Why attack Sikhs?

Exactly the point of this thread - The Sikhs are 'United', the Neo-Nazis are 'City', it's human nature to fight over differences. Build a wall between two communities and there gonna be conflict. Plus we like a good scrap - but no cheating with guns please, it's not British.

 

You've never been to an SEC football game. Or PAC-10 for that matter. Same people. The difference is that American football fans rarely riot - there's still plenty of violence.

And before you tell me I don't know what I'm talking about, I went to every single home football game for Tennessee between 1981 and 1988 and stood at the top of the upper deck. Not to mention the dozens of games I've been to since. I've seen the violence - it's worse now than it ever was, and I've almost been in fights simply for wearing the wrong colors in someone else's stadium.

As for wearing the wrong colors in the wrong neighborhood, though (to directly answer that point), try being the wrong race and/or have the wrong colors on in the wrong neighborhood in 100 different towns and cities in America.
--- merged: Aug 6, 2012 at 8:13 PM ---

Well, shit, while we're at it, let's get rid of the cigarettes, whiskey and corn syrup. Let's stop exporting Twinkies. Those kill people too. Might as well stop the Coca-Cola, the beef, the airplanes, the computer software (people might get their feelings hurt by internet trolls) and the lumber (no splinters plus we get more air).

It's not about JUST the guns. As Baraka_Guru pointed out, it's more about the society. Why don't we focus on, say, fixing the mental health system first. Seems like it just might have more of an actual effect. Or is that not what you're looking for, actual results?

 

I look at this conversation, and I think to myself that if you have a bunch of people dead for no goddamned reason at all and then there is a group with their own personal interests at stake insisting that there is nothing to see, nothing to talk about, just move along.

That there's probably a lot to talk about there.
--- merged: Aug 6, 2012 at 8:18 PM ---

What's wrong with focusing on both problems in the interim?

 

i don't recall saying anything remotely like there's only a problem with gun-related violence in the states---but there is. look at the numbers. it's ridiculous. but so's the incarceration rate in the u.s. of a. land of the free and all that. there's also a real problem with health care, mental health care in particular. but it'd be hard to isolate someone as pathological up front for deciding to start his own private race war in a context that de facto legitimates racism (even if folk don't mind being racist but hate being called racist) and even allows for it to have a political context in which to flourish (trace populist conservative ideology back to reconstruction...then the fun starts on this count). it's pollyanna to assume that somehow or another in a context that normalizes racism ("war on terror" anyone? o...did you catch those idiots on cnn saying over and over that sikhs aren't muslims as if it have been understandable to gun people down had they been?) that a mental health system would have caught this guy. he operated in a context that made everything but the decision to pick up a (legally and easily obtained) gun and go out for a sunday morning gun-down appear normal. *that* is a problem. but to deal with it, there'd have to be a recognition that it's not ok to be a neo-fascist. and that would ruffle feathers in conservativeland...i have another almost illegible segment of my handwriting to transcribe into a chapter, so will maybe be back later.

 

I would suggest that causes of, and solutions to, gun violence are not that simple and in many respects are interdependent.

For example, one area of gun laws that I would look at is domestic abusers. Current law prohibits those convicted of domestic abuse from purchasing a gun. Why not look at those who are arrested as well, but not convicted, perhaps because the spouse recants her charge or is unwilling to testify out of fear. At the very least, examine the idea of perhaps a time period (1-3 years) for anyone arrested and charged and the balance between the gun owners rights and the spouses safety?

i just dont get why gun laws should be off the table.
--- merged: Aug 6, 2012 at 9:19 PM ---
Or mandatory safe storage or gun lock laws that just might reduce suicide among children. A handy gun in a child's moment of despair is deadly.

I'm not saying enact it tomorrow....but damn, cant policymakers even talk about it w/o being charged with infringing on gun rights?

