Another Black man killed by cops ... this time by accident?

[TSmith34, Inc.]

I don't think I said I had any problems with your suggestions.

OK, that's fine, good even.

But the question I ask again is, who is stopping any and all of these from being enacted?

[UWW2MU]

I understand your perplexity.

First, I worked for 25 years in a federal government agency with many afro-Americans, around 50% white, 50% black.

Most of them were frustrated with the lawlessness in their black communities.  I was suprised to learn the lengths they would go to to protect themselves.  I thought my example of my co-worker and former Marine would be clear.  I could write dozens of similar stories.

I don't want to bicker about the extent of my personal experiences. 

On the subject of stereotyping,  I'm all for it.  The problem is inaccurate stereotyping.  Also, I'm very familiar with statistics and small sample size analysis.  Point being that my experiences are sufficient to draw accurate conclusions.  I could tell dozens of stories but it would never be sufficient for some people.  I am probably talking about counter-stereotyping.

Yes I am one.  I'm a conservative, depending on how we define conservative.  And yes I am afraid of SOME black men, as are some of my black friends also afraid.  There are areas of the city and times of day where these guys would avoid going at all costs.  They avoid gangs, drug dealing areas, and prostitution.  However, that is not the black community.  That is a small part of inner city living.

Don't know what an "R" is.  Is that short for Republican?  Or short for rifle?  I carried a fifle and 45 in the Marines but don't find a need these days.

I was a Young Republican at Marquette, even worked for Goldwater, but I have changed, a generational thing.  I find change very spiritual, not easy, but worthwhile.

A pleasure trying to explain somewhat a very complex problem.

The 'R' was for republican, since your first mention was "white republicans" vs conservative.

So you say you are afraid of "some" black men.  But your first statement was that white republicans are afraid of black men.  That pretty much says all white republicans are afraid of all black men.  So you're afraid of all black men, is what you told me.  Now you backtrack.   

I understand we don't watch our words carefully in a back and forth on the internet, but statements grouping an entire population with a negative stereotype based solely on our own experiences is the epitome of what we should be avoiding in society.  Identity politics, racism, and all the other negative outcomes are inevitable when we view people as monoliths based only on our own world experiences (or carelessly use words making it appear that we do that).

[Lennys Tap]

Lenny ... has MU82, or anyone else here, actually suggested taking away gun ownership rights from law-abiding citizens? If not, does throwing out that false argument help or contribute to the discussion at all?

Ironically, it seems to me that those on the gun control side here have suggested plenty of potential solutions that wouldn't infringe upon the basic right to gun ownership. It's the people who claim they want to do something about "illegal guns" who don't actually offer any ideas about how to do that.
What we can also say is that while having a gun "for protection" in the home may make a person feel safer, all the data says it puts everyone in the household at far greater risk of being a victim of gun violence.
Likewise, the answer isn't more guns in general. The data shows that states with higher rates of gun ownership, and less gun control, also see the most gun violence.

Pak,

Anyone? In this thread alone naginif has said that the gun laws that allowed these people to legally purchase a firearm share culpability equally with the moron and an inanimate object (the gun) in this tragedy. Nothing in the story suggests the buyer was a felon, didn’t pass a background check, etc. How would we have denied the right for this gun’s purchase short of making it illegal?

I agree with you re statistics on owning guns “for protection”. IMO that is due to two factors. First, many people (those in decent neighborhoods, for example) grossly overrate their risk and second, many buyers of firearms don’t learn how to use them properly or follow simple safety precautions. Can’t do much about #1, but I would be all for requiring gun purchasers to take a class or classes on simple gun safety. If that’s what naginif was driving at  I apologize for misinterpreting - but it didn’t read that way to me.

Long and short? When I read headlines that tell me how many people guns, cigarettes, alcohol, drugs, bad diets, sedentary lifestyles, automobiles, etc., “kill” each year it breaks my heart. The bad choices that human beings make to sabotage themselves is nothing short of stunning. So we keep trying to educate - it’s always the first/best choice. And we try to make laws that balance what’s “good for us” with freedoms that are essential for our way of life. Not an exact science by any means and good people can differ - but I tend to come down on the side of freedom. Better messy than reliance on benevolent despotism, whatever form (from monarchy to representative democracy) it takes.

[Galway Eagle]

Not sure I'd include bad diet in that one. There's some legit conspiracies and big money in there that's persuaded people in the way wrong direction. Compared to not wearing a seat belt or speeding, or smoking any tobacco, etc

[naginiF]

Pak,

Anyone? In this thread alone naginif has said that the gun laws that allowed these people to legally purchase a firearm share culpability equally with the moron and an inanimate object (the gun) in this tragedy. Nothing in the story suggests the buyer was a felon, didn’t pass a background check, etc. How would we have denied the right for this gun’s purchase short of making it illegal?

