Oct 17 - 46/45 - McCain +01
Pro-gun people theorize that if everyone was armed, we would all be safer. I guess the theory assumes, that nobody would pull a gun on some stranger, because the fear of armed retaliation is a sufficient deterrent. Let's suppose these right-wing folks are right. Then why would the US block Iran, or any nation, from getting a nuke? Isn't a nuclear bomb just the global equivalent of a gun? So I hope the folks at the NRA are calling their right-wing leaders and urging them to lay off Iran.
Laura Bush spoke about Iraq. She thinks things are fine but "one bombing a day that discourages everybody." That's a nice little story that she should get tell some clueless school children. However, Laura, in the real Iraq there are about almost 200 bombings per day that discourages everybody. She must be taking Valium or some sedative, because there is something not right about her.
* More below, including video
A new poll shows Obama's support among black voters surging. Consistent with what Kyle said about his feeling after the Obama rally.
Back in January, the Senate Republicans voted (and failed) to greatly defund Social Security. Onlythree Republicans (Corker, Snowe, Voinovich) opposed the dramatic cuts to Social Security. Not sure why I waited a month on this story, but that is still more then the media completely ignored the vote.
When asked about being voted to the All-Star team, despite not playing most of the season, Shaq got political: "I'm like President Bush. You may not like me, you may not respect me, but you voted me in."
By Chuck - 2/28/2007
44 Comments:
Of course the number for Obama are going to be inflated, especially after a rally, that's what they are for. Cuyahoga County has always been a predominately democratic supported region, especially with the African Americans. The question essentially is how will Barack Obama reach heartland Ohio? How will he capture the countryside? Cleveland, Akron and Cincinnati are big cities that will probably garner democratic support, but how do we reach rural Ohio? To make Ohio a Blue State, we need a candidate whom will appeal to the country-folk, plain and simple. I'm not sure Barack Obama has that.
hey your Iran nuke/ gun analogy is really reaching- the argument is that if more sane people had weapons to defend themselves than the criminals would be less inclined to prey upon them being as how they were no longer defenseless. You are equating Iran/Ahmedinijad with the unarmed innocents who are preyed upon. Unless you think Iran is being preyed upon and needs nuclear weapons to protect itself-in which case I can see why you and Terra see eye to eye on so many things
It will be interesting to see how Voinovich plays it for 2010. Seeing DeWine lose, will he moderate more to the middle or tack right? Looks like he will be going the DeWine route of going centrist.
I forget, who has used a nuclear weapon (or two)?
good thinking terra, put a nuclear weapon in ahmadinijads hands, is that what you are saying? You think Iran is (as of this minute) being preyed upon? WOW
chuck,
"Realist" international realtions theorists say that the presence of nuclear weapons prevented the cold war from becoming a hot war because of the fear of nuclear retaliation. (Realism is just the name of the paradigm, not a description of their theories) Others say that it does nothing because in order to make the above conclusion, we have to assume that they would have gone to war had these weapons not existed. So realists would suggest, as you have, that if everyone had nukes, everyone would be afraid to use them because of retaliation, so no one would. A lot more goes into it than that.
so chuckles-terra thinks iran needs nuclear weapons, do you?
t-dawg, you're hilarious. I asked who has ever used nuclear weapons and you're jumping to the conclusion about who I think should have one. Here's your answer... I don't think anyone should. (and I don't subscribe to realist thinking either - just presenting their ideas about "nuclear stability")
You are advocating that IRAN gets nuclear weapons!!!!! is anyone else reading what she is writing!!!!!!!
if this is what it means to be a liberal count me out.
Do you know the estimated body count that an assault on mainland japan was going to cost? Do you realize that Truman saved more American lives by his use of the bomb? Or are you just another overly smug pseudo-intellectual who looks at things out of context and passes judgements while trying to draw nonexistent corollaries.
everyone knows who used atomic weapons, why would you even assert that as currently relevant is beyond me
Do you know the estimated body count that an assault on mainland japan was going to cost? Do you realize that Truman saved more American lives by his use of the bomb? Or are you just another overly smug pseudo-intellectual who looks at things out of context and passes judgements while trying to draw nonexistent corollaries.
everyone knows who used atomic weapons, why would you even assert that as currently relevant is beyond me
Do you know the estimated body count that an assault on mainland japan was going to cost? Do you realize that Truman saved more American lives by his use of the bomb?
t-dawg...Very true answer. And the Japanese casualties were projected to be higher than they were, including civilians, since the a ground assult on Japan could have been dragged out for years.
Sound familiar? Hmm...what war today is dragging on and on because the commander in Chief is forced to fight a war using liberal tactics?
"liberal tactics"?
Rumsfield planned this disatorous war my friend. The liberal tactic is to get the fuck out of the country that was never a threat to us in the first place.
Iraq, you fucking pussy-ass republicans were scared of Iraq.
Look how fast the regime in Iraq fell, they were no threat.
But your the same people who worry about Cuba so I'm not surprised.
Fucking idiots.
