GeorgiaDon

I would argue that the Democrats nominated the best candidate of either party in decades.I would argue that the Democrats nominated the most qualified candidate in decades. Since that is what matters to me, I voted for her. However the "best" candidate could be thought of as an optimal combination of qualified and electable. As an ivory tower elitist who believes things like being knowledgeable and experienced and rational and intelligent are actually good qualities, I underestimated the power of the Republican smoke and innuendo campaign. It seemed inconceivable to me that people would fall for an obvious racist misogynist who was offering shit on a plate and telling people it was chocolate mousse. Anyway, I can see I was not clear about what I meant by "a better alternative". I meant "a better economic plan", as in "an alternative to turning the clock back 50 years". If the Democrats had an economic plan they didn't do much to promote it. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Yes, I do. However, if you lay down with dogs you will get fleas. They made their choice, Jerry Baumchen That is true. However, I also blame Democrats for not offering them a better alternative. The very least Democrats could have done was to acknowledge the very real economic issues at play, and offer up some plan of action. When "I'll turn the clock back 50 years" is all that is on the table, that is what desperate people will take. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

OK, that seems reasonable. How long do you think that would take? A couple of days at least, or more like a week if you are going to interview the kid, family, friends, teachers, get a warrant to access medical records, get a warrant to search their home. So, how many agents would it take to deal with the volume of tips? You'd have to have some in every big city and more to cover rural areas. So what would that be, another 1,000 FBI agents? 10,000? Who's going to pay for them? Shall we cut the budget for the military to pay for it? Medical research? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

So you agree with me that there are already laws restricting gun ownership and penalties for misuse which need enforcement and that simply creating more restriction on the rest of us will not prevent another mass shooting tragedy?Would you agree to a law that says that anyone can purchase an AR-15 or other "assault" weapon, but in exchange law enforcement can monitor all your communications, you have to provide the government with all passwords and agree to un-encrypt anything they ask for, and you agree to share your medical history? Also, you will have to agree to have the government regulate your use of "violent" video games, movies, and music. After all, if the argument is that the solution to gun violence is to identify people likely to misuse firearms (but not to restrict access to firearms in any way) then surely we need to provide law enforcement with tools with which to do that? Don If the FBI and local authorities had done their due diligence and investigated the kid in the Florida school shooting in the months leading up to it, and there were clear signs and warnings, this tragedy could have been prevented. This is what I meant by better enforcement.Possibly so, in that one instance. What about most of the other dozens of school shooters? Or the Las Vegas shooter? Most people don't telegraph their intent, to pick up on it you'd have to be watching all the time. In point of fact, kids will say all kinds of shit to get attention or to act out. Are you going to imprison every kid who makes an inappropriate comment that might be taken as a threat? If so, for how long? Life in prison for the bullied kid who says "I hope you die" to his tormentor? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Eloquently put. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

So you agree with me that there are already laws restricting gun ownership and penalties for misuse which need enforcement and that simply creating more restriction on the rest of us will not prevent another mass shooting tragedy?Would you agree to a law that says that anyone can purchase an AR-15 or other "assault" weapon, but in exchange law enforcement can monitor all your communications, you have to provide the government with all passwords and agree to un-encrypt anything they ask for, and you agree to share your medical history? Also, you will have to agree to have the government regulate your use of "violent" video games, movies, and music. After all, if the argument is that the solution to gun violence is to identify people likely to misuse firearms (but not to restrict access to firearms in any way) then surely we need to provide law enforcement with tools with which to do that? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Curious that the founding fathers felt it important to include all those words about a "well-regulated militia", which the "modern" interpretation of the 2nd completely discounts. They might as well have written "Beer being proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. On the other hand, perhaps the right to keep and bear arms is properly viewed through the lens of participation in a well-regulated militia, as the 2nd was interpreted for most of this country's history. At any rate I'm pretty sure the Founding Fathers were not thinking "Notwithstanding the deaths of thousands of innocent people every year (sucks to be them!), the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I wonder if the Mango Mussolini ever regrets his hubris at running for the presidency? Had he remained a private citizen his wealth could have allowed him to mock the law forever. As president, all (or much) of his dirty laundry is bound to come out. Certainly it's true that he would have been best off had he simply lost; he could have cashed in on being the aggrieved victim of a rigged system while keeping all his dirt under the rug. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

