Thoughts and prayers

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Vociferous, Feb 27, 2018.

  1. Xelor Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    112
    I don't object to offerings of "thoughts and prayers." There's nothing wrong with offering condolences.

    I object to there being no material action taken to attenuate the future incidence and severity of the events that give rise to the public officials offerings of "thoughts and prayers" on behalf of an organ of government or political jurisdiction.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,244
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Vociferous Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    648
    Yep, like I said, the uninformed teachers. Those who already carry elsewhere already know better. Like the 100 in Colorado and the 400 in Utah who already carry in schools.
    I quoted what else it did, so I can only assume you're intentionally lying.
    That's not being tried. And when it is, like more policing, it works. Look it up.
    More school security, metal detectors, armed teachers, better background check system, teens actually charged with the crimes they commit, law enforcement doing its duty to protect and follow up threats, etc..

    But gun grabbers dismiss all that so they can claim "no material action."
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Xelor Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    112
    I'm willing to forbear those proposals if gun rights folks are willing to forbear my legislative proposal regarding gun ownership responsibility and accountability for being responsible.
     
  8. Vociferous Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    648
  9. Xelor Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    112
    Are you saying you cannot abide the legislation proposal I posted? If so, well, you just are. From where I sit, gun rights folks want to implement their solutions and gun control folks want to implement theirs. I'm willing to give each side some of what they want, but I'm not willing to give either side all of what it wants.

     
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,108
    No, the ones who already carry mostly agree. Only a few teachers can be trusted to carry, and they will be unevenly distributed, and they will not be carrying all day every day, and they will not replace other security. And increasing their number, improving their training, covering them and monitoring them for mishap etc, will cost somebody a fair amount of money - the school system, the taxpayer, the teachers themselves, somebody.
    That list has been in trial, implemented as policy, since the early 90s. It has failed. And it has cost a fortune.
    Everything there that wasn't prevented and fought against by the Republican Party (as background checks have been, and law enforcement charging and following up on wealthy white people), has been tried and failed, done more harm than it prevented and at greater cost.

    And the response to that failure of Republican initiative has been Republican thoughts and prayers.
     
  11. Vociferous Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    648
    You just don't understand how a nationwide gun registry severely biases your supposed compromise to the left, with very little in return.
    Then quote them and cite your source. You won't because you can't. Quit lying.
    "not be able to carry all day every day" is complete idiocy to the 13 million who do just that.
    But feel free to keep doubling down on your demonstrated ignorance.
    Stop-and-frisk is one of the reason's for New York City's sharp decline in crime. According to Heather Mac Donald, murders declined almost 80 percent and major felonies by almost 75 percent from the early 1990's to 2013 thanks to "proactive policing," which includes the practice of stop-and-frisk.
    In 2011, "stops yielded nearly 800 guns and over 5,000 other weapons, mostly knives," according to Mac Donald. Critics of the practice argue that this isn't enough to justify its use, and they also claim there aren't enough arrests from the practice to justify it. However, Mac Donald points out that "the possibility of getting stopped has clearly deterred many gangbangers from packing heat — which is precisely the point" as well as deterred other crimes from being committed.
    https://www.dailywire.com/news/9390/5-things-you-need-know-about-stop-and-frisk-aaron-bandler
    Where have abortion clinics closed or welfare been reduced in minority, inner city neighborhoods?
    Armed teachers currently exist in Colorado and Utah, where no school shootings have occurred.
    Many schools already have adequate security and/or metal detectors, where no school shootings have occurred.
    The background check system still needs improvements, and bills to do so were filibustered by Democrats.
    Obama policy kept teens from being charged with actual crimes they commit, where they could be put in the system and potentially kept for buying a gun.

    "Wealthy white people?" What does that have to do with anything? Just a red herring?
     
  12. Xelor Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    112
    Notwithstanding whether that be so, what the hell do you want in return for it? It's not as though you've identified something....
     
  13. Vociferous Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    648
    Well since you don't know that is so, it's unlikely you will admit the left will never be happy with anything shy of ultimately achieving a complete gun ban.
    So in return for a nationwide gun registry, for starters, would require something the left cannot give under the Constitution, which would be a guarantee of no further restrictions EVER. Plus things they'd never agree to, any more than gun owners would agree to a gun registry, like nationwide concealed reciprocity and unregulated silencers.

    Once you understand the other side, you can see how many suggested restriction are complete non-starters.
     
  14. Xelor Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    112
    I'm not speaking for "the left;" I'm speaking for myself. Similarly, I'm speaking to you, not "the anything." So do you have something you'd want in exchange for agreeing to the provisions I posited, or do you not? If you don't, well, you don't, and there's no point in our continuing to converse for there's no place for the discussion to go.
     
