Hard News: Hate and guns
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last
John Farrell, in reply to
One could construct all sorts of conspiracy theories, based on "The share prices of US gun manufacturers have surged since the Florida shootings. Apparently this happens after every US gun massacre as the good ol’ boys stockpile weapons in anticipation of a crackdown on gun sales."
Joe Wylie, in reply to
This is important when entering into any discussion with or about the gun lobby or pro-2a individuals as they will generally ignore any argument when basic terms are used incorrectly. The same applies to when discussing an issue with people from a military background; e.g. get the word “battalion” confused with the word “company” and they will often ignore everything else you say regardless of how sound and rational your point of view is.
IMHE when a group places that level of importance on jargon it's because its purpose is to exclude outsiders. Folks like that are hardly likely to be open to reasonable discussion with anyone whose viewpoint differs from theirs.
As for those of the military persuasion, you might recall the case of Haane Manahi a few years ago. While attempts to have his WW2 heroism posthumously recognised date back to the days of the Shipley Government, it was the Clark Government in 2007 that eventually succeeded in presenting his case.
Manahi held the now obsolete rank of Lance Sergeant at the time of his heroic deeds. Because the armchair military buffs at the Kiwiblog end of the blogosphere had never heard of such a rank, and because the official presenting his case was a woman, it was immediately ridiculed as a case of what would some silly bitch know.
If you've actually made any headway on the gun reform issue by employing precise terminology it would be nice to know about it, but I'm not holding my breath.
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
I read some authority somewhere is thinking of of prosecuting some one for not reporting him
In all seriousness, when I first saw that I thought it was a sick bloody joke.
Add "people who wonder why abused women don't go to the authorities" to the rapidly expanding list of people I'll tell to fuck off for the foreseeable future.
Alfie, in reply to
One could construct all sorts of conspiracy theories...
I think it's a little more serious than that, John. While I normally balk at using them as a source, the Daily Mail reports one Georgia gun dealer as saying, "We normally sell two (AR-15s) a day, today we are selling up to 15 an hour."
Parents of some of the 26 children killed in the Newtown masacre are suing the Remington Arms Company on the basis that their product is directly responsible for their children's deaths, and that they market their AR-15 as a military grade weapon “engineered to deliver maximum carnage with extreme efficiency.”
Incidentally, it wasn't an AR-15 used by Mateen in Orlando. It was actually one of these Sig Sauers -- equally deadly but still sold to civillians, regardless of their mental state.
papango, in reply to
But I’m seeing people who are glomming onto “a self-hating Muslim queer did it” with indecent haste (present company very much excluded) because it’s a narrative that neatly side-steps hard and ugly questions about homophobia and gun culture.
For me, if he was a self hating gay man, that actually makes the questions about homophobia even more stark and pressing. Because a gay child doesn't grow up into a person who hates themselves so much they commit the mass murder of LGBT people in a vacuum. It's an 'it takes a village' situation. A village where homophobia is not just accepted, but encouraged.
Kiwiiano, in reply to
I doubt that we'll see any sense until someone walks into either Congress or a big NRA meeting with a serious weapon and lets rip. So long as it's someone else's problem....
Karen Hester, in reply to
Yes, the laws are confusing for travelers. Gun carriers visiting many Northeast states are suddenly acting illegally as soon as their car crosses the border. Some idiots even think their out-of-state permit allows them to carry at the 9/11 Memorial.
Law enforcement often throws out these cases.
Joe Wylie, in reply to
As I said in my first post, the societal problems as I see it, are almost intractable - too big and too complex to comprehend or legislate for. Hence central government becomes more and more authoritarian and less and less effective.
Perhaps we're not that different. I believe that Federal Street in downtown Auckland was named in anticipation of NZ joining a bunch of neighbouring British colonies to form the Australian Commonwealth. While the local dissenters won the day, states' rights can still be a source of contention in Australia.
Katharine Moody, in reply to
Agree. And then there is a modern day example whereby this commentator suggests the rest of NZ is subsidising Auckland at the moment;
Auckland is increasingly a millstone around New Zealand’s neck: “its economy is inwardly focussed, driven by consumption, real estate and domestic services”; “measured internationally it’s performance is poor – ranked 69 of 85 OECD metros”; and “ it must shift from import to export-led, but is not a centre of export excellence or innovation” (source: The Auckland Council Plan).
Its population growth is increasing the negatives: more spending on infrastructure and government services; more agricultural land for housing; a less attractive living environment for existing residents; more demand for urban water use at the expense of more productive uses; greater population pressure on the environment generally; and an increasing dependence on the rest of New Zealand to subsidise it’s weak export performance – which reduces the living standards of everyone else.
The scale argument (bigger is better) is a typically wrongheaded quantity not quality political argument; and the innovation centre argument is not economically viable – if it depends on Auckland’s size then the national benefits are inadequate to justify the cost.
The tax free wealth gains on Auckland property is a major opportunity lost in terms of national benefit. In a rational world the gains would be taxed to fund important national programs, such as: a rejuvenated regional development program; or a major blitz on the adverse environment consequences of agriculture; or a major program to reduce the vulnerability and decline of the conservation estate; or a major program to develop future jobs and a more effective transition to a more innovative economy. The tax would also partly compensate the Regions for their export based subsidy to Auckland!
As he points out, scale (bigger is better) is typically a wrongheaded policy argument. He's an economist by qualification. Not that I normally agree with them (as they usually cannot frame analyses beyond the orthodox school) but this chap has obviously broken free of that ideological position.
Bart Janssen, in reply to
as they will generally ignore any argument when basic terms are used incorrectly
In the same way people will argue global warming is not real because on page 374 there was a typo.
My visual take on the Orlando tragedy. I can’t help but think of Mahatma Gandhi’s wisdom: “An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.”
Post your response…
You may also create an account or retrieve your password.