The payoff to Ms Daniels was very likely an illegal campaign contribution, if it was done in order to keep Ms Daniels from blabbing during the campaign, as seems certain. If Trump knew about it and failed to disclose it or covered it up, that is also a felony. Clinton was impeached not for getting blowjobs from Monica Lewinsky, but for lying about it under oath in a deposition. Trump and his lawyers are in legal trouble, not for his dalliances with a silicone MILF, but for violations of campaign finance law. Trump may well also be in some trouble at home as well; Melania does not look very happy these days (although she's always looked pretty much pissed off, it seems to me), but that is not the basis for his legal problem. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I also thought that would invalidate the contract. However there is a clip on CNN in which Mouth of Sauron II (Trump's former divorce attorney) explains that it doesn't matter, when Stormy Daniels took the $130,000 she accepted the contract as is. Apparently there is a large amount of case law that says you can't have it both ways, taking the money and claiming the contract isn't valid. Only thing I know for sure is the lawyers will make a ton of money off this, and if the objective was to sweep Mango Mussolini's indiscretions under the carpet they have failed spectacularly. I doubt it will make the slightest difference to his "true believers", but at least I have hope that Cohen will be convicted of a felony (illegal campaign donation) and lose his licence to use the law to beat up on non-rich people. Don I watched the same interview. BUT normally a contract is between two, or more parties. Each party is usually identified by name, address and contact numbers. Such that each party to a contract is easily identified. Acceptance of consideration is one argument to fulfillment of a contract. Concealing the identity of contracting parties is a factor to deny that one even exists. In addition the courts won't enforce either unlawful contracts, or ones specifically crafted to violate the law.Sure. My point was just that this is something that will be litigated in court, and the outcome is not as much of a foregone conclusion as I would have thought. If Stormy Daniels loses it'll get ugly for her. The contract stipulates that she'll have to return the $130,000, pay a $1,000,000 penalty for each disclosure, and Trump gets every dime of anything she earns from book sales, TV appearances, etc. Typical Trump, he's been using his lawyers to bully people his whole life. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I also thought that would invalidate the contract. However there is a clip on CNN in which Mouth of Sauron II (Trump's former divorce attorney) explains that it doesn't matter, when Stormy Daniels took the $130,000 she accepted the contract as is. Apparently there is a large amount of case law that says you can't have it both ways, taking the money and claiming the contract isn't valid. Only thing I know for sure is the lawyers will make a ton of money off this, and if the objective was to sweep Mango Mussolini's indiscretions under the carpet they have failed spectacularly. I doubt it will make the slightest difference to his "true believers", but at least I have hope that Cohen will be convicted of a felony (illegal campaign donation) and lose his licence to use the law to beat up on non-rich people. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I didn't take Dan's comment as "pro-gun", I though it was just pointing out a legitimate unintended consequence. One would not want the batterer finding out that his victim is planning to buy a gun for her protection, and then grant him the power to deny her access to that protection. It doesn't mean the idea is without merit (he did say it was "interesting") but it might need some tweaking, as all ideas do to contend with real-world complications. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I remember a couple of such incidents as well. To be clear, I am not completely opposed to allowing well trained teachers who volunteer for the responsibility to carry in the classroom. I imagine a small proportion of the people who end up working in schools might have a suitable background. I just don't want it to become the ONLY response to the problem, and it seems to me that is what I am hearing from some quarters. I think it won't be very effective, and it will likely detract from other less "macho" responses, such as better counselling and psychological/psychiatric services within the school system that can also help with suicide prevention and other issues. Also I don't want it become another one of those "side" things that you have to be willing to do to get a teaching job. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Well I for one thought your response and questions were quite reasonable. My daughter has had the experience of being assaulted in the classroom, though that is rare. On one occasion a student struck her with a chair. It's never been a targeted attack directed at her, more a matter of a student "exploding" over something in class and she gets in the way trying to get the student to settle down. There is a lot of variation between schools and classes. Physically unruly students were not unusual when she taught CP (college prep, basically the lowest academic level) classes, which is where new teachers cut their teeth, but she has since been promoted to teaching AP and ACP classes (more academically challenging) where the students tend to be more engaged and less inclined to make trouble. Regarding my question about teachers confronting a heavily armed shooter, I didn't mean to imply the teacher should go out and look for trouble. Of course they should barricade the door and stay with their students**. I suppose a shot or two as the shooter is trying to get in the classroom would encourage him to skip that room. The reality is, though, that teachers and students drill this enough that (in the last several incidents anyway) almost all the damage is done in the first classroom or two, where the shooter has the element of surprise. After that doors are locked, students are hidden in cupboards and closets, and targets become much harder for the shooter to find. So if arming teachers is to make a big difference in the casualty count, he would have to be confronted with armed resistance in the first few seconds of the attack, as he enters the first classroom. That essentially is asking the teacher to be able to switch gears from teaching, say, economics, evaluate the situation, draw their weapon and fire accurately, all in the time it takes the shooter to open a door, step into the room and pull the trigger. Basically they would have to have the skill set of the hero gunslinger in an old fashioned Western, plus be able to teach economics (or biology, or whatever) all day and coach swimming or soccer or whatever all evening. I guess in addition to grading essays and making the next weeks lesson plans on the weekend, and putting in a few hours coaching, they could add in a few hours on the shooting range and practicing simulations of attacks. I do think the teachers who work with these students every day are in a better position than almost anyone to notice behavior changes that might signal danger. I think there is a problem translating that awareness that "something seems not quite right" into constructive action. The student should be very gently questioned about how they are doing, in a non-confrontational atmosphere, and if they are having problems some constructive non-judgmental interventions should be attempted, in collaboration with the parents of course unless the patent(s) are the source of the problem. With the right approach this could circumvent not only at least some school shootings, which are actually rare events, but also much more common tragedies including suicides (which claim many more lives than school shootings do) and dropping out (which might not kill, but it compromises the student's life long term). Basically, schools need to have the resources to treat students as people, not as inmates or "products". **By the way, that teacher who has been criticized in the press in the last couple of days for locking the classroom door and leaving students in the hallway was just doing what they are trained to do. When someone is pounding on the door and shouting "let me in" the teacher has no way of knowing who is at the door. If they open the door to the shooter it's likely that everyone in the classroom will be killed. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I agree with everything you suggested. However I'd point out that, when dealing with public health issues, we can do things like predict the level of risk within a population. We can also identify risk factors and as, to the extent that you can associate those risk factors with individuals, identify individuals who may be at increased risk. We cannot say with any degree of certainty exactly who is going to get disease X within the next 30 days, for example. Even if we can identify individuals with elevated risk, there are limits on what we can legally do about it. We can't force people to accept medical/psychiatric treatment, even if they have an obvious mental illness, not to mention most school shooters are not mentally ill in a medical sense. Improving schools should be a no-brainer, but in the current political climate we seem to be moving in the other direction. Education, like health care, is seen as a privilege and the less well off (unable to afford private school tuition) should just accept whatever crumbs happen to fall from the table. Something that could help, and be done relatively quickly, is to train teachers to better identify at-risk students, and also to develop more effective (and stigma-free) interventions. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

