decline-in-topless-sunbathing-backward-step-for-feminism-debate

svh

“Can I talk?”

“No.”

Just shut up and look at my breasts.

Ted S., Catskill Mtns., NY, USA

Ms Masters “settled in Austin, Texas in 1981 and loves it despite gentrification.”

It was great when people like her moved in to change the culture of the place, but now the wrong people are doing what she did 30 years ago. The horror!

Ted S., Catskill Mtns., NY, USA

The open-carry people are to me a lot like the sort of people who would march in a gay pride parade dressed like Sean Connery in Zardoz: a bit out there and certainly trying to get attention, but also in theory serving the purpose that people next door who own guns look sensible.

Or, that would be the effect if the media weren't tirelessly propagandazing against private-sector guns.

Bart

"Do I have your attention now?"

I don't care if it's bad attention, everyone look at MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!


"all those gun-rights advocates brandished their weapons at Chipotle and Target ... We found out that the group "Come and Take It Texas" holds monthly arms marches around the statehouse here, in which the goals are to condition the rest of us to "feel safe" around random people toting their guns around"

Oh no, that sounds terrifying and threatning! I hope you don't completely contradict yourself a couple of paragraphs later by claiming their alleged attempts to intimidate you were ineffectual and ridiculous, thereby undermining both claims and casting doubts on the accuracy of your entire narrative, as well as your basic competence as a reporter!

Also, "brandishing" means to wave a weapon about in a threatening manner, Mrs Professional Writer. As in against the law, even in Texas.

"I will admit to engaging them just a bit"

You admit to it? This is considered a sin amongst Guardianistas? It's just most people regard giving consideration to other people's viewpoints a good thing.


"but then it dawned on me that confrontation was what they wanted"

That's right, the guys you waved your tits at while following for five blocks were the ones looking for a confrontation.


"They certainly seemed to think it was strange that we weren't intimidated by them or they weapons"

Aaaaand there it is.


"But the reality is that all the new Austin hipsters could care less about their big weapons"

Somone really ought to tell Guardian columnists that evoking hipsters to support your argument isn't a good idea.

"my own kids are cringing at how they make Texas look,"

Ask them how they feel about their mum following groups of strangers about with her boobs out.


"and my peers here are simply passionate into different things"

So, open carry advocates aren't at all intimidating, nobody could care less about their cause and everyone else is simply into other things. You are aware that all this makes you protest completely pointless?

Tom Foster

Ms Masters “settled in Austin, Texas in 1981 and loves it despite gentrification.”

It was great when people like her moved in to change the culture of the place, but now the wrong people are doing what she did 30 years ago. The horror!

I'm finding the 'gentrification' debate in places like – yes, you guessed it, the Guardian – grimly amusing. For years, if anyone dared to suggest that there might be a problem with the way that rapid large-scale immigration was changing the character of certain towns and cities, they were instantly howled down as racist, Islamophobic, a little Englander, etc, etc. But now that the white middle classes are moving to places like Brixton, trying to preserve the 'heritage' or 'integral character' of an area suddenly becomes important, and worthy of a sympathetic hearing.

http://www.theguardian.com/society-professionals/2014/jul/18/gentrification-what-happens-to-those-left-behind

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/oct/24/london-race

David

“my own kids are cringing at how they make Texas look.”
Ask them how they feel about their mum following groups of strangers about with her boobs out.

Someone fetch cake for Bart.

Not that muck, the good cake.

R. Sherman

Ask them how they feel about their mum following groups of strangers about with her boobs out.

Question answered by Rodney Carrington, who was born in Longview, Texas.

Lancastrian Oik

"(I)t's a matter of basic respect for others. But...".

...only for those who agree with her and those like her. Those who differ are ipso facto not entitled to respect.

Liberal Fascism in a nutshell.

If it stops there, with a couple of swamp donkeys flashing their saggy tits at the non-anointed, then at least we can all have a good laugh.

My guess is that it will get much, much worse than that before it gets better.

Minnow

My guess is that it will get much, much worse than that before it gets better.

You are right. We might end up with fewer guns, and then where would we be?

Lancastrian Oik

We might end up with fewer guns, and then where would we be?

Err- probably paying more for them.

Karen M

We might end up with fewer guns, and then where would we be?

Defenceless. And still being robbed/raped/killed by people who don't care about gun laws.

Minnow

Defenceless. And still being robbed/raped/killed by people who don't care about gun laws.

Because there is so much less violent crime in the US where there are plenty of guns than in those places that don't have them.

I wonder how many English people can honestly say that they wander round their towns and cities at night and wish that more of their neighbours were carrying firearms.

Minnow

Err- probably paying more for them.

And especially for the black market ones. Which hardly seems fair. It's hard enough being in a gang without that sort of covert taxation.

Lancastrian Oik

If you think homicide or crime rates are specifically related to the ease of availability of firearms, think again.

France has much more liberal gun laws than the United Kingdom; their homicide by firearm rate is three times higher than ours, yet our overall homicide rates are exactly the same.

I hope you have a good security system and some sturdy locks on that ivory tower of yours.

Minnow

You'd feel easier if more of the the youths down your way were carrying Lancastrian Oik? I hope you don't live in some of the bits of Lancaster that I know.

How many deaths by firearms in the US last year? I forget.

David

As Karen suggests, gun laws tend to have greatest impact on the already law abiding. And disarming the law-abiding can in terms of crime have unintended consequences. As Thomas Sowell says, “the great bulk of the studies show that gun control laws do not in fact control guns. On net balance, they do not save lives but cost lives.”

This isn’t a pet issue for me – it’s not something I get excited about - but I can certainly understand why some people, in other situations, feel very strongly about the right to defend themselves and their families with firearms. As I said in another discussion on this, for an actual victim of violent predation, home invasion, rape, etc., any benefit of a police response is usually after the fact. A person faced with intruders in their home in the middle of the night can’t assume that the police will arrive in time and take care of the problem for them, even if a call for help can be made. In that sense, armed self-defence is an existential concern as much as a sociological one, and hence the strength of feeling on the issue.

Minnow

As Karen suggests, gun laws tend to have greatest impact on the already law-abiding.

There is no evidence for that. Law abiding people in places where guns ownership is restricted do not seem to suffer any ill effects. The opposite in fact because the criminal types are much more likely to be able to get hold of a gun where there are lots of guns that are easily bought than in places where they are scarce.

Spiny Norman

Like Chicago, perhaps? Home of the most restrictive gun-control laws in the entire country? Yeah, like that.

Minnow

Anyone who faces three home invaders, jeopardizing himself or his family, might find 30 bullets barely adequate.

From the article David linked to above. Where do these people live I wonder. The Hindu Kush?

Steve 2: Steveageddon

Minnow - "How many deaths by firearms in the US last year? I forget."

About 11,000. Out of a population of over 300,000,000.

But the majority were suicides.

And the murder rate in the US has been dropping steadily for decades.

If you're an American, you are much more likely to be killed by a drug overdose, alcoholic liver disease, or the flu than you are by a gunman.

Maybe Obama should bring back Prohibition.

Thornavis.

I wonder how many English people can honestly say that they wander round their towns and cities at night and wish that more of their neighbours were carrying firearms.

When you could own and carry firearms without much restriction in this country the murder rate was lower than it is now. Some countries with liberal gun laws have no higher murder rates than we do. There's no simple connection between gun ownership and murder or indeed crime generally, the cultural context makes a lot of difference.