I agree with you re statistics on owning guns “for protection”. IMO that is due to two factors. First, many people (those in decent neighborhoods, for example) grossly overrate their risk and second, many buyers of firearms don’t learn how to use them properly or follow simple safety precautions. Can’t do much about #1, but I would be all for requiring gun purchasers to take a class or classes on simple gun safety. If that’s what naginif was driving at  I apologize for misinterpreting - but it didn’t read that way to me.

Long and short? When I read headlines that tell me how many people guns, cigarettes, alcohol, drugs, bad diets, sedentary lifestyles, automobiles, etc., “kill” each year it breaks my heart. The bad choices that human beings make to sabotage themselves is nothing short of stunning. So we keep trying to educate - it’s always the first/best choice. And we try to make laws that balance what’s “good for us” with freedoms that are essential for our way of life. Not an exact science by any means and good people can differ - but I tend to come down on the side of freedom. Better messy than reliance on benevolent despotism, whatever form (from monarchy to representative democracy) it takes.

We're probably 90% in agreement. I do blame the existing legal gun ownership process which allows me (or any idiot) to buy a weapon, with no requirements for storage or safety, when that weapon kills someone. In this case would those requirements have prevented this moron from putting a loaded gun next to his toddler? Maybe/probably not but at least they would be an attempt and it would not infringe upon said morons rights to own a gun.

I think I've said this before in a different, and probably locked, thread I'm not for a gun ban, BUT as the years go by with no action towards rational legislation (national registry, insurance, training, specific storage requirements, etc.) my perspective of what is rational becomes more restrictive and if we have no movement on this issue in X years I can see me advocating for a ban.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

I would be all for requiring gun purchasers to take a class or classes on simple gun safety.

I'll ask again: What is stopping common sense gun laws such as this and others mentioned here from being enacted?

[lawdog77]

, but I would be all for requiring gun purchasers to take a class or classes on simple gun safety.

Not just on gun safety, but also on how to shoot, needing to pass a test on accuracy. In all seriousness, I would make them run 100 yards (to get their heart rate up to a level similar to being in a dangerous situation), pick up their gun, and shoot a target. I would make them test every year.  A gun registry, no sales out of state, any sale of your gun must have the required background check, and be listed on the national gun registry.

Me being lazy again, whatever happened to the bipartisan background check that made it through the House?

[MU82]

Me being lazy again, whatever happened to the bipartisan background check that made it through the House?

Yeah, that's one of those that has gotten something like 90% approval in public polls. Even a significant majority of NRA members gave it a thumbs-up IIRC.

But like everything else related to guns ... no go no how because too many politicians are cowards who are bought and sold by the gun lobby.

[Lennys Tap]

I'll ask again: What is stopping common sense gun laws such as this and others mentioned here from being enacted?

Same thing that happens to common sense abortion laws <ducks>?

[jesmu84]

Same thing that happens to common sense abortion laws <ducks>?

Will you please provide common sense abortion law examples?

[Galway Eagle]

Same thing that happens to common sense abortion laws <ducks>?

I think this is that term "what aboutism"

[NCMUFan]

Yeah, that's one of those that has gotten something like 90% approval in public polls. Even a significant majority of NRA members gave it a thumbs-up IIRC.

But like everything else related to guns ... no go no how because too many politicians are cowards who are bought and sold by the gun lobby.

But couldn't this apply to our government on any other issue and lobby?  I mean let's fill in the blank.
But like everything else related to _____ ... no go no how because too many politicians are cowards who are bought and sold by the ____ lobby.
I can't think the gun lobby is any more powerful than any other lobby.
And if it is, maybe it is because there are an awful lot of people behind it.

[Lennys Tap]

Will you please provide common sense abortion law examples?

Sure. There is no federal law restricting late term abortions. Currently in Alaska, Colorado, the District of Columbia, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon and Vermont have no state (or district) laws restricting late term abortions.

[MU82]

Sure. There is no federal law restricting late term abortions. Currently in Alaska, Colorado, the District of Columbia, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon and Vermont have no state (or district) laws restricting late term abortions.

Tony, if you enter late term abortion forced to carry dead into a Google search, you will find article after article of heartbreaking situations in which women were forced to carry stillborn fetuses until they delivered them -- even though the fetuses were dead for days or weeks (or longer), or were terminally damaged, or were scientifically known to be unviable once out of the womb -- because the states they lived in had iron-clad, no-exception rules against late-term abortions.