My youngest daughter is a high school teacher. She had some comments on arming teachers: 1. The "kids" in the classroom know everything. You can't hide anything in the classroom without everyone in the class knowing about it withing a couple of days. Where are you going to possibly hide a loaded weapon where no student will be able to get at it, but you can in seconds if need be? Is the teacher responsible if some student gets their hands on the gun? 2. Perhaps you decide to keep the firearm on your person (concealed carry). Now you may become a target of a disgruntled student; they don't have to bring a firearm to the school, they just get their hands on one that is already there. Is a teacher responsible if a student overpowers her and takes her gun? My daughter is about 5 1/2 feet tall, and has many male students in her classes who are well over 6 feet and outweigh her by 50 pounds or more. Does she also need to earn a black belt in some martial art to protect herself against having the gun taken by force? Should she never allow a student to get behind her lest she be knocked down or clobbered with a chair? Just having a gun on her, and the need to protect that weapon, will inevitably change her interaction with her students. 3. Is it realistic to expect someone with a small caliber concealed handgun to take out a much more heavily armed gunman who also has the element of surprise in his favor? 4. Will the teacher be liable if they shoot a cop, a student, or anyone else, mistaking them for the shooter? 5. Will being willing to play such a role become another one of those "extras" that turn out to be all but required to get a teaching job? When my daughter was first looking for a teaching job, she lost out on 3 or 4 jobs because another less qualified applicant (my daughter had 2 degrees vs their 1) had played some sport in high school or college and could volunteer to coach. Will teachers willing to carry in the classroom gain an advantage in the hiring process? If you aren't willing to do so, will that make you unemployable, even though it's not in the job description? I'm curious what you think. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