If you really cared about the war on terrorism you'd be advocating to use your "conservative tactics" in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Russ all arguments I am making here are dealing directly with Iran, and Chuck's analogy, which I found to be ludicrous. I don't think drawing parallells of WWII and todays conflicts are accurate based on the fact that in one case you were dealing with a nation and in the other you are dealing with an amorphous entity. What I cited were reasons that America should feel no guilt whatsoever about the use of fat man and little boy.
Vari-
Hilary appeals to "the country folk"?
I don't think so.
Timi - you kiss your mother with that mouth?
Blame Rumsfeld...I don't care. When a soldier needs permission to discharge his weapon, there is a problem.
And timi...know it or not, you fucking child, the world was afraid of Iraq, including many of your Democratic hopefuls for the presidency. What do you think kept Iran out? Fear of WMD's. Same fears we had.
Last I heard, we are in Afghanistan. Read a paper once in awhile. Pakistan is touchier than your tiny little mind can absorb. We've paid them billions of dollars to be our friend.
And who said anything about Cuba? Please don't put words in my mouth. And please try to not make that face you make when you get sand in your vagina and start freaking out...it'll freeze like that one day, you know (your face...not your vagina).
t-dawg,
you assume that only sane people are allowed to carry guns. you are the one stretching.
further, i don't think it is good iran has a nuke. but i don't blame them for trying, especially when we are so damn hypocritical on the topic. we allow pakistan to have the bomb, we allow israel to avoid UN inspections, and we keep increasing our stockpiles.
chuck,
it's best not to respond to t-dawg since he clearly doesn't read. Or he just makes up what he thinks you write/think. Waste of time.
T-Dawg
what has been happening in Afghanistan? You need to read a paper. Generals begging for troops. Taliban and Al Queda re-emerging. so on and so on. I do kiss my mom with this mouth but I cuss out the mother fucking idiots like you that are ruining my country. I see why Bush and his rich friends say what they say but I don't understand why jack-asses like you believe it.
The world was NOT afraid of Iraq - go look at the opinion polls on the eve of the invasion, most countries were around 90% against it and said that the US was the biggest threat to peace. You can spin an spin until your blue in the face - you're still fucking wrong. AND MOST IMPORTANT - there where no WMD's!
I know the deal with Pakistan and the line we have to walk. The problem is Musharef is playing both sides on purpose. My mind has absorbed it.
Yours just absorbs hype.
Timfitz, You can say that again. You are the man!
timfitz-what the fuck are you talking about-reread what I wrote-I am not disagreeing with you at all.
petey do you have pom poms for all the cheerleading you do.
Fitz
I think Hillary has a better shot at it than Obama. You watch.
wrong chuckles, what they are advocating is more sane people should carry guns
timfitz I read the comments again- you are addressiing your hate filled rant to the wrong person-I expect an apology and a retraction
My post is going to a bit theoretical with the IR here, but if you were to assume that the international world and domestic world are the same, your assertion that Nukes vs. Guns would be the extremely valid. However, Realist IR theorists don't agree (summary below) that the Domestic and Int'l are the same:
Theory:
There are definately a few Realists who would agree with the assertion of nuclear weapons being in the hands of all countries (which they presuppose are rational actors) would make the world peaceful because of the threat of retaliation. (Most Realists do not make this argument, however, it has been made by some)
However, the problem with the realist view is that they don't see the international and domestic the same. Domestically, the gov't needs to have the monopoly on legitimate force, but since International world is in anarchy, the same rules do not apply.
Anonymous, I will respond by saying i don't actually think every country should have nukes. just like i don't think everyone should have a gun. but i think the logic is parallel.
T-Dawg, "they are advocating is more sane people should carry guns".
This is an absurd concept, because who defines sanity? there are a lot of crazies out there that have never been adjudicated or treated for craziness. so it is an unachievable thing. so the NRA/conservative stance is completely laughable.
that was my whole point.
The Cops in Cleveland sum it up :
The MORE people carrying guns - The MORE COPS get shot
timfitz I am waiting!!!!!
The cops can say that Petey, with the obvious exception that every major statistical analysis of the situation says otherwise - whereby the increased number of different registed gun oweners in a city reduces the per capita violent crime and shooting rates. I don't advocate it as a good policy and I dont necessarily agree that we should push gun ownership to drive down crime, but that is at least what the statistics say.
Mike, saying that the stats are true, How actually do more guns actually deter crime?
1.)Criminals fear that someone is packing
2.) The citizen actually shoots a perpetrator
3.)Stats are skeded by the NRA
4.)Criminals move to states where there are less guns
5.)??? You Tell me
I mean , guns most likely have deterred crime somewhere / sometime, but today, most everyone I talk to says what the Cle Cops say. The most telling groups against more guns are social types who deal with accidental shootings of children. They uniformly say that that outweighs any benefit perceived or actual.
My friend who grew up in Lebanon will just laugh if you tell him you think more guns equate to safer neighborhoods.
Mike, I realized that you wrote that you dont advocate more guns...I am just baffled by what is behind advocating arming everyone. I suspect its profit for the gun makers.