It's hard to imagine the emotional pain (and in many cases extreme physical pain) those women (and their significant others) went through.

From one article:

Nearly 99% of abortions occur before 21 weeks, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, but when they are needed past that point, it is in response to harrowing circumstances.

“Abortions that occur at this stage in pregnancy are often the result of tragic diagnoses and are exactly the scenarios wherein patients need their doctors, and not obstructive politicians,” says Dr Jennifer Conti, clinical assistant professor at Stanford University. “Asking a woman to carry a fatally flawed pregnancy to term is, at the very least, heartbreaking. I’ve often heard women say that they chose to end such pregnancies because of unselfish reasons: they couldn’t bear the thought of putting their fetus through even more pain or suffering.”

From another, a husband's account:

He still had a heart beat, which we were forced to listen to. Because of this, and his age, any attempts to induce labor would be considered a late-term abortion. Even though he had no chance of surviving, this was considered an abortion. These laws made my wife feel our child struggle inside her for days. We cried ourselves to sleep every night. We spent four days in and out of the hospital waiting for nature to take it’s course. These laws, in their effect, forced a woman to give birth to a stillborn baby.

As always, lots of nuance on these issues.

[jesmu84]

Sure. There is no federal law restricting late term abortions. Currently in Alaska, Colorado, the District of Columbia, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon and Vermont have no state (or district) laws restricting late term abortions.

Thanks.

Do you believe there are corporate lobbying efforts fighting against late term abortion restrictions?

[Galway Eagle]

Thanks.

Do you believe there are corporate lobbying efforts fighting against late term abortion restrictions?

He's gonna say planned parenthood

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Same thing that happens to common sense abortion laws <ducks>?

Come on, you can say it...might even do the soul good. Say it with me: who is blocking any and all sensible gun legislation?

[Lennys Tap]

Come on, you can say it...might even do the soul good. Say it with me: who is blocking any and all sensible gun legislation?

Let’s say it together, Smitty: “The NRA and right wing republicans fight sensible gun laws and Planned Parenthood and left wing democrats fight sensible abortion laws”

Now we’ll both sleep better tonight, a’ina?

[Pakuni]

Let’s say it together, Smitty: “The NRA and right wing republicans fight sensible gun laws and Planned Parenthood and left wing democrats fight sensible abortion laws”

Now we’ll both sleep better tonight, a’ina?

What's a common sense abortion law?

[vogue65]

But couldn't this apply to our government on any other issue and lobby?  I mean let's fill in the blank.
But like everything else related to _____ ... no go no how because too many politicians are cowards who are bought and sold by the ____ lobby.
I can't think the gun lobby is any more powerful than any other lobby.
And if it is, maybe it is because there are an awful lot of people behind it.

Has technology made lobbying obsolete?  Has technology rendered obsolete the need for lobby money?  If not yet, soon.   The local papers are gone, next up t.v., direct mail, conventions and rallies.  The lobby function will have to go directly to the voters.  Not unlike the drug companies circumventing the doctors.  The NRA is toast. 

Repent the end is near, ha.

[NCMUFan]

I am not an NRA member.  So nothing to repent to.

[Lennys Tap]

What's a common sense abortion law?

Outlawing late term abortion except to save the life of the mother.

[ATL MU Warrior]

Let’s say it together, Smitty: “The NRA and right wing republicans fight sensible gun laws and Planned Parenthood and left wing democrats fight sensible abortion laws”

Now we’ll both sleep better tonight, a’ina?

Pathetic. Can’t you just answer the unnatural carnal knowledgeing question without the nonsense?

[MU82]

Outlawing late term abortion except to save the life of the mother.

So you still want to force women to carry terminal babies to term? That seriously doesn’t sound like you, Tony.

[JWags85]

Has technology made lobbying obsolete?  Has technology rendered obsolete the need for lobby money?  If not yet, soon.   The local papers are gone, next up t.v., direct mail, conventions and rallies.  The lobby function will have to go directly to the voters.  Not unlike the drug companies circumventing the doctors.  The NRA is toast. 

Repent the end is near, ha.

Lobbying doesnt just mean advertising.  Lobbying at its core is buying influence.  If you think that campaigns aren't going need funding, I don't know what to tell you.

And as for advertising, its all gone digital.  You buy clicks and views, not papers and mailers.  The game has evolved not fallen away.  If you think conventions are gonna disappear, I'd love to make a wager on that.