One of the ladies in want of a vest says that she has no objection to guns as such, at least I think she says that, it's hard to tell amidst all the squawking. So quite what her objections are I don't know. It seems unlikely that displaying guns openly somehow leads to more gun use so it's probably safe to conclude that her problem lies with people doing something perfectly legal and harmless that she doesn't like. You're right in a way though, the thought that those intolerant harpies might have guns is rather alarming

David

Minnow,

Where do these people live I wonder. The Hindu Kush?

You’re being glib.

Assume for a moment that our hypothetical elderly friend Mrs Wilson lives with her disabled husband in a remote farmhouse, with little realistic hope of a sufficiently prompt police response. (Assuming, that is, that any call for help could even be made.) Assume, too, that her home has been targeted more than once by predatory thugs, intent on thieving or worse. On what moral basis do you decide whether Mrs Wilson needs a firearm to deter the gang of masked intruders who’ve once again broken into her home? What would you say to her? What would you have her do?

Minnow

No, I believe that is 12,000 or so homicides by firearm. Of course you can drink yourself to death too, but nobody can do that to you. They can shoot you though. And they do, in the US, quite a lot.

Lancastrian Oik

You'd feel easier if more of the the youths down your way were carrying Lancastrian Oik?

Don't put words into my mouth.

Steveo40

@Minnow

Have a read of this (don't forget to purchase via our esteemed host's link):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Nature

Loads of fascinating insights and includes a discussion on the US murder rate. Canada and Switzerland (from memory) have similar gun laws, but a much lower murder rate. So it's very unclear as to what effect gun controls have on it.

Definitely worth a read.

Thornavis.

Minnow

I can't quite follow your logic re violent yoof and gun ownership. Surely if we could all own guns and carry them then said chaverie would presumably think twice, assuming they are capable of such a thing, before attempting to use one themselves ?

I suppose it would be no good my suggesting that consequentialist arguments about hypothetical crimes are beside the point and that what matters is liberty, in this case the freedom to own a gun without running foul of plod.

Civilis

The important comparison is not the number of firearm deaths, but the number of overall murders (not suicides) or the overall crime rate. Of course banning guns will reduce the number of firearms-related murders; the question is whether eliminating the right to self-defense increases the crime rate?

Thornavis.

Of course you can drink yourself to death too, but nobody can do that to you.

What not even the wicked breweries and supermarkets, are you going off message ?

Steve 2: Steveageddon

Minnow -No, I believe that is 12,000 or so homicides by firearm.

I read an article in the Guardian that quoted that statistic and said it included suicides, but can't be bothered checking.

Purely from a numbers basis, it doesn't make much difference. 12,000 or so out of 300,000,000 - while tragic - does not correlate with a significant risk the average person needs to worry about. Not compared with the other, more likely, causes of death.

Of course you can drink yourself to death too, but nobody can do that to you. They can shoot you though. And they do, in the US, quite a lot.

Around 33,000 Americans are killed in car accidents every year. Perhaps they should ban cars. People can drive cars at you.

The road traffic death rate hasn't been falling as fast as the murder rate in the US. So Something Must Be Done.

abacab

But minnow, how is the proletariat to have its revolution if it is deprived of arms and the opportunity to learn how to use them?

abacab

But in all seriousness, US violent crime has been falling since 1991 during a period in which gun ownership and the right to carry have been enormously expanded. Rather the opposite situation to the UK...

R. Sherman

@Minnow,

You, among many, repeat these statistics about deaths and the hands of another with a firearm, while at the same time ignoring the decrease in all crime in places with liberal gun ownership laws, including concealed carry. When the legislature of my state was first contemplating enacting a concealed carry statute, we were warned that the state would turn into the Hollywood version of the Old West. Quite the contrary. And given that the news media loathes firearms as much or more than you, one would expect full coverage if a CC permit holder were to commit a crime. It doesn't happen. What does happen, is that CC permit holders prevent crime. The fact of the matter is, the Left desires a defenseless populace in order to enforce its "vision" upon society.

Steve 2: Steveageddon

Civilis - the question is whether eliminating the right to self-defense increases the crime rate?

The region of the US that has the highest gun homicide rate is Washington DC - 16.5 gun murders per 100,000.

It also has the lowest rate of (legal) gun ownership in the US - only 3.6% thanks to the most restrictive gun controls in the USA.

In Texas, where 35% of people legally own guns and concerned breasts flap freely, the gun murder rate is 3.2 per 100,000.

So you're more than five times as likely to be shot dead in the US capitol - where concealed or open carry is illegal and all firearm purchases must be approved by the police - than you are in rootin' tootin' Texas, where a man may openly carry his Ar-15 in a coffee shop.

Idaho, Montana, North Dakota and Wyoming have far higher rates of gun ownership than gun-happy Texas - over 50% - and far lower rates of gun homicide.

What conclusions may be drawn from this?

Hal

Around 33,000 Americans are killed in car accidents every year. Perhaps they should ban cars. People can drive cars at you.

I haven't checked the recent numbers, but the last time I checked the statistics of the Center For Disease Control---the 2012 numbers, I think---, the rather clearly stated causes of death in the US were, in descending order, disease, disease, disease---keep reading down---, a rather large number of deaths by car---keep reading down---some definitely smaller number of deaths by murder, including by firearm, and then somewhere after that, the suicides, including by firearm . . .

Do have a look at whatever the current numbers are, where of those numbers I saw, I was rather unsurprised to see that firearms had to be bundled in with other causes of death to even turn up that high on the list.

Like Chicago, perhaps? Home of the most restrictive gun-control laws in the entire country? Yeah, like that.

During or right after the most recent weekend of rather major headlines regarding many multiple scattered deaths by firearm in Chicago over a single weekend, I experimented by dropping into Google; Georgia and shooting. The news reports that turned up for for the entire state of Georgia basically were mainly their own coverage of the deaths in Chicago.

See also a comparison of Chicago suburb Morton Grove, vs that of Kennesaw, Georgia.

Civilis

What conclusions may be drawn from this?

Exactly the ones I was hoping would be inferred from this. As someone that lives in the DC area (admittedly, in Virginia, the state with the more sane gun laws), there seems to be a remarkable correlation between 'parts of the area I'd rather not go in' and 'parts of the area that more heavily restrict firearms'. I note that same correlation elsewhere in the country.

While I am more likely to be shot in the US than in the UK (although as a resident of the suburbs with a modicum of common sense and no connection to the drug trade, the difference is miniscule), I'm much more likely to be the victim of violent crime in the UK.

My usual style of argument is not to state conclusions, but state which facts would be needed to reach a conclusion and let honest debaters work from there.

David

The spam filter is being a little twitchy. If anyone has trouble with comments not appearing, email me and I’ll shake them free.

Hal

I'm reminded of my favorite example of the immense differences between right wing liberal and left wing liberal, and conservative.

Consider three statements, and judge how they should be considered:

A) Gays are evil and wrong and must be dealt with and must be converted and we must protect the innocent children, and Etc . . .

Q: Is that sort of proclamation considered right wing or left wing? Is that sort of proclamation considered conservative or liberal?

B) Guns and gun ownwership are evil and wrong and must be dealt with and must be converted and we must protect the innocent children, and Etc . . .