 

Mandate the use of safety devices? Many states such as Maryland already have these laws. They don't do dick because dumb parents are gonna be dumb parents. You gonna have the cops do monthly home inspections? Much like laws that state you can't use an item for something (Thou Shalt Not Murder), laws that mandate the use of an item can't fix lazy or change stupid. I do believe manufacturers should provide locks, though.

Your thoughts on the domestic abuse charged-but-not-convicted thing are ludicrous and offer no additional protection.

We gonna penalize people for things they're charged with but not convicted of? Jesus Armband Christ.

 

Same old argument. They wont stop all child suicides so they have no merit.

No, I am not doing home inspections, but I would certainly consider laws that hold parents legally accountable (charge as accomplice) for a child's suicide as a result of easy access to guns in the home.

And I dont think a multiple spouse abuser (but not convicted) has a right to a gun w/o some penalty or restriction. I'm not talking jail time so no, it is no ludicrous to regulate that person's gun rights.

But we cant even talk about it.

 

No, I'm cool with mandatory trigger lock laws. They just don't do dick because it's not realistically enforceable. And they're a lot like seatbelt laws: responsible people don't benefit from them and negligent people get a some petty charge after their emo teenager decides to Kurt Cobain themselves. You want to hold parents responsible for their child's suicide? That's great. Doesn't solve shit, ruins another person's life. What's the goal here? I mean, companies like S&W and Remington have locks literally built into the frames of their products... but they can't install common sense into the user.

You a precrime psychic vigilante, Redux? The most basic premise of law in this country is innocent until proven guilty, even if you are a total dirtbag.

I can talk all fucking day.​

 

Regulating a spouse abuser's gun rights is no different in my mind than regulating persons with serious mental health issues. Neither has jack shit to do with presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

And the notion that holding parents legally accountable for a child's suicide is hardly bullshit if it results in better care before the fact knowing that there is a serious legal consequence if there is such a suicide.

 

so we're back around to restatements of the obvious fact that law enforcement is reactive.
following on that, we're back at the opening move that there is no point in any law because no law can prevent what it proscribes. it merely makes actions prosecutable after the fact.
that's true in any case.
if that's the case, then the distinction is not really a matter of enforcement being somehow more reactive when it comes to gun control than anywhere else---we are is in the special place in which one is really talking only about laws one does not like (bad because law enforcement is reactive) versus laws one does like (murder is bad).
or maybe we're in a special zone of reality when it comes to gun control, one in which, for the folk who oppose controls, it is ok to act as through the rules of argument don't obtain. it's enough that we really don't like gun control. so anything goes logically, even though there's nothing in particular about gun control that make these laws any more problematic than those that make murder illegal.

 

Domestic violence is a crime. Mental illness is not.

Different authorities. Different topics.

Ugh, I need a break.

 

the hobbyist isn't the center of debate.

Our laws exist for good reason, and the right to bear arms exists as a stopgap against a government that may eventually go bad, as nearly every government throughout history has...

As far as I know, there has only been one successful prohibition in history: Smallpox. Even that is somewhat questionable, but the point is that we simply are not able to prevent the acquisition of *anything* people desire. We may be able to moderate, but those who care enough and who have at least modest resources can get just about anything that is currently illegal in this country: Guns, drugs, sex, antiquities, organs, pirated movies, etc.

When you pass a law banning something the people who comply are those who care about the law whereas those who are already breaking it don't comply. Otherwise you would be able to point to Washington DC and Chicago as firearms-free success stories following their nearly 100% outlawing of civilian firearms ownership and subsequent drops in crime.

Likewise, Mexico with it's super, super strict gun laws currently would have no gun-related homicide whereas Switzerland with the highest rate of (legal) gun ownership in the world is crime ridden...


The problem is several things:

1: Our Culture. We have a violent culture in the US. Full Stop. People over here kill people for the darnedest of reasons, and they do so even when they don't have guns. Culturally we are a conglomerate of frontier honor and judgmental puritanism. Put together you get people who are quick to judge, quick to fight and entirely intolerant of others. When you add to that mix the numerous cultural traditions here in the US you give everyone with a chip on their shoulder something to be pissed about.