This comment refers to a story that is actually a lie created and propagated by the father of the student in question, who now admits (but only after being confronted with the actual email correspondence with CNN) that he altered CNN's email to change the meaning. The actual sequence of events was as follows: 1. CNN invites students to submit their own questions for the town hall meeting. 2. Student submits several questions. 3. CNN asks him to choose just one so other students would also have time to ask their question. 4. Student and CNN agree on one question and a short statement. 5. Student's father emails CNN producers with a 700 word speech, several questions, and a concluding statement. 6. CNN emails back and asks the student to stick to the one question he had agreed to. The email includes that question. 7. Father edits CNNs response, altering the response to make it look as if CNN wrote the question and is feeding it to the student. 8. Father releases the altered email to the press to make it look as if the town hall meeting was staged by CNN to push an agenda. To my mind, it doesn't get more duplicitous than that. If people believe their cause is right (father is a pro-gun Republican) why do they feel it is necessary to lie and make up "alternative facts" to convince others of their cause? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Looks to me like you are behind the times: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-says-he-would-have-run-florida-school-n851266 Yes, I do know that this belongs in the JOKE OF THE DAY thread. Jerry Baumchen Cadet Walter "Bonespurs" Mitty to the rescue! Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

That's a surprisingly hearty nothingburger! Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Any thoughts on requiring basic safety/proficiency/"know the law" training (along the lines of the firearms licence in Canada)? If we stick with the proposition that anyone who is not a convicted felon or adjudicated insane by a court can obtain almost any type of weapon at will (maybe not full automatic, but you can buy devices that allow semiautomatic weapons to function similarly to full auto) without any demonstrated capacity to use those weapons in a safe manner, then nothing will change. We will be having this same discussion in a couple of months at best, if anyone has the energy or time to waste. On the "mental health" side, who is going to decide whether or not some instagram or facebook post is sufficient to judge someone "mentally ill" and remove their 2nd amendment rights? What sort of due process would these people have? Kids do say all sorts of crap, very few actually mean anything by it. Do we want a system where you can be permanently disbarred from owning firearms, kicked out of school, maybe even be locked up for psychiatric evaluation based on an anonymous "tip" that you said something (whether or not you actually did)? There are no easy choices here. Strongly pro-2nd amendment folks say it's all a mental health issue, where people are acting crazy because they watch the wrong movies, play the wrong video games, don't have enough God in their lives, have liberal parents, etc. How does that help us to reduce school shootings? Should the government censor movies and video games, force us to go to church (and of course the right kind of Government Approved (TM) church), take kids from homes where the parents aren't conservative Republicans? How much of our 1st amendment rights do we want to give up to protect an absolutist stance on the 2nd? How much do we want (or can we) restrict the 2nd to keep guns away from people who are unable to manage their anger, or who are so paranoid they see threats where none exist? Back a few years ago Lawrocket used to eloquently present the libertarian perspective (I miss his contributions, though I often disagreed with him). If I recall correctly, that perspective was that any form of "prior restraint" (trying to prevent crimes before they occurred by punishing or limiting behavior/speech that might lead to the crime) would be completely unacceptable. Freedom is maximized when people are free to choose to do whatever they want, though of course they have to bear the consequences afterward. That perspective is very common, but unfortunately it leaves us in a place where nothing can be done before the fact, so all we can do is bury the dead and wash away the blood afterwards. Such is the cost of "freedom". Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Yes. However until American society becomes more like Canadian or European society, something will have to be done to keep firearms out of the hands of not only criminals and the insane, but also angry people who blame others for their failures and have poor impulse control. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

