Happy Birthday!! 4 dead, 20+ injured in ‘Bama.

[bilby]

He doesn’t realize that his good, well intended advice is tantamount to asking Trump, Murdoch and the other beneficiaries of RW ignorance to shoot themselves in the head.

That would certainly be another good step towards an effective solution.

 

[Gun Nut]

At the very least, I wish there was a requirement to take a gun safety course before one could legally own a gun.

I am surprised (though perhaps I should not be) that such an eminently sensible requirement is not done.

Even in states that do require such training, the framework is poor. In Colorado, the law around training requirements for concealed carry (the only way one can legally carry in Denver - no open carry in the city), is such that you must show up in person to a class, and the class must cover some specific topics.
I took this class from a non-profit organization that provided it for free (normally, it costs between $100 and $200). After the first 3 minutes of the 2 or 3 hour class the instructor said, "... and that concludes the minimum requirements for receiving your class certificate. This class is donation-based, but if you want to take your certificate and leave now, it will be $200. Otherwise, the next few hours will actually prepare you to safely and legally carry a firearm and I invite you stay to the end to receive your certificate on a voluntary donation basis."
Everyone stayed. But unfortunately, not everyone that has a gun in the US has had such good influencers and training.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Ohio legalized conceal carry and not much changed. I think the trouble we are seeing these days is that right-wing media is just riling their consumers into a frenzy, normalizing a bizarre sense of paranoia. Blacks wanna kill you. And we see these fringe gun shootings where people are just reacting to nothing as if it were a life threatening situation. And in America, we allow this riling up and allow people that become unhinged over it... to own guns.

 

[Derec]

I think the trouble we are seeing these days is that right-wing media is just riling their consumers into a frenzy, normalizing a bizarre sense of paranoia. Blacks wanna kill you.

And the left-wing, mainstream media is riling their consumer into a similar sense of paranoia. Except it's "whites/police wanna kill you". The case of a black 16 year old shot by an old white man got orders of magnitude more media coverage then the case of a white 6 year old kid and her family shot by a black neighbor.

 

[ZiprHead]

I think the trouble we are seeing these days is that right-wing media is just riling their consumers into a frenzy, normalizing a bizarre sense of paranoia. Blacks wanna kill you.

And the left-wing, mainstream media is riling their consumer into a similar sense of paranoia. Except it's "whites/police wanna kill you". The case of a black 16 year old shot by an old white man got orders of magnitude more media coverage then the case of a white 6 year old kid and her family shot by a black neighbor.

The second case have been reported on quite often today on CNN.

 

[laughing dog]

I think the trouble we are seeing these days is that right-wing media is just riling their consumers into a frenzy, normalizing a bizarre sense of paranoia. Blacks wanna kill you.

And the left-wing, mainstream media is riling their consumer into a similar sense of paranoia. Except it's "whites/police wanna kill you". The case of a black 16 year old shot by an old white man got orders of magnitude more media coverage then the case of a white 6 year old kid and her family shot by a black neighbor.

Prove your claim.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I can only conclude that Americans do not really want gun control. It is just virtue signalling.

Your conclusion is based on your unwillingness to consider the truth; Americans want gun control, but a minority party, through aggressive gerrymandering, is in control of one of our houses of Congress, and that party is beholden to the 40% of their members who get their money from (Russia, via) the NRA.

There's also the issue that it's driven by the extremes, not the middle.

That’s what I said.

We saw that locally--universal background checks polled 90%+, voted 50%+a hair because the ballot measure was done by extremists.

Sounds extreme but sadly, there’s little reason to disbelieve it.

The basic problem was they went too far in defining what was a transfer that required a background check. It's possible that some people voted against it due to it's fundamental flaw but that didn't get a lot of publicity. (It mandated a FBI background check. The FBI told us to pound sand, they weren't going to set up a separate system when the existing system--the background check goes through the state, the state checks the federal data--was superior.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As far as gerrymandering, what constitutes fair districting anyway? It may be easy to spot egregious gerrymandering, but how do you select best map among myriad of possible maps that are not overtly gerrymandered? There is no one best solution. I think the best solution is to just get rid of districts altogether and have proportional representation. That would also allow minor parties to be represented without them acting as spoilers.

We do know how to create non-gerrymandered electorates.
1. Electorates based solely upon population i.e. each electorate has N voters +/- %N. Don't base the number or boundaries upon age, colour, creed, previous voting or any other such category.
2. Regularly review the electorates' boundaries. I think you Yanks do it every 10 years after your census. If so, that is too far apart. Make it, say, 5 years to more accurate reflect population changes. We do it every 3-4 years after each state or Commonwealth election.
3. An independent electoral commission. Do not let pollies or political parties draw the boundaries. The only criteria for the boundaries is population. (This is the one you probably cannot manage).
4. Standardise counting and ballot marking procedures. Having paper, electronic systems, (bloody) chads intermixed is a recipe for trouble.
4. Get more people to vote. Your voting rates are abysmal.