2: You can cure ignorance, but stupid is forever. Self explanatory I suppose but I will attempt to elaborate: I don't personally know this for a fact but I am willing to bet the shooter in this last incident thought he was killing Muslims. Extremists in this country seem to have an easy time hating on Muslims... Though it would be equally reprehensible had he attacked muslims, I suspect the shooter was so wholly unaware of the world around him he mistook Sikh's with those other turban wearing chaps...

3: Forgot about number 3: We are a big country, so things happen here based on shear probability as well. Small countries rarely have really bad things happen, but when they do they are core-shaking events (Norway). We are many times the size so sheer probability indicates such instances will happen here more frequently.

4: And number 4: We are locally focused and forget how bad things are abroad. For instance while our 'massacre' was going on hundreds and hundreds of people were being killed elsewhere, but most Americans are not even aware of the existence of other conflicts worldwide outside our Afghan war. Pakistan faces the equivalent of a 9/11 every year; likewise with many places in the world where violence is an every day affair. Even in the 'modern' 'safe' countries such as France or Germany things seem to go horribly wrong a couple times a century. Sure they are safe in the lulls, but then they try to take over the world or their peaceful franco-centric paradises get steamrolled by reality and someone else with a gun.

5: We have become a nation of cowards. Very few people will risk their lives to confront evil anymore. Most people think highly of themselves but when the chips are down will run away or will walk past someone being raped rather than calling the police... As a society we tolerate this behavior and we reap what we sew.

Personally, I carry a gun nearly everywhere I legally can. I own 'assault rifles' and unlike most of the clowns who go rampages, I actually know how to use them. I know plenty more people like me who desire the ability to protect their loved ones against potential threats but who are not about to do something unlawful or crazy.

 

And I'm not suggesting jail time w/o a trial for the former to which the innocent until proven guilty applies.

 

Roachboy:

Law enforcement is largely reactive. I suspect we can both agree to that. I think we also can agree that reactive policing can still be a valuable deterrent to the commission of future crimes. Either because the criminal who would commit them is now locked up, or because someone else is dissuaded by the obvious risk of criminal enterprise.

Law enforcement is somewhat proactive: If the police know a jewelry store will be robbed at 9pm Wed, they will stop it.

Either way the enforcement of laws (even if it isn't timely) discourages other people from breaking those same laws. Our system is based partly on retribution, but largely on the idea that punishing one criminal can prevent someone else from ever becoming one.



I should point out that if the *gun* is to blame for gun violence deaths, which number well under 10 thousand a year in the US, the Cars are to blame for vehicle related deaths, which are well over 30 thousand a year. They both have utility to the user, both are occasionally used as a weapon, and both are often involved in negligent deaths. It's not the tool that matters, but the people behind it.




With regard to your points about enforcement and 'special zone of reality': I am happy to debate with you about the 'rules' and other issues all day long. Logic still applies, but so does the constitution, for better or worse.

 

Sure he is. He's the easiest target. Easiest to control and the easiest to legislate into the ground. "Look! We did something! AWB!"

Careful. Tinfoil hats are given out around here for that crazy talk.

Naaah.

More historical crazy talk. We're only concerned with things we can remember. And large murky looming threats... like Terrorism.

Yeah, good luck with point aimed at the nanny state, dial-a-prayer crew. You come off as a homicidal maniac / trigger happy cowboy.

Yeah, you can't be trusted, either.

/sarcasm

 

More proactive policing (eg, COPS program, community policing...) requires more funding and yet it is the "gun rights" side of Congress that repeatedly cuts these programs.
--- merged: Aug 6, 2012 at 10:14 PM ---
But getting back to Jazz's "fixing the mental health system first."

Why not look at the current legal definition of "adjudicated as a mental defective" language in current federal gun laws that prohibit gun ownership by persons with these "defects" at the same time?" Is is effective? Is it letting too many fall through the cracks? I dont claim to know, but I would suggest it is certainly worth discussion among mental health professionals.

