Granberry's Parlor

Quote
porruka

On that point, the wingnuts aren't completely so, however, NO ONE seems to have grasped the concept that short of standing private armies financed by corporations, there is not a chance in hell of violently overthrowing (or even repelling) an assault from the US Gov't using arms available for general (or even restricted) purchase. The best you can do now is delay the inevitable and immolate yourself and your followers when the Feds are done playing.

I disagree. Look at the grief the Iraqis gave the superbly trained and equipped US troops. Imagine a populace where 40% of the households START with weapons, 15 times the population, an enormously larger area to occupy, and troops who see their friends, family, and countrymen on the other end of their gunsights. Such a future (admittedly horrendous) would not be field armies with (or without) air support battling for territory, it would be guerilla warfare, urban quagmire and, above all, a battle for the hearts and minds of the people. Nukes and napalm aren't going to win that battle for the government. Look at Syria. Their civilians were unarmed, but the government lost the support of the people, and now all their jets, tanks, and helicopters may not be enough to preserve the state.

Also, I do think that there's something about an armed populace that makes it difficult for a politician to feel safe if he knows he's violently upsetting large numbers of them. Violent political dissent does not need to have an army to make itself felt.

Nothing that I say here should be construed as advocacy of armed revolt or assassination anywhere, let alone in MY country. But I do feel that the founding fathers' view of an armed populace as the final as the final balance to tyranny is not an outmoded or unwise concept.

Perhaps I'm wrong about the efficacy, but when you look at cases like Waco and Ruby Ridge and all the other "siege" cases, it was really more a case of tolerance on the part of government officials than anything that allowed those cases to last as long as they did.

I also do believe in the Framers' intent, and hope that the last resort is never needed.

In response to Syria, I believe I read where the rebels started receiving upgraded weapons, which in a way, supports my point; that common weapons are not generally all that effective against a military-like force. But perhaps the presence of body armor and so forth on the Aurora shooter means I'm wrong about the ease/availability of professional strength countermeasures.

When I envision something like this, I think that a local militia may have had cannons with which to attempt to fight back (c.f. US Civil War). Where are the tanks, armored vehicles, artillery, and so forth in private hands now (or reasonably able to be so), outside the East and West coast rap contingents?

Aaaaand in two posts we already have a more nuanced and better informed discussion of the issue of gun rights than on The Newsroom! And with 120% less assholery!

ddt

I'm at work and can't respond in detail. Until I can: everybody's wrong but me; I'm right; I'm always right. Thank you.

Hey John! No fair. That's my line!

everybody's wrong but me

Ahem. "Everybody's wrong but I."

ddt

I am always right. Please adjust English grammar accordingly.

I don't have the time to debate in detail but I'll just make the observation that in Australia approx 35% of homicides were by firearm in 1996 compared to approx 10-15% a decade later (after relatively strict gun laws came in).

Linky (to impartial Govt website - Australian Institute of Criminology)

And while there still are gun related incidents they seem to be largely restricted to criminal gangs doing drive-by shootings of each other and the run-of-the-mill armed robbery stuff.

There also hasn't been a "mass-shooting" (5 or more people killed) in Australia since the 1996 gun law reforms.

>I don't have the time to debate in detail but I'll just make the observation that in Australia approx 35% of homicides were by firearm in 1996 compared to approx 10-15% a decade later (after relatively strict gun laws came in). As well as the rise in knife homicides in the chart you posted.

Notice that the downward trend in homicides has been approximately linear since 1989... no sudden drop after 1996.

When 3D Printers are outlawed, only outlaws will have 3D printers.


Seriously, even without this technology, any half-decent machine shot can easily turn out a smooth bore, fully automatic sub-machine gun in hours. Prohibition didn't eliminate alcohol consumption, it just drove up the price and drove down the quality. It would be the same with firearms.

J-Will: do you see anecdotal evidence, which I would dare say is anecdotal by nature, of 22% unemployment in your neck of the woods in Nevada?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/48468748

Quote

Consider: Nevada's U-6 rate is 22.1 percent, up from just 7.6 percent in 2007. Economically troubled California has a 20.3 percent real rate, while Rhode Island is at 18.3 percent, more than double its 8.3 percent rate in 2007.

I'm not JW, but yes. For example, I'm part of the crowd that is no longer counted.

sounds like quite literally a crowd

It's hard to say. How does 22% unemployment look different from 14% unemployment to somebody who just drives to work and back every day? I don't see soup lines, or bums sleeping in peoples' yards, but I live in a semi-affluent suburb, and don't go downtown much. There are a lot of houses for sale, and a lot of houses that failed to sell and are sitting empty. I don't know what percentage of them has been foreclosed on. I have a friend whose business start up failed (due, at least in part, to his own mismanagement), his house was foreclosed on, and he's been skating on the edge of bankruptcy since that happened. He left town and went to Austin. Porruka's situation has been mentioned. Given that I knew two people in Nevada when I came here, and they both lost their Reno jobs, and I don't understand how I've managed to keep mine, my personal unemployment index is at 67%.

I dunno. But rough math in head... do your observations dispute 22%? Sounds like no.That's an incredible/amazing/shocking/sad statement, imo.

Actual unemployment has always been underreported by the "commonly quoted" number.

There MUST be a definite way to mark/categorize each human inside these boundaries.

A. Alive or dead
B. Can do one or more tasks that at least one person in the past 10 years has been paid to do
C. Is employed (being paid) or NOT to do one or more tasks.

That would be the baseline for stats, in my mind. After that, kids, students, wealthy, retired, trying, rejected, lazy, etc. are all nuances/variables to the baseline. Some justifiable for this or that reason; some not - those are whomever needs to play with numbers' spin controls.

Good luck with that Bill. I can recall "arguments" about the definition of "unemployment" and "full employment" (which is a non-zero number, even in the "normal" accounting) for 25 years+.

If one can do one task that can earn income --> capable.
If one does not earn income --> unemployed
If one does earn income --> employed

commence splitting of hairs in 3...2....1.... :)

How do you gather those stats, Bill? More intrusive government, polling every household once a month? We can count how many people sign up for unemployment relief, but politics and cost make it impossible to pay everybody who doesn't work forever. At the point that payment stops, they fall off the ledgers.