My dad alwasy said "Whats with these guys - They think theres a war going on here?"
The research wasn't done by NRA people who skewed numbers - it has been peformed by sociologists and economists at mutliple universities (mainly because it is an interesting topic for grad students to use for theses).
I'm not a sociologist so i can't really tell you why in these areas there is a decrease in crime correlated to increased individual gun ownership, nor do i think i am in a position to really speculate on it.
I don't really care what "most everyone you talk to says" or for that matter what your "friend" from Lebanon may or may not think about it. The average person does not have any factual or empirical basis on which to form his/her opinions and therefore is swayed by ridiculous things like "conventional wisdom" which is frequntly wrong or even worse by advertising and media influences - loko at our politicians and their actions - they talked the average American into believing that Iraq was a threat at the time and that they had WMDs we needed to immediately fear. If you asked "most eevryone" in the early 1400's they would've told you the world most assuredly flat. Also, we aren't in Lebanon, we have different laws, different criminals, and different socio-economic motivations for why people, criminals and non-criminals alike, choose to tkae the actions they do so it really matters very little what goes on in an ill-suited for comparison country.
Using a person from lebanon as an expert is ludicous. That is a society that has had constant strife and hatred between numerous groups for years if not centuries.
Although if we replace the melting pot with the "tapestry" your expert may have some relevance in a few years.
You think that someones tetimony who grew up in Beirut in the 1970-1980's has no credible information about what happens when everyone arms themselve and commences using those weapons?
Cmon
I can see that you put your trust in academics and have disregard for those who have been there- done that.
I pack a 1943 S&W US Navy 38 Police Special. Whats your pleasure?
"every major statistical analysis of the situation says otherwise - whereby the increased number of different registed gun oweners in a city reduces the per capita violent crime and shooting rates"..Mike D
Mike: the following study refutes your statement, Read the last sentence:
"The results provide no evidence that the laws reduce or increase rates of violent crime."
The Impact of "Shall-Issue" Concealed Handgun Laws on Violent Crime Rates
Evidence From Panel Data for Large Urban Cities
Tomislav V. Kovandzic
University of Alabama at Birmingham
Thomas B. Marvell
Justec Research
Lynne M. Vieraitis
University of Alabama at Birmingham
What happens when states ease access to permits to carry concealed handguns in public places? Supporters maintain the laws can reduce violent crime rates by raising the expected costs of crime, because of criminals anticipating greater risks of injury and lower rates of success completing their crimes. Opponents argue that the laws are likely to increase violent crime, especially homicide, as heated disputes involving permit holders are more likely to turn deadly because of the greater lethality of firearms. This study uses panel data for all U.S. cities with a 1990 population of at least 100,000 for 1980 to 2000 to examine the impact of "shall-issue" concealed handgun laws on violent crime rates. The authors measure the effects of the laws using a time-trend variable for the number of years after the law has been in effect, as opposed to the dummy variable approach used in prior research. They also address many of the methodological problems encountered in previous studies. The results provide no evidence that the laws reduce or increase rates of violent crime.
Further reading:
The Impact of "Shall-Issue" Concealed Handgun Laws on Violent Crime Rates: Evidence From Panel Data for Large Urban Cities
This one is even more interesting :
Do Guns Cause Crime?
By Don B. Kates
way to step up petey.
thx chuck, as you may know about me - propaganda makes me puke & the truth will set us free
Petey,
I dont deny the carnige that has occurred in Lebanon over the years.
70's and 80's lets see what groups did we have fighting for control of varios parts ot the country. My timimg may be off of on a few but hopefully you get the picture. The shitites, sunnis, christains, maronites, hezbolla,
amal, palestinians,Syrians,Israel,
the US and a few more I missed.
Is this situation analogus to the current U.S?
As far as trusting academics I would have thought by now you would have realized I have little use for the academic experts and their biased findings.
As far as guns I dont own one and hope I never need to but I support
your right to own what ever the hell you want
Petey, and mike, their are many accurate studies that support both sides of your debate.
I think the truth is that increased gun ownership does little to nothing when it comes to crime.
So lets just agree that people should have the right to arm themselves if they want to.
It is also worth mentioning that one of the primary justifications for the 2nd Ammendment is that an armed public could overthrow the government should that ever be necessary.
Petey - I specifically calle dout studies which look at gun purchases of "different owners" - meaning new, unique, previously non-gun owners. If you control for that you get the most representative results. I didn't get a chance to look at your links, but I can say with fairly high certainty that is the reason they yield different results.
I still don't care at all about what someone's experiences in Lebanon were liek for the context of a discussion about the US. Since few things about Lebanon are directly comparable to the US then there is no use for testimonial of someone who lived there within the contexts of our discussion.
Mike, Every gun owner is "different" if they were one and the same....The arms moguls wouldnt sell many guns , would they?
Think this over next beerBuzz
You obviously missed my point, Meant distinct, new gun owners - i.e. not just increases in number of guns owned. But the point is moot and lost on you.
Post a Comment
<< Home