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,108
    You are measuring your decline from the peak of the crack epidemic, and it had already started before "proactive policing" took hold - cherry pick much?
    They aren't teachers in classrooms. Most of them are paid to carry, as part of their job. Etc.
    No Republican bills that were improvements have been presented. Dems haven't filibustered as many bills total as you have them filibustering on these one or two issues.
    Federal welfare was essentially eliminated in the 1990s - "welfare reform", remember. Abortion clinics near minority city populations have been closed in Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, and so forth.
    They don't get stopped and frisked, for starters. They are comparatively free of that list of recommendations.
    Apparently heavy policing and coercive social engineering etc is not how prosecuted crime among wealthy white people is brought so low.
     
  16. Vociferous Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    648
    It doesn't matter who you're speaking for if you don't understand the reality. Asked and answered.
    Exact same thing as you claiming a sudden party switch during a prolonged trend. If you want to recant that claim, I'll recant this one. Otherwise, we're operating on the criteria you established.
    No, that 13 million is the number of civilian carry permits issued, which is not necessary for law enforcement.
    They do include the 100 Colorado and 400 Utah teachers, who do "carry all day every day."
    So you continue to prove yourself a fount of ignorance.
    I've already cited you two filibustered by Democrats (in post #139), so either your memory or honesty is at fault.
    No, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act didn't end federal welfare.
    So, which of those abortion clinic closures can you link to worsening neighborhoods? That was the original point, remember?
    The crime rates and types in wealthy white neighborhoods are also completely different. So this is complete irrelevant.
     
  17. Xelor Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    112
    Do you have something you'd want in exchange for agreeing to the provisions I posited, or do you not? If you don't, well, you don't, and there's no point in our continuing to converse for there's no place for the discussion to go.
     
  18. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,108
    That's two, neither one an improvement.
    I didn't.
    And if I had, it would have been almost the opposite of picking the peak of a short term fluctuation to claim a long term trend - as you did - even before noticing that the peak was too soon for correlation, let alone causality.
    That's just a permit count. You were making claims about continuous carry while doing an unrelated and demanding job.
    Do they? All of them?
    And how many of their colleagues could follow their example?
    No, it was minority neighborhoods, then poor neighborhoods, originally. And it was fairly meaningless then - one of your standard deflections.
    Pretty much any abortion clinic in or near a major city would qualify - the ones in Texas and Louisiana and Mississippi could hardly miss.
    The only circumstantial changes I've seen solidly correlated with fluctuations in violent crime generally - gun and other - are onsets and burnouts of illegal drug epidemics, trends in income inequality, outbreak of war, and fluctuations in exposure to leaded gasoline.
    Not completely different. And so what? That would be the point, after all. Cocaine and marijuana and opioid and alcohol abuse rampant, illegal gambling and bookmaking and prostitution on every block, and nobody getting shot over it - clearly the police tactics involved should be models for police everywhere.

    Something else the Republicans can offer instead of thoughts and prayers.
     
  19. Vociferous Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    648
    What part of "asked and answered" do you not understand?
    So you don't think keeping more prohibited people from buying guns is an improvement?
    Why, because it doesn't infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens?
    You claimed that a trend starting in 1928, was the effect of something occurring in the 1960s:
    Not only is that a questionable cause fallacy, it is cherry-picking an arbitrary point in a long trend.
    And stop-and-frisk was accompanied with higher police deployment to trouble neighborhoods, which did show a 12-15% crime reduction. https://crim.sas.upenn.edu/fact-check/does-stop-and-frisk-reduce-crime
    Remember, I said "more policing", not just stop-and-frisk. http://www.sciforums.com/threads/thoughts-and-prayers.160592/page-7#post-3514879
    So you think law enforcement needs carry permits? Hahaha!
    I'm making the claim the 100 Colorado and 400 Utah teachers already carry.
    As many who want to. It is voluntary.
    No, I never said anything about "poor neighborhoods." That was your own straw man.
    No evidence to back your claim about it making neighborhoods worse, huh?
    Which is it? No difference, or the difference doesn't matter?
     
  20. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,108
    No, I didn't.
    Standard invalid statistical reasoning from regression to the mean, used to justify punitive measures in hindsight from time immemorial. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow
    A track of cocaine abuse on Wall Street - an untroubled hotbed of various crimes right next door to the troubled ones - shows the same variation over time, without the police.
    Afaik, no "thoughts and prayers" were involved in Wall Street's saga either - otherwise, we might have had our first example of their value in Republican policy beyond concealment of negligence.
     
  21. Vociferous Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    648
    I quoted it above. Deny it all you like.
    Irrelevant without support.
     
  22. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,108
    You did not.
    Directly relevant. It has as much support as any of your claims already.
     
  23. Vociferous Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    648
    Deny it all you like, everyone can see it for themselves.
    Tu quoque is a fallacy, not an argument.
     

Share This Page