Q: Is that sort of proclamation considered right wing or left wing? Is that sort of proclamation considered conservative or liberal?

C) We're here, we're queer, and we're permanently and thoroughly armed and willing and able to defend ourselves and our families. You politicians will openly and freely acknowledge these facts or we will vote your asses out of office . . . .

Q: Is that sort of proclamation considered right wing or left wing? Is that sort of proclamation considered conservative or liberal?

---As an assist, Google for pink pistols to see a conservative organization that the rabidly right and left wing liberals rather prolly wish would just go away . . . .

Sam Duncan

“my own kids are cringing at how they make Texas look.”

As a dirty Yoorpean furriner, I'd just like to point out that it's bloody Texas. I'd be extremely disappointed if I visited and didn't see people wandering around with guns.

“I'm finding the 'gentrification' debate in places like – yes, you guessed it, the Guardian – grimly amusing.”

Heh. I remember learning about gentrification in school Geography. It took me some time to realise that we were supposed to consider it a bad thing.

The Phantom

There is no argument, fact or statistic which make an anti-gun Leftist so much as reconsider their position. Logic, fact and statistics have always been against them, since the very beginning. They BELIVE, despite all evidence to the contrary.

They pretend their belief is built on scientific evidence, but upon examination all the "evidence" is jinned-up balderdash printed in scientific journals because the clowns who ran them at the time were True Believers.

Among the gun control elite there are none more obstinate, pig headed and foul mouhted than the British contingent. Having achieved nothing less than total victory in Britain, having made self defence with a firearm completely illegal, their ardour is not cooled one iota and now they are screaming for knife control. I kid you not, knife control.

This is at a time when Britain is more violent and dangerous than the USA, excepting the likes of New York and Chicago.

So really, the appropriate treatment of anti gunners is to laugh in their faces and walk on. They are to be scorned and defeated, not reasoned with.

bgates

Law abiding people in places where guns ownership is restricted do not seem to suffer any ill effects.

North Korea, for example. Which is obviously of no concern if you're convinced a government could only ever finish the sentence "We have decided for your own good that we are no longer going to allow you to" with "own guns".

Hal

Siiiiiiigggggggggghhhhhhhhhhh.

A) Selfies

When, during Monday's City Arts & Lectures appearance, a member of the audience asked Alec Baldwin about the worst ("worst" is presented as a euphemism for "s-") trends in celebrity-hood, the actor beckoned the questioner to join him onstage.

The man leaped to the invitation and, cell phone in hand, rushed to Baldwin's side to take a selfie. The star said the man had answered his own question, and dismissed him from the stage, "to loud laughter and applause from the audience," said a spy.

B) Selfies

Drunk Mexican man accidentally shoots himself in head while posing for selfie
New York Daily News - ‎3 hours ago‎

Ten

Now that minnow's wrong again, I wonder if legislation outlawing the manufacture of these troublesome instruments of law and order would solve the problem minnow seems ill-equipped to summarize in a coherent argument.

That is what minnow wants, right? To criminalize the devices unique through history at best upholding law and order?

Civilis

Law abiding people in places where guns ownership is restricted do not seem to suffer any ill effects.

Law abiding people in places where gun ownership is virtually unrestricted do not seem to suffer any ill effects either.

I'm reminded of my favorite example of the immense differences between right wing liberal and left wing liberal, and conservative.

I think you're using different terminology than I'm used to. There are very few people that believe statement A literally, though it's a statement often assumed to be associated with conservatives. (The Phelps clan, the textbook example of people that believe A, are politically abnormal and fit no readily established category besides perhaps 'crazy', as they're strongly anti-war, and Phelps senior was both an associate of Al Gore, a Democratic politician and a noteworthy Civil Rights crusader.)

jabrwok

A person faced with intruders in their home in the middle of the night can’t assume that the police will arrive in time and take care of the problem for them, even if a call for help can be made.

There's a pithy phrase to describe that scenario: "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away".

Jeff Guinn

[Minnow:] Law abiding people in places where guns ownership is restricted do not seem to suffer any ill effects. The opposite in fact because the criminal types are much more likely to be able to get hold of a gun where there are lots of guns that are easily bought than in places where they are scarce.

What is it with progressives and their pronunciamentos? It can only be one thing: if a progressives thinks a thing, that thing is true because a progressive thinks it.

Over the last 25 years, laws against gun possession have been dramatically relaxed across most of the US. Where I live, Anchorage, Alaska, everyone owns a gun.

Yesterday I hiked the Harding icefield trail in the Kenai Fords National Park. Until six or so years ago, it was illegal to carry a weapon in a National Park. Because it is so much better that predators have the advantage.

When that assault against common sense finally got ditched, the Minnows of the world predicted a blood bath in the National Parks. Which resolutely failed to happen. Just as the blood bath that was supposed to happen with relaxed concealed carry laws didn't happen either.

Unfortunately, despite my open carrying a .44 on that hike, no women showed me their girls.

Oh, and one other thing, Minnow. Strike the Black American gun deaths from the totals and see what you have left. Unless you are an atavistic racist, then maybe, just maybe, you might conclude guns aren't the problem.

Doubt it, though. There is no one more immune to evidence than a fundamentalist progressive.

Jeff Wood

My namesake begins to get there. The majority of the people who stop a bullet in the USA are black thugs in the cities. The majority of the shooters are other black thugs. A good proportion of the minority are good people, black and white, defending themselves, or cops.

I cannot be bothered to reference this. I believe the Center for Disease Control has all the numbers.

It astonishes me that Minnow keeps coming back.

Steve 2: Steveageddon

Just for shits and giggles, I had a gander at the crime statistics for the most dangerous cities in America.

The US national murder rate is 4.7 per 100,000 people. By way of comparison, the murder rate of South Africa is 31.00, and Mexico is 21.5.

The most dangerous cities are:

Detroit - 54.6 murders per 100,000
New Orleans - 53.2
St. Louis - 35.5
Baltimore - 34.9
Newark - 34.4
Oakland - 31.8
Stockton - 23.7
Kansas City - 22.6
Philadelphia - 21.5
Cleveland - 21.3

Now let's see which party governs each city, based on the political affiliation of the mayor:

Detroit - Democratic
New Orleans - Democratic
St. Louis - Democratic
Baltimore - Democratic
Newark - Democratic
Oakland - Democratic
Stockton - Democratic
Kansas City - Independent
Philadelphia - Democratic
Cleveland - Democratic

It seems there's a strong correlation between left wing politics and murder.

Jeff Guinn - "Strike the Black American gun deaths from the totals and see what you have left."

According to the FBI's 2011 figures:

Half of all murder victims were black (1.4% were "unknown").

37.7% of all murderers were black (a surprisingly high percentage - 28% - were "unknown").

Black Americans were 12.6% of the US population according to the 2010 census.

Hal

. . . right wing liberal and left wing liberal, and conservative.

I think you're using different terminology than I'm used to.

Ehn, keep in mind that gun control is hitting the target you're aiming at, and that a gun nut is someone screaming that Guns Are Icons Of Evil And Independently Cause Death!!!!---and yeah, someone actually tried arguing that one to me once . . . where yes, both definitions get claimed as being the complete reverse, of course . . .

So an issue then becomes seeing what is the actual case, what is going on, and do the labels actually still apply?