How so? He has been married to only one woman, and has never been accused of straying from that marriage. Your preferred leader is on his third marriage, has had adulterous affairs to which he has admitted (such as with his eventual second wife while still married to his first) and many others that have been credibly alleged. He brags about being able to assault women and get away with it. By what "logic" does the faithful husband betray the sanctity of marriage while the philanderer does not? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Whenever I hear the "guns are just an inanimate object, they don't affect people's behavior" argument, it occurs to me that you don't need a parachute to skydive, people have landed in a box rig or giant net. How many people would keep on skydiving if they had to count on landing in a pile of empty boxes every time? It seems obvious to me that the availability of an appropriate tool (a parachute) absolutely has an effect on people's behavior. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I'm fairly confident in saying the rate of mass shootings would remain much lower than in the US. It seems to me that most mass shootings involve use of semiautomatic rifles, commonly the so-called "assault rifles" such as the AR-15 (as one example). Canadian gun laws are very restrictive concerning handguns, any kind of rifle with a shortened barrel, fully automatic weapons, and military style semiautomatic rifles (so-called "assault rifles"). However it is easy to purchase semi-automatic hunting rifles, which are functionally the same as "assault rifles". There have been a few school shootings in Canada (though many fewer than in the US, even accounting for population), where the perpetrator used a hunting rifle such as a Ruger Mini-14 and a Beretta Cx4 Storm (link). These weapons are not banned because they are widely used in hunting, which is very popular in Canada. I believe high capacity magazines are banned though. One other thing that is different in Canada is that you have to pass a firearms safety course and be licensed in order to purchase a firearm such as a hunting rifle. There used to be a firearms registry but this was expensive and never helped to solve any crimes so it was abandoned in 2012 (except in Quebec I think). I think a licensing process could help in the US, as long as it wasn't used as an excuse to effectively ban firearm ownership, such as by never offering the safety course so no-one could get a license. I also do not think this would necessarily be a violation of the 2nd amendment, as long as the license is readily available to anyone who isn't already disqualified from gun ownership. After all, voting is a constitutional right and I had to register and prove eligibility (US citizen, live in the jurisdiction, not a felon) and I have to show ID when I get to the polling station. No-one expects to be able to walk into any polling station and vote without being registered and with no requirement to prove you are who you say you are, yet they expect to be able to buy any manner of firearm no questions asked (at least in the case of a private sale). This suggests that we have to look for other factors to explain much of the difference between Canada and the US. I mentioned some things I think might be significant in my other post. However I don't think this helps all that much when thinking about how to reduce violence involving the use of guns in the US. Overwhelmingly, Canadians who own firearms do so because they are hunters. In contrast, most Americans who own firearms never use them for hunting (I know some do of course), but rather they own them for protection. Americans are more frightened of their fellow citizens than their northern neighbors are. When I lived in Canada I would often not bother to lock the door to my house (though I am told things have changed in the big cities and this might not be wise any more). Fear feeds on itself, and we have lots of entities in the US (such as the NRA and certain political parties) that capitalize on that fear, exploiting it to their own advantage. The use of force to achieve ends is also more acceptable in the US (everybody identified with the "strong manly characters" in John Wayne movies for example). How do you go about changing the culture to the point where people no longer believe that they have to own guns because the world is full of evil people who want to do them harm? How long will that take, do you think? How long before mental health care is available to anyone who needs it, when they need it, regardless of ability to pay? In the meantime, what is to be done? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

This quote nicely illustrates the corrosive effect of the NRA on American society. You should be frightened of your neighbor. You should be frightened of your coworkers. You should be frightened of everybody. You're all alone, no one will come to your aid, and the whole world is out to get you. Never sit with your back to the door, and never leave the house unless you can out-gun anyone you may encounter. Buy more guns! Buy them now! And then the gun manufacturers hand them a nice "donation". Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)