How do you ensure they are independent?

My approach:

1) Divide up the terrain into a bunch of small blocks. Typically these would be bounded by major streets, terrain obstacles (say, rivers) and uninhabited areas (no voters, not necessarily empty. Commercial and industrial areas often have no residents.) This is done by published formulas. There are minimum and maximum sizes that may cause districts to cross barriers (minimize the resulting perimeter) or subdivide (high rises can have a lot of people, major streets might be too coarse.)

2) The law defines a maximum permitted population variance between districts, although if this causes no solution the limit can be raised until there is a solution. District boundaries must follow the chunks defined in step #1, solve for the arrangement that produces the minimum perimeter.

3) An incumbent remains eligible for their office even if redistricting moves them out of it--remove the current issue that politicians will fight tooth and nail against anything that moves them out of their district.

The laws are constitionally forbidden from being changed between the census and the redistricting--you can't tweak them to favor one party or the other.

The whole thing is mathematical, anyone can check that it's the best solution. There's no way to be unfair.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

At the very least, I wish there was a requirement to take a gun safety course before one could legally own a gun.

I am surprised (though perhaps I should not be) that such an eminently sensible requirement is not done.

Even in states that do require such training, the framework is poor. In Colorado, the law around training requirements for concealed carry (the only way one can legally carry in Denver - no open carry in the city), is such that you must show up in person to a class, and the class must cover some specific topics.
I took this class from a non-profit organization that provided it for free (normally, it costs between $100 and $200). After the first 3 minutes of the 2 or 3 hour class the instructor said, "... and that concludes the minimum requirements for receiving your class certificate. This class is donation-based, but if you want to take your certificate and leave now, it will be $200. Otherwise, the next few hours will actually prepare you to safely and legally carry a firearm and I invite you stay to the end to receive your certificate on a voluntary donation basis."
Everyone stayed. But unfortunately, not everyone that has a gun in the US has had such good influencers and training.

I have a dislike for required training rather than required knowledge (think DMV--they don't care how you learned how to drive, merely that you know the law and show you can handle a car) but I definitely agree learning in some form should be required. And I'm appalled that the state mandates were so trivial they could be covered in a few minutes. Here the required class is 8 hours.

 

[RVonse]

If God had meant for us to have guns, we would have been born with them.

You've left an obvious opening for a joke there, but under the circumstances I'm not in the mood for jest.

When will Americans tire of this?

We both agree there is problem to be addressed the question is how. You want to blanket curtail freedoms for the whole population because of the deviant few. I would rather solve the root source of the issue, suicidal people who do not value their lives or others.

And your suggestion on how to do this is what?

In this order:

1) Strengthen unions where ever possible to increase wages of labor. Especially manual labor that men do.
2) Strengthen the traditional family unit, make it possible and practical to raise middle class families again. Decrease the welfare state.
3) Tone down the white male bashing for a bit. Females are plenty empowered now, this is not the 1900's anymore.
4) Provide government assistance to science to determine toxicity of the environment in order to understand why men are losing fertility and more and more turning into girls. Pass more regulation against plastic bottles and pesticides. Figure out why sperm counts are now 50% lower than they were in 1960 and still in decline. The Romans killed themselves with lead pipes and we are killing ourselves with plastic bottles.
5) Make it politically acceptable to be able to talk about science as it relates to the 2 genders. How evolution gave us male and female and that other half sexes do not make the population more fit. We do not have to bash transsexuals but science can not prefer a half biological gender "it" for the population in general. We can not fix our environment unless we can admit there is a problem with increasingly more half genders that should not be the standard.

There are far too many incels running around today and far too many young men who are involuntarily not getting layed. That is a recipe for extreme violence throughout the population, whether or not there is a 2nd amendment. In pre nuclear days a conventional war would resolve most of this. We do not have that option today. But what I do believe is that taking away the 2nd amendment and feminizing men is not the right solution either for the US or humanity. Because even with high testosterone most men were not violent in the 1960's because they were able to participate in a life worth living.

 

[ZiprHead]

Because even with high testosterone most men were not violent in the 1960's because they were able to participate in a life worth living.

Crime was much higher in the sixties through the mid-nineties than it is today.

 

[bilby]

If God had meant for us to have guns, we would have been born with them.