A Very long time ago I noticed that the political reality/ies have settled into the right wing liberal extremists--- Yes right wing liberal---, the left wing liberal extremists, and in between, the conservatives who matter of factly first assess an and every issue and then decide, after having first looked over and considered the facets.

. . . . http://thecuria.com/c-manifesto.html for the long version . . . .

Revnant Dream

Let me guess. Another fleeing migrant from a doomed California brought to them by liberals , now trying to turn Texas into the same progressive slum.With the same ideology that made them move.

Hal

Let me guess. Another fleeing migrant from a doomed California . . .

. . . not if she left us all the way back in '81 . . .

Ted S., Catskill Mtns., NY, USA

A person faced with intruders in their home in the middle of the night can’t assume that the police will arrive in time and take care of the problem for them, even if a call for help can be made.

Sometimes it's the police who are the intruders.

Jimmy

Raised only my bile...

David

I suppose what’s interesting in discussions of this kind is how moves to reduce lawful access to firearms, often aired as if self-evidently benign, can have unanticipated effects:

Our study also provided some surprising information. While support for strict gun-control laws usually has been strongest in large cities, where crime rates are highest, that’s precisely where right-to-carry laws have produced the largest drops in violent crimes. For example, in counties with populations of more than 200,000 people, concealed handgun laws produced an average drop in murder rates of more than 13%. The half of the counties with the highest rape rates saw that crime drop by more than 7%.

The same study notes that firearms can be a feminist issue:

Concealed handguns also appear to help women more than men. Murder rates decline when either sex carries more guns, but the effect is especially pronounced when women are considered separately. An additional woman carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for women by about three to four times more than an additional armed man reduces the murder rate for men. Victims of violent crime are generally physically weaker than the criminals who prey on them. Allowing a woman to defend herself with a concealed handgun makes a larger difference in her ability to defend herself than the change created by providing a man with a handgun. Guns are the great equalizer between the weak and the vicious.

There are plenty of news stories, reported locally, in which human vermin discover that one woman can make them rethink their choice of victim. See, for instance, this mother with a gun. And this incident, in which a woman defends her children from a walking piece of shit, a serial predator. Minnow may want to note the issue of insufficient bullets, which, upthread, he seemed to find amusing. And yet some pundits and campaigners struggle to comprehend why it is that “nobody should need a gun” is a contentious and emotive statement. As if the only people who could possibly object must be mouth-breathing hill people with a taste for human flesh.

Henry

Well I don't think one can simplistically link violence to gun laws. You can look at how the Swiss, Canadians, French do it and get a much more complex picture. It ain't that simple

That said I like the fact that you don't see guns much in the UK. If more guns were about the police would need guns too. We used to be justly proud of our police - and part of that as that they didn't need guns to assert authority. I don't want that to change.

Finally, although I haven't checked again, Minnow didn't seem to answer David's question (surprise!):

What would you say to [Mrs Wilson]? What would you have her do?"

Which is somewhat emotive. I'd like to give Mrs Wilson a gun in that scenario. But I'm aware that the gun laws would then become more complex, and we'd need to see a lot more guns. It would entail complex assessment of who did or didn't need a gun, in many situations less cut and dried than the one David outlines

David

Incidentally, my ‘Mrs Wilson’ scenario, mentioned above, is quite similar to an actual event.

WTP

This testimony from a while back was recently sent to me by my wife. A tragic case of what-if...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=V-oNMHNrS-8

MikeG81

"You can look at how the Canadians do it and get a much more complex picture. It ain't that simple."

You mean the model where 'gang' members in Toronto do most of the shooting and the rest of us get blamed by having our property taken away? That model?

What a crock. The crime rate was already falling prior to the introduction of the Firearms Act in the late 90's. As an added bonus, that pile of so-called 'legislation' is so ambiguous in its wording that it means whatever the state wants it to depending on who they are prosecuting at the time.

Not only that, but several politicians at the time came right out and admitted that it isn't and never was about reducing crime. That's only a smokescreen, after all, who doesn't want less crime? It's about power and control, nothing more.

People like Henry and Minnow believe the 'progressivist', anti-human lie of the non-existence of personal responsibility and outsource theirs to the state.

"I don't want that to change."

Of course. Screw anyone who'd like to have the tools to help themselves. "Keep calm and carry on" and all that stuff, right, Henry?

AC1

I think the state should disarm first in order to set a good example.

Lancastrian Oik

It would entail complex assessment of who did or didn't need a gun, in many situations less cut and dried than the one David outlines.

No it wouldn't- the law on self-defence as it stands is applicable to any given situation, including the 'Mrs. Wilson' scenario; that would mean that the role of the state would be confined to deciding whether the individual using a firearm used reasonable force when acting in self-defence.

Dan

Funny, no sign of Minnow since his fat arse was handed to him by means of stats.

Funny, too, how Obama is against guns but doesn't seem to mind having lots of dudes around him who are armed. Sure, Obama's under threat - but so are the residents of South Side Chicago, or Watts, or the Bronx.

By the way Minnow - here's an actual professional lawman giving people the benefit of his experience, as opposed to your bloviation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEibmLh5qRI

Dan

@David 'There are plenty of news stories, reported locally, in which human vermin discover that one woman can make them rethink their choice of victim. See, for instance, this mother with a gun.'

Minnow needs to do the decent thing, and book himself a flight to D-Town.

Then he can get a cab to Woodrow Wilson and explain to that woman just how it is that 'law-abiding people' do not need guns.

Preferably, he should do so in his snarkiest and most patronising tone, and should dodge any points she raises which are based on her actual experiences with reference to stuff he has read at Salon.

Meanwhile, the woman can alert some 'local youths' to the fact that Minnow is in the area, and as he is waiting outside for his cab back to the airport those local youths can really ram home to him, good and proper, the futility of carrying a firearm.

I would pay a lot of money to see that on CCTV. Preferably hi-def, with sound.

David

The thing is, if Person X wishes to see firearms effectively vanish from civilian life, what are they going to say to the Mrs Wilsons of the world, and the potential Mrs Wilsons? What of her right to defend herself, her family – a basic moral imperative? Is it to be rescinded in the name of some disputed greater good? And if told that she will have to depend instead on a promise that can never be kept – that the police will always be there in time – should she be happy about it?

As I said upthread, this isn’t a burning issue for me personally. While I used to enjoy archery and it might be fun to practice marksmanship with a gun, I don’t feel a great need to own one. But this doesn’t compel me to tell others, people in very different circumstances, that they should feel the same. That would be presumptuous and morally absurd.

Hal

A) Gays are evil and wrong and must be dealt with and must be converted and we must protect the innocent children, and Etc . . .

Q: Is that sort of proclamation considered right wing or left wing? Is that sort of proclamation considered conservative or liberal?

and . . . .

There are very few people that believe statement A literally, though it's a statement often assumed to be associated with conservatives.

Or, to comment, and to nail down terms, it's rather considered to be more a facet of the right wing extremists, rather than conservatives. In the meantime, of it being rare, Yeah, you'd think . . but . . . . And then I get to just this morning's news around here . . .

Richmond councilwoman perseveres through hate speech

Mark Wassberg took to the podium, wagged his finger at the Richmond City Council and said:

"I'm going to keep coming up here and tell you how gays have no morality. ... You're filth. You're dirt. Because I have the constitutional right to say it."