 

I suspect that by most 'standards' telling your psychologist that you are planning on going on a killing spree would be considered a.... Well, for lack of a better word let's call it a 'clue.'

When that professional reports 1 person out of all the students she sees to the authorities, they might have considered it a 'hint.'

The authorities were put on notice and they failed to follow up on an obvious potential issue. No amount of legislating can fix basic incompetence. This guy was displaying all the flags of a violent nutball and they were both noticed and reported to the authorities... but people failed to follow up. No police department on earth is so underfunded that they can't pay a visit to someone in order to prevent a potential mass-murder.

 

the point was simple(-istic)...gun control laws are a problem because enforcement is reactive. it's a ludicrous claim.

that there are approaches to law enforcement that are less reactive is a non-sequitor. unless you imagine some neo-fascist asshole calling in his own massacre plans. o hey, you might want to go to that sikh temple a few miles from here because ima feeling like finally acting to protect white people. of course, there's no problem with tolerating the contexts that make such idiocy seem reasonable. o no--the guy must have been pathological. except that within the neo-fascist context, there's consistent fantasy about someone finally acting to protect the white people. you know, the current interpretation of the 14 tat, right? but the context that makes this appear normal cannot be a problem. why is that?
naturally people who like to like guns are going to do what they always do and try to make ex-post-facto separations between this cat and some imaginary normal based on the fact that in the imaginary normal it might be ok to contemplate a race war, but there's some line that separates fantasizing about that from picking up a (legally and easily procured) gun and trying to start one. what is that line exactly?

frankly, i am far more bothered by not only the tolerance of neo-fascism but it's progressive normalization---not to even start talking about the period during which it became a way of thinking about mainstream amurica in that lovely period after the wtc attack. and i do not find it a great thing that the nra appeals to these same assholes in order to sell their brand of conservative identity politics. like i said before, i think the most effective response for this latest spate of massacres carried out by people who were legally and easily able to acquire weapons thanks to weakened gun control laws brought to you by the nra would be for the entire conservative movement to get blamed for this and take a massive, crushing defeat at the polls. but the right is not awesome at accepting responsibility for much of anything, any more than opponents of rational gun control laws are good at accepting the occasional massacre as a consequence of their politics.

 

Again, you're taking one case and making sweeping generalizations and assumptions.

There is a crossover issue here as well: HIPAA privacy rules or protected health information, which is just another example of the interrelationship between HIPAA and the Brady law resulting in the potential for people falling through the cracks and why both need further review.
--- merged: Aug 7, 2012 3:50 AM ---

I referenced the conservative backlash (and gross mischaracterization) to the 09 DHS report on the post 9/11 (and post Obama election) growing right wing extremism from Fox News :

"A senior Republican Judiciary Committee aide tells FOX News that the Obama administration "should immediately retract the report and apologize..."​

​

U.S. Rep. Gus Bilirakis, R-FL, told FOX News he was "offended" by the report's suggestion that returning troops could be potential targets for extremist groups.​

​

​

"I am very offended and really disturbed that they would even say our military veterans, our returning war heroes would be capable of committing any terrorist acts," he said. "Where do they get off doing that? I demand an apology from [Napolitano] and even the President of the United States."​

​

​

Herb London, president of the Hudson Institute, a Washington-based think tank, said DHS' latest report "clearly appears to censor right-wing opinion," while its earlier assessment of left-wing extremists does not .​

​

So expressing concern over growing right wing extremist is evidently unAmerican and off limits for discussion by Republicans in Congress and their talking heads.

​

​

 

Dux, FYI, Temp Restr. Order = Gun seizure. That simple. It's presuming guilt before adjudication, but considered a preventative measure. Given all the lying shit-bags I've destroyed on deposition, I don't agree with this law. But the day Daddy shoots Mommy and the County-Sheriff's-Office didn't take guns...there'll be hell to pay.

Politics isn't rational.