You've left an obvious opening for a joke there, but under the circumstances I'm not in the mood for jest.

When will Americans tire of this?

We both agree there is problem to be addressed the question is how. You want to blanket curtail freedoms for the whole population because of the deviant few. I would rather solve the root source of the issue, suicidal people who do not value their lives or others.

And your suggestion on how to do this is what?

In this order:

1) Strengthen unions where ever possible to increase wages of labor. Especially manual labor that men do.
2) Strengthen the traditional family unit, make it possible and practical to raise middle class families again. Decrease the welfare state.
3) Tone down the white male bashing for a bit. Females are plenty empowered now, this is not the 1900's anymore.
4) Provide government assistance to science to determine toxicity of the environment in order to understand why men are losing fertility and more and more turning into girls. Pass more regulation against plastic bottles and pesticides. Figure out why sperm counts are now 50% lower than they were in 1960 and still in decline. The Romans killed themselves with lead pipes and we are killing ourselves with plastic bottles.
5) Make it politically acceptable to be able to talk about science as it relates to the 2 genders. How evolution gave us male and female and that other half sexes do not make the population more fit. We do not have to bash transsexuals but science can not prefer a half biological gender "it" for the population in general. We can not fix our environment unless we can admit there is a problem with increasingly more half genders that should not be the standard.

There are far too many incels running around today and far too many young men who are involuntarily not getting layed. That is a recipe for extreme violence throughout the population, whether or not there is a 2nd amendment. In pre nuclear days a conventional war would resolve most of this. We do not have that option today. But what I do believe is that taking away the 2nd amendment and feminizing men is not the right solution either for the US or humanity. Because even with high testosterone most men were not violent in the 1960's because they were able to participate in a life worth living.

Every single element of this plan is based on at least one false assumption about reality.

The first step in formulating a plan to improve anything is to understand what is currently happening; You very obviously don't have that understanding, and are trying to solve nonexistent or utterly trivial problems.

What you are terrified might be happening is NOT the same as what is actually happening; And the people who are scaring you into thinking that they are do not have your best interests at heart.

Stop trusting people who are trying to anger and frighten you, and stop believing things without checking them first.

 

[James Brown]

Because even with high testosterone most men were not violent in the 1960's because they were able to participate in a life worth living.

Crime was much higher in the sixties through the mid-nineties than it is today.

Lead: America’s Real Criminal Element​

 

[Loren Pechtel]

1) Strengthen unions where ever possible to increase wages of labor. Especially manual labor that men do.

This will increase the rate that they find themselves replaced with machinery.

2) Strengthen the traditional family unit, make it possible and practical to raise middle class families again. Decrease the welfare state.

You're looking at a "golden" age where most of the rest of the world's industrial capacity was smashed, allowing a standard of living well above what could be sustained. The burden was being transferred to non-whites and foreigners.

3) Tone down the white male bashing for a bit. Females are plenty empowered now, this is not the 1900's anymore.

Agreed.

4) Provide government assistance to science to determine toxicity of the environment in order to understand why men are losing fertility and more and more turning into girls. Pass more regulation against plastic bottles and pesticides. Figure out why sperm counts are now 50% lower than they were in 1960 and still in decline. The Romans killed themselves with lead pipes and we are killing ourselves with plastic bottles.

And what is your evidence that it's plastic bottles?

5) Make it politically acceptable to be able to talk about science as it relates to the 2 genders. How evolution gave us male and female and that other half sexes do not make the population more fit. We do not have to bash transsexuals but science can not prefer a half biological gender "it" for the population in general. We can not fix our environment unless we can admit there is a problem with increasingly more half genders that should not be the standard.

In other words, encourage hate. No thanks.

There are far too many incels running around today and far too many young men who are involuntarily not getting layed. That is a recipe for extreme violence throughout the population, whether or not there is a 2nd amendment. In pre nuclear days a conventional war would resolve most of this. We do not have that option today. But what I do believe is that taking away the 2nd amendment and feminizing men is not the right solution either for the US or humanity. Because even with high testosterone most men were not violent in the 1960's because they were able to participate in a life worth living.

I think the main issue with the incels is the internet.

1) Dating--as dating moves online the dating pool grows much larger. People see lots of prospects out there and end up not being willing to settle for what they actually can get. This makes the less desirable people end up with little hope of ever finding someone. In the old days the less desirable people would see the dating pool shrinking and would settle for someone of equal desirability. Now the pool is effectively infinite, they keep trying.

2) The internet has brought the incels together and turned some of them into a hate group. There are far more forever-alone people than Incel people.

Media coverage of violence is way up but actual violence is way down.