Pablito

Not really in line with the thread of this discussion but I thought everyone here would enjoy this (and Minnow would nod his head in agreement with it)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/gardening/11012398/Is-Gardeners-Question-Time-racist.html

My wife hates buddleia. Should I be afraid that in her spare time she furtively scrawls racist grafitti on walls?

David

Pablito,

Dr Ben Pitcher, a senior lecturer in sociology...

And they wonder why we laugh.

David

Incidentally, there’s a gun control episode of Penn & Teller’s Bullshit in which a former gang member explains that criminal gangs generally like gun control laws – which they regard as “a joke” - as this disarms their prey while leaving themselves relatively untouched.

Jeff Guinn

As I said upthread, this isn’t a burning issue for me personally. While I used to enjoy archery and it might be fun to practice marksmanship with a gun, I don’t feel a great need to own one ...

Same here. I had never owned a gun until we moved to Alaska. And discovered that, even in suburbia, we were surrounded by predators. The only alternative to becoming a hostage to fortune was getting a gun. (A few weeks ago I took Rusty the Alaskan Wilderness Adventure Dog for walkies on nearby ski trails between the local high school and a highway. Decided not to bother with the .44. Halfway through the walk, came upon what looked like blood on the trail. Got a real hinky feeling, interspersed with "youstupidgityoustupidgityoustupidgit". Found out the next day that a grizzly had killed a moose and was perched on the kill not fifty yards away. That is about as dangerous as getting between a sow and her cubs.)

I go out to the range once a season. I'm not fussed about guns, except I'm extremely offended by the hubris of those -- all progressives -- who presume to be able to decide for me when I need to defend myself against predators.

Animal or human.

Another short story. A few years ago we were visiting England. In York, just before midnight we were driving from a pub back to the B&B. Turned one street too soon. Stalled the rental barge pulling away from the light. Got an earful of horn and flashing high beams from the car behind. Turned left, stayed in the left lane, and went slowly trying to reorient myself. Rather than keep calm and carry on, the car behind me kept up with the flashing. Now I think I'm doing something wrong ... my lights on? on the proper side of the road? Stop at the next signal. Next thing I know, this very large and tattooed gentleman is yanking open the door, screaming obscenities and trying to drag me out of the car to beat the sh*t out of me. Thankfully, there was no cross traffic and I had one good F1 start in me.

That kind of person doesn't have a very long life expectancy where I live.

Jeff Guinn

Pablito -- a presenter named Flowerdew on a gardening show?

Born to it, I suppose.

David

Jeff,

Same here. I had never owned a gun until we moved to Alaska.

I’ve had several exchanges with people who seemed bewildered by the notion of a gun being useful, to anyone, whether for sport or self-defence, as if they couldn’t conceive of circumstances in which a firearm might be handy. Despite the air of sophistication that accompanied those pronouncements, the basic attitude seemed extraordinarily parochial. In the Penn & Teller episode linked above, the Time columnist Roger Rosenblatt dismisses gun ownership as confusing and unnecessary, and therefore something to be banned. He then says, rather airily, “Get an alarm system, call a cop.”

Henry

People like Henry and Minnow believe the 'progressivist' anti-human lie of the non-existence of personal responsibility and outsource theirs to the state

No way am I part of any "progressive" set. There seems to be a lot of naivety & self-congratulation, and not enough intellectual honesty, to be found in those groups.

Have a look at my previous posts here if you have the time. You're quite wrong about my beliefs on big states and responsibility. I've had people label me right-wing when I've talked about benefits, the NHS, patriotism, among other things. On the death penalty (and apparently gun laws) I'm in different company. But I digress

On this particular issue (and maybe a couple of others, but not many) I slightly differ with others here. Though I think Minnow does it the wrong way - and got rather fed up with him recently - but some counter-argument is good for all of us.

I also think you misunderstood my point, which was that there isn't a simple link between crime and gun ownership. In some cultures, gun ownership works. I think we're right to be cautious as to whether more freedom would work in the UK - as I think it did for the Swiss.

What are they going to say to the Mrs Wilsons of the world, and the potential Mrs Wilsons?

You might still think strict gun laws are the right practical measure in this place and time - perhaps not in others. We're not talking about school lunchboxes here, as we did once, but about things that might reliably kill Mrs Wilsons.

I'm sure we'd agree that liberty is not absolute. We just draw the line in different places.

David

Henry,

You might still think strict gun laws are the right practical measure in this place and time - perhaps not in others.

All manner of things can presumably affect how a gun policy plays out – culture, history, crime patterns and geography. Again, I’ve no real skin in the game and I don’t have an adamant position on this, beyond noting how inadequate or disingenuous some of the arguments we hear are. But I certainly don’t assume that my own feelings and priorities on the subject should forcibly determine the priorities of others in very different circumstances.

Civilis

Or, to comment, and to nail down terms, it's rather considered to be more a facet of the right wing extremists, rather than conservatives. In the meantime, of it being rare, Yeah, you'd think . . but . . . . And then I get to just this morning's news around here . . .

(1) that still doesn't rise to the level of the comments about gays 'being dealt with'. People are allowed to think things are wrong or 'sinful', and lots of people have hang-ups when it comes to sex and what qualifies as 'good'.

(2) based on the location in the article, the people doing the complaining are likely inner city minorities, not likely to be otherwise lumped in with conservatives in the American political sense of the word.

The bigger picture is one of language. There are a number of terms being thrown around. Conservative is generally used by both sides to mean 'right-wing' but distinct from 'libertarian', and therefore 'right wing extremist' is a subset of 'conservative'. Liberal has multiple meanings; the traditional usage has been either amended to 'classical liberal' or 'libertarian' as opposed to the more recent connotation of 'liberal' as a synonym for 'progressive'.

You've created some hypothetical 'right-leaning liberal' which corresponds with neither use of the word 'liberal' and is therefore useless outside your particular political taxonomy. There are a few isolated people that are both socially conservative and for a big, totalitarian government, but the only place that group has any real power is in the propaganda created by the progressive left as a boogeyman that all correct-thinking people should oppose, and they've done it by mashing the worst tendencies of conservatives, libertarians and political kooks like the WBC and pretending they're all one massive group with identical beliefs. It's like Minnow's use of the word fascist to describe people who have nothing politically in common with fascism.

Hal

. . . . Greetings from a somewhat swamped account manager . . .

I'll have a nuanced response to Civilis's perfectly fine points, once I get back to a different keyboard and less flying debris . . . 'bout three, four hours . . .

Jimmy

Dr Pitcher said the “crisis in white identity in multicultural Britain” meant people felt unable to express their views for fear of being called racist, so expressed their racial identity in other ways, such as talking about gardening.

Watch out, world. We're taking back what's ours, one flower-bed at a time!.

Jimmy

In the context of that article the suggested reads are a goldmine...

Britains best walled gardens

Gated communities for the ethnically conscious home-buyer.


Secrets of the Swiss Garden unlocked

The eugenics of Sweden unlocked.


Sale of the week: Bulbs

Spring flowering bulbs from only £2.99

The slave trade is alive and well!


Dream of colour? Growing salvias is the answer

Dreaming of a vibrant multicultural state? We may have the answer!

Hal

Watch out, world. We're taking back what's ours, one flower-bed at a time!.

Yer all a bunch of Pansies!!!

MikeG81

"You're quite wrong about my beliefs on big states and responsibility."

No, I'm not. Essentially you believe that the monopoly on the use of force should only be in the hands of the state via your belief in the denial of property(ie, you're happy with strict firearms laws), with the trickle down effect that the ordinary person is also at the mercy of human predators that 1) don't give a rats about firearms restrictions, and 2) are given an advantage by the state.

You can't argue in good faith about the NHS while conceding another monopoly.

Shiggz

Bart, seriously a brilliant breakdown!

Do you have a site of your own?

Hal

Ah, finally back to where I can pull out a book . . . and after some dinner and the news . . .

Yer all a bunch of Pansies!!!

Right from the beginning, there was something suspect about corvettes in the eyes of right-thinking professional navy men; what was one to make of a man-of-war that looked like a fish trawler and called itself HMS Pansy? For the Admiralty, in a moment of inspiration, had designated the new ships as the Flower class, a tradition in escort vessels begun in the First World War. Each Royal Navy corvette was named after a flower, and the world was enriched by sea-stained fighting ships glorying in the name of His Majesty's Ship Pennywort, Crocus, or Tulip. There was a Convolvulus, a Saxifrage, and a Cowslip. But even a Board of Admiralty has a heart; eventually, HMS Pansy was allowed a change of name by a repentant Ships' Names Committee. She became HMS Heartsease.

. . . . .

It was widely believed in the wartime Allied navies that the Canting of the Flower class was part of a form of psychological warfare practised on the enemy by a vengeful Britain; there must be an added ignoming, it was felt, to being sunk by HMS Poppy, as U605 was, or to bring outfought and captured by a fierce HMS Hyacinth, as was the Italian submarine Perk. It was one thing to perish in the Wagnerian splendour hankered after by Hitler, but quite another for the proud Teuton to be vanquished by Rhododendron, as U104 was, or sunk by Periwinkle, like U147.

From The Corvette Navy: True Stories from Canada's Atlantic War, quite rather recommended, I suppose I should give it a reread one of these days . . . .

Hal

(1) that still doesn't rise to the level of the comments about gays 'being dealt with'. People are allowed to think things are wrong or 'sinful', and lots of people have hang-ups when it comes to sex and what qualifies as 'good'.

Presenting; some gays being dealt with.

And, additional documentation.


(2) based on the location in the article, the people doing the complaining are likely inner city minorities, not likely to be otherwise lumped in with conservatives in the American political sense of the word.

When grabbing very handy results from the first Google search above . . . .

From Outfront Minnesota---not some random and highly urban situation, Minnesota---: The Truth About "Converting" Gay People

Minnesota census results, 2013
White alone, percent, 2013 (a) 86.2% 77.7%
Black or African American alone, percent, 2013 (a) 5.7% 13.2%
American Indian and Alaska Native alone, percent, 2013 (a) 1.3% 1.2%
Asian alone, percent, 2013 (a) 4.5% 5.3%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone, percent, 2013 (a) 0.1% 0.2%
Two or More Races, percent, 2013 2.3% 2.4%
Hispanic or Latino, percent, 2013 (b) 5.0% 17.1%
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino, percent, 2013 81.9% 62.6%


Alternet: What Happened When I Went Undercover at a Christian Gay-to-Straight Conversion Camp

Belfast Telegraph: Protesters picket Ballynahinch Baptist Church event on 'converting' gays where, speaking of right wing being extremist as opposed to conservative:

"This is not a widely held Christian view, this is held by extremist Christians, who are causing huge harm to our community. And we're here today in strength, in numbers, in opposition to this type of therapy in Northern Ireland," he said.

From some newspaper called the Guardian . . .

Texas GOP advances controversial gay conversion therapy in platform
and
Christian counsellors ban therapy aimed at 'converting' gay patients

Et Cetera . . . . . . .


The bigger picture is one of language.

Exactly . . . and since the term has come up, gay did once generally mean cheerful and happy, where I do know a number of people who find themselves quite attracted to their own gender who are indeed quite happy and cheerful . . . but that's not quite the same thing anymore . . . .

So, when regarding There are a number of terms being thrown around. Conservative is generally used by both sides to mean 'right-wing' but distinct from 'libertarian'. . .

Why yes, you are having to put that generally in there.

. . . .and therefore 'right wing extremist' is a subset of 'conservative'

Not any more.

Liberal has multiple meanings; the traditional usage has been either amended to 'classical liberal' or 'libertarian' as opposed to the more recent connotation of 'liberal' as a synonym for 'progressive'.

Uh huh, as you state, the traditional usage . . . Rather like the traditional usage of gay. Consider the following, where yeah, it does rather proclaim, but then it is a manifesto. It's supposed to proclaim . . .

Among these facts are that once upon a time there was indeed the classical liberal and the cry that the will of the individual is supreme, is not questioned, and there are no alternatives. Once upon a time the term conservative did have a meaning of right wing, the old guard, the supporters of the way we do things because they work the best, and there are no alternatives.

By the industrial revolution, the liberals had split in two. Since then, the liberals have flanked the conservative, vehemently opposing all balanced, centered reality from their opposing and irrational extremes. The left wing liberal claims that the will of the individual person is supreme, is not questioned, and there are no alternatives. The right wing liberal claims that the will of the individual organization is supreme, is not questioned, and there are no alternatives. Both liberals get very pissy when reminded of the conservative axiom that individual remains a variable and there is and will always be infinite individual diversity, and only this diversity is what collectively forms viable organizations.

Back in that time that no longer exists, when conservative did once mean right wing, in that sense the best ways did work for the most. Changing the demonstrated successful practice just to make changes and changing the demonstrated successful practice only to make changes did indeed lead to failure and does indeed lead to failure. What has changed is that there are organizations that do not best support the individual, and there are individuals who do not best support organizations, and both of these extremes demand the most harm to everything else.

Now that we are all in this current time that is reality, as we see the new demand of the right wing liberal that the organization must always take precedence over the individual, this right wing demand now shows that the right wing does not reason, does not calculate, does not conserve, and thus the right wing is not and will never be known as conservative.

You've created some hypothetical 'right-leaning liberal' which corresponds with neither use of the word 'liberal' and is therefore useless outside your particular political taxonomy.

I've noticed that right wing being something other than conservative remains far from hypothetical, where to repeat from up the thread, So an issue then becomes seeing what is the actual case, what is going on, and do the labels actually still apply?

Remember, at this point we have a conservative pope, and the right wingers have gotten rather pissed off at 'im . . .

There are a few isolated people that are both socially conservative and for a big, totalitarian government, but the only place that group has any real power is in the propaganda created by the progressive left as a boogeyman that all correct-thinking people should oppose, and they've done it by mashing the worst tendencies of conservatives, libertarians and political kooks like the WBC and pretending they're all one massive group with identical beliefs.

Why yes, for the conservative, watching the right and left wing liberals screaming at each other does sometimes get entertaining. Sometimes. Usually it's more boring. The entertaining bits tend to come up when asking for an assessment of the Pink Pistols, and watching the realization sink in that the right and left wings are indeed the extremes, and the rest of us are in the middle . . . .

Or:

For centuries, political divisions have formed three distinct groups. With the French Revolution and the seating patterns that started with the 1789 National Assembly, these three groups started to acquire the labels they hold today. Two of the groups are merely mirror images of each other, screaming and posturing at each other in perfect unison, always remaining in perfect and complete contrast with the measured thought and decision of the third group. The two groups which waste their time glaring past the center of reason are today known as the right wing and the left wing. Absolutely centered between these right and left wing extremists and permanently in their lead is the conservative.