 

[Patooka]

In this order:

1) Strengthen unions where ever possible to increase wages of labor. Especially manual labor that men do.
2) Strengthen the traditional family unit, make it possible and practical to raise middle class families again. Decrease the welfare state.
3) Tone down the white male bashing for a bit. Females are plenty empowered now, this is not the 1900's anymore.
4) Provide government assistance to science to determine toxicity of the environment in order to understand why men are losing fertility and more and more turning into girls. Pass more regulation against plastic bottles and pesticides. Figure out why sperm counts are now 50% lower than they were in 1960 and still in decline. The Romans killed themselves with lead pipes and we are killing ourselves with plastic bottles.
5) Make it politically acceptable to be able to talk about science as it relates to the 2 genders. How evolution gave us male and female and that other half sexes do not make the population more fit. We do not have to bash transsexuals but science can not prefer a half biological gender "it" for the population in general. We can not fix our environment unless we can admit there is a problem with increasingly more half genders that should not be the standard.

There are far too many incels running around today and far too many young men who are involuntarily not getting layed. That is a recipe for extreme violence throughout the population, whether or not there is a 2nd amendment. In pre nuclear days a conventional war would resolve most of this. We do not have that option today. But what I do believe is that taking away the 2nd amendment and feminizing men is not the right solution either for the US or humanity. Because even with high testosterone most men were not violent in the 1960's because they were able to participate in a life worth living.

I bet you a million dollars I can guess which interview you just watched before you spewed this out on your keyboard.

 

[RVonse]

Because even with high testosterone most men were not violent in the 1960's because they were able to participate in a life worth living.

Crime was much higher in the sixties through the mid-nineties than it is today.

Then how come there wasn't a big push for more gun laws in the 1960's? People were just stupid back then with their love and adoration of the 2nd amendment?

 

[RVonse]

1) Strengthen unions where ever possible to increase wages of labor. Especially manual labor that men do.

This will increase the rate that they find themselves replaced with machinery.

That is perfectly fine. All we are looking for is increased value added productivity for the middle class. More machinery not only helps with that but gains with other high wage maintenance (male dominated) jobs as well.

 

[Rhea]

Environmental chemical derail split to

Split - Effect of chemicals on public health (was ‘Bama 4 dead)

And what is your evidence that it's plastic bottles? Shanna H. Swan, Ph.D., is one of the world’s leading environmental and reproductive epidemiologists and a professor of environmental medicine and public health at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City. An...

iidb.org

 

[Tigers!]

As far as gerrymandering, what constitutes fair districting anyway? It may be easy to spot egregious gerrymandering, but how do you select best map among myriad of possible maps that are not overtly gerrymandered? There is no one best solution. I think the best solution is to just get rid of districts altogether and have proportional representation. That would also allow minor parties to be represented without them acting as spoilers.

We do know how to create non-gerrymandered electorates.
1. Electorates based solely upon population i.e. each electorate has N voters +/- %N. Don't base the number or boundaries upon age, colour, creed, previous voting or any other such category.
2. Regularly review the electorates' boundaries. I think you Yanks do it every 10 years after your census. If so, that is too far apart. Make it, say, 5 years to more accurate reflect population changes. We do it every 3-4 years after each state or Commonwealth election.
3. An independent electoral commission. Do not let pollies or political parties draw the boundaries. The only criteria for the boundaries is population. (This is the one you probably cannot manage).
4. Standardise counting and ballot marking procedures. Having paper, electronic systems, (bloody) chads intermixed is a recipe for trouble.
4. Get more people to vote. Your voting rates are abysmal.

Yes thanks. We know how to do it, one party in general has no interest in doing it.

Continuing on with your conclusion that only one party is interested in doing electoral reform.
Surely amongst the 50 states there is a democrat controlled state where the solution above or similar could be implemented?
You have the chance to have a controlled experiment amongst voting schema.
The various types could be compared and it should be obvious which one is superior/better.

 

[TomC]

Surely amongst the 50 states there is a democrat controlled state where the solution above or similar could be implemented?

Here's another reason non-Americans don't get what goes on here.

The USA doesn't actually have states any more. Haven't for most of a century. We have provinces, like most modern countries.
States are sovereign entities, we had those a couple of centuries ago. The original United States were much more States than United though. This problem came to a head in the mid 19th century, when some states decided to leave the union once the threat of the British ended.

This kerfluffle is sometimes referred to as the "Civil War", although it wasn't one. Sometimes as the "War of Northern Aggression". The Yankees did win so they wrote the history books.

Now, there aren't really any states, there're just legislatures that use the term "state" when it's politically convenient and "America" when that's more convenient for their purposes. It's hard to explain.
Tom