. . . .

There is no Third Way of politics, there is only The Way. The conservative supports and includes everyone, from the center of the political road all the way past both the right and left wing liberal edges of the road, so as to know, to understand, to best help and support every individual. Only the liberal demands that any who cartwheel and crash off the opposing edge of the road must be left to die.

Politically moderate is a right and left wing liberal fantasy, is the liberal’s crude rationalization for the ongoing and perpetual liberal failure to keep and control all the toys. The "accusation" by liberals that the conservative is "pragmatic" is merely the rallying cry of the ideologically pure, the tactically inept, the inevitable failure. The liberal is pure, the conservative succeeds. The liberal writes footnotes for a fantasy of the past, the conservative leads into the future.

At all times the conservative welcomes attention and discussion, for only that way does refinement and evolution and progress occur. At all times the liberal extreme points past the conservative to the other and opposing extreme, for in that way does the liberal attempt to deflect the self examination and improvement that will inevitably move the liberal away from the right or left wing and expand the liberal edge and excess to the all encompassing conservative center.

Oh, and I also just remembered the Liberal Democratic Party as another example. No, not the British variety, The Japanese.

The Liberal Democratic Party of Japan (自由民主党 Jiyū-Minshutō?), frequently abbreviated to LDP or Jimintō (自民党?), is a major conservative political party in Japan. . . . The ideology of LDP is similar to the United States Republican Party. . . . Its members hold a variety of positions that could be broadly defined as being to the right of the opposition parties. . . .

Oh, speaking of which: The LDP opposes the legalization of same-sex marriage.

And then as a note: To make the system more democratic, Prime Minister Takeo Fukuda introduced a "primary" system in 1978, which opened the balloting to some 1.5 million LDP members. The process was so costly and acrimonious, however, that it was subsequently abandoned in favor of the old "smoke-filled room" method.

Heh.

Now, if we can just get these locals past the idea that political machine means medium tank.

---From one of the Dominic Flandry stories, probably paraphrasing, from rather old memory, and I don't seem to have that book at hand . . .

Dr Cromarty

The 'Spooks' scene from Gran Torino clarifies a lot of issues. Who does gun ownership protect here? The young thug? The elderly man? The teenager about to be raped?

Bueller? Minnow? Anyone?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aM8iT1UHnjI

Civilis

Again, we seem to be talking past each other. I assumed by "dealt with" you meant imprisoned or assaulted for being homosexual or consenting adults having homosexual behavior or forced 'conversion' to heterosexuality. You've linked to articles about voluntary 'conversion'. There's a difference between thinking that a mode of sexual activity is 'wrong' or 'sinful' and thinking it should be illegal. To go back to the point which started this whole discussion, you still haven't established that these people believe that "Gays are evil and wrong" instead of believing "Gay sex and in fact all sex as recreation is a sin and wrong" in the standard "love the sinner, hate the sin" vein of Christianity that acknowledges we are all sinners. It's not a mere technical distinction, but one vitally important for understanding each other in a society.

What set's the Westboro Baptist Church apart is that it is the go to source when one wants to find someone that indeed thinks "Gays are evil". The issue with using the WBC as an example is that the WBC is so far out there politically as to not represent either political wing in the American polity.

"Remember, at this point we have a conservative pope" is true only in the taxonomy represented by the website you site, which does not correspond with any other political taxonomy I've seen. As a Catholic, Pope Francis is politically more Progressive than earlier popes, and socially has been perceived as more liberal (my personal take is that he is more diplomatic when it comes to social issues but has the same essential take as previous popes on things). He is less conservative than other popes, which is why some in the right wing are unhappy with him.

Is that website you keep citing your website? I've skimmed it several times and each time I get more confused with the taxonomy it describes as 'right-wing liberal'. One of the reasons I relish this discussion is that the confusion shown between Social Conservatives, Fiscal Conservatives and Libertarians, the amalgamation of all three and the creation of a mythical 'right-wing' in lock step agreement definitely shows behind the website.

As a simple example:
This country was founded by my view of my god, My god must be worshiped by everyone the same way (Social Conservatives, NOT Libertarians)
Religious decisions in government are required (Social Conservatives, NOT Libertarians)
I will protect myself and anyone around me anyway I want and I will have any and every gun and any other weapon that I want (Libertarians)
Taxes must be cut and then cut again because taxing people because they have money is theft (Libertarians)
Government must be hacked to a stub, and then hacked ever further, because government just gets in my way (Libertarians)
Drugs must be stopped and are illegal because if they were legal, everyone would be using them (Social Conservatives, NOT Libertarians)

Right there, the first six entries (all of which are poorly generated caricatures of actual arguments), three are caricatures of Libertarian statements and three are caricatures of Social Conservative statements that a Libertarian would never agree with.

I can definitely see why the author describes him or herself as a conservative, but in doing so falls victim to the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy in casting out others that claim to be Conservative whose opinions differ on any issues.

Civilis

One of the issues is that people tend to want to map politics in a simple to understand format. This tends to mean that people tend to see politics in a two or one dimensional map, and tend to assign axis that are easy for them to visualize. Most axis have their utility in some cases. Looking at things in a north-south axis is useful when comparing Atlanta, Richmond, and Boston. Looking at things in a north-south axis is less useful when comparing Bangkok, Caracas, and Beijing.

The problem with some things is, they don't necessarily map. Abortion is the best example. While there is a tendency towards correlation with established political parties, one can hold either position on abortion and be ethically consistent with either Progressive or Libertarian politics and theories about how rights work.

Hal

While there is a tendency towards correlation with established political parties, one can hold either position on abortion and be ethically consistent with either Progressive or Libertarian politics and theories about how rights work.

Exactly so.

In all of this here described, at all times, the conservative acknowledges that many aspects of being are subtle, detailed, and require careful, reflective, conservative balance of individual and general decision. There is no one decision, and there never will be. Only the liberal, whether right wing liberal or left wing liberal, claims that there is only one choice to ever be made, and that is how the liberal fails.

The principle of conservative democracy is that all government exists solely for the good of the governed; that the branches of government, and all other public institutions are to be maintained so far, and so far only, as they promote the happiness and welfare of the common people; that all who are entrusted with any public function are trustees, not for their own class, but for the nation at large; and that the mass of the people may be trusted so to use electoral power, which should be freely conceded to them, as to support those who are promoting their interests. It is democratic because the welfare of the people is its supreme end; it is conservative because the institutions of the country are the means by which the end is to be attained.

The practice of and inevitable success of conservative government will continue to supersede and exceed any and all attempts or proclamations by right wing liberals or left, because such success is predicated upon the inevitable success of the practice of the conservative individual and individuals.

Civilis

Exactly so.

You seem to have missed the point of the exercise.

There is no one decision, and there never will be. Only the liberal, whether right wing liberal or left wing liberal, claims that there is only one choice to ever be made, and that is how the liberal fails.

Your hypothetical "conservative" is unable to make any kind of meaningful moral distinction. The answer of whether abortion is moral or not is based on an apolitical question, and based on that answer, the political debate over abortion becomes the same as that over slavery, and both sides are completely justified in their politics. If the best course in politics is merely in the temporal whims of the electorate, then government is meaningless and a tyranny is just as valid.

Further, your statement, "The principle of [] democracy is that all government exists solely for the good of the governed; that the branches of government, and all other public institutions are to be maintained so far, and so far only, as they promote the happiness and welfare of the common people; that all who are entrusted with any public function are trustees, not for their own class, but for the nation at large; and that the mass of the people may be trusted so to use electoral power, which should be freely conceded to them, as to support those who are promoting their interests. It is democratic because the welfare of the people is its supreme end; it is [] because the institutions of the country are the means by which the end is to be attained." can be written, sincerely, with any of the following in place of the brackets: [Liberal] [Social Conservative] [Minarchist] [Socialist]. How they interpret that statement (and run the government) will vary completely differently, but each will live up to the word of that statement.

Even if I almost completely disagree with the economics of the position, I know where a socialist like Minnow stands on the theory of what a government should do. I may disagree with the assumptions and the values, but the whole is a logical package, and I can predict what someone that thinks like Minnow will do when in office (which is why I'd never vote for one).

Hal

I can see why you're so fond of Minnow, given that you're basically related.

Your hypothetical "conservative" . . . .

The actuality of the non extremists being between between the right and left wing extremes remains an actuality, regardless of your attempt to claim otherwise.

Two of the groups are merely mirror images of each other, screaming and posturing at each other in perfect unison, always remaining in perfect and complete contrast with the measured thought and decision of the third group. The two groups which waste their time glaring past the center of reason are today known as the right wing and the left wing. Absolutely centered between these right and left wing extremists and permanently in their lead is the conservative.

and

In all of this here described, at all times, the conservative acknowledges that many aspects of being are subtle, detailed, and require careful, reflective, conservative balance of individual and general decision. There is no one decision, and there never will be.

and also

Why yes, for the conservative, watching the right and left wing liberals screaming at each other does sometimes get entertaining. Sometimes. Usually it's more boring. The entertaining bits tend to come up when asking for an assessment of the Pink Pistols, and watching the realization sink in that the right and left wings are indeed the extremes, and the rest of us are in the middle . . . .
Henry

You can't argue in good faith about the NHS while conceding another monopoly

Yes I can, because I don't believe in absolute rights and absolute liberty; more in practical measures that work. Stricter control seems to work in the UK so I'm happy with it. If I thought relaxed gun laws would work, I'd be even happier.

If you followed the implication of what you're saying you'd find yourself in a place where no one agreed with you. What if nuclear weapons were affordable for business magnates and the like? These weapons certainly constitute "the use of force" & we're mostly happy to see them restricted (well the Iranians aren't...)

Or how about rocket launchers? Where does your right to use force begin and end? Biological weapons? Tanks?

Incidentally, I don't think the world is divided into "ordinary people" and bad guys. Ordinary people will do almost anything, especially if they think they can get away with it. But I'd accept there are some extreme cases.

And as said I like our policemen to appear without guns :) And I like my children not to see them everyday. A lot of people in the UK are like me in that respect.

When I told my SO that someone had called me progressive, she gave me a look that seemed to say "Whaaaaaat?"

Civilis

I can see why you're so fond of Minnow, given that you're basically related.

On one axis, sure, we both believe some things are absolutely moral or immoral. But that's a rather broad axis. I could argue that your dogmatic zeal for a 'moderate' world places you perilously close to us on that axis. When it comes to questions like the role of the individual vs the state, I'm probably pretty far distant from you or Minnow.

The actuality of the non extremists being between between the right and left wing extremes remains an actuality, regardless of your attempt to claim otherwise.

But I have not denied the existence of moderates, merely indicated my belief that:
1) most people believe they are moderates, and probably are by most ways of measurement.
2) most people that believe themselves to be moderate have one of more beliefs or values that are not necessarily shared by the majority.
3) linear political axises (such as left - center - right) do a very poor job of representing the complicated political beliefs of real people.
4) both the tyranny of the majority and the tyranny of 'moderation' can lead to poor long-term outcomes. If one side wants to build a bridge and the other side doesn't, building half a bridge can be worse than either side's options.
5) It's hard to converse with someone when that person's understanding of your side of the debate is a very thin caricature.

In the interests of returning this to a dialog and understanding what you actually believe, I'll offer my stake (and none of these are intended as trick questions):

There are a lot of definitions of conservative floating around. You've linked one. Are there any more mainstream sources you'd take for defining what you consider conservative? Personally, I would take the American Conservative Union (http://www.conservative.org/) as a good litmus test for what a Conservative means in the American sense, as their ratings of Congress seem to match with both my and popular opinion as to who is Conservative. Is that a valid measurement? If not, why not?

What is wrong with Wikipedia's definition of Conservatism? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States) (Personally, I consider Wikipedia a progressively biased source, but it's still valid as a quick self-check).

What's the difference between your definition of Conservative and a moderate?

Can you name some public figures that you think are 'right-wing extremists'?

Hal

What if nuclear weapons were affordable for business magnates and the like?

Walter M. Miller, Jr., A Canticle for Leibowitz

Like any wise ruler, Abbot Arkos did not issue orders vainly, when to disobey was possible and to enforce was not possible. It was better to look the other way than to command ineffectually.

Nuclear weapons are easy to deal with. Just building 'em, getting 'em, Etc, requires major knowledge approaching the big business or government scale of knowledge and skill. The same for biological weapons. And thus on that scale the large business/governments are too massive to just go Who, Me?!?!?!?! and thus are dealt with, talked to, Etc. by others of their own size, their own organizational complexity.

A zip gun is a pipe and a bullet and a nail. A pistol is easily acquired and trivially carried about. Long guns are not an issue because they're so bloody inconvenient at short range. And the all time easiest solution when an idiot starts firing is just shoot back.

Sooo. The control of the really complex items can be done by inertia and large scale control. The control of the really simple items and practices remains the responsibility of the individual.

As noted in other conversations, right wing liberal fantasies include utterly banning abortion, regardless of opinions, and that requires a police state. Left wing liberal fantasies include utterly banning personal firearms, regardless of opinions, and that requires a police state. The conservative notes that the limit of what a government does is what a government can do, where dictatorially commanding of all individuals just ain't on that menu---and when such is tried, that's when corruption ramps up, when that "government" starts getting really unstable and off one goes into a civil war or revolution . . . .

Minnow

I wish I had been able to stick around for this discussion. I should just opoint out though that that Lott paper has been pretty thoroughly debunked by, well, just about everybody who has looked at it. He seems to have misread some of the data and actively misread some more of it, if you know what I mean.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2003/04/25/0426/

Patrick Brown

Perhaps I can offer a Hal translation service. He appears to have his own idiosyncratic definition of the word "liberal" as meaning "statist" or "authoritarian". It doesn't correspond to the meaning of the word as used by most people, but that doesn't seem to bother Hal, perhaps because he defines politics positions only in terms of how they differ from his own. One might even suggest he defines "liberal" as "anything I disagree with", similar to how some feminists define the word "misogynist".

Minnow

Perhaps I can offer a Hal translation service. He appears to have his own idiosyncratic definition of the word "liberal" as meaning "statist" or "authoritarian"

This is a UK/US interference problem, isn't it?

The comments to this entry are closed.

For Amazon US use this link .

Your filthy consumerism supports this blog.

Blogroll