Gun violence and constitutional rights

Here is a list of major shootings in the US.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/breakingnews/factbox-major-shootings-in-the-united...

This listing seemed too short for some reason. It seems that there is a new shooting each week, and that rate is accelerating.

Several topics are discussing this. I would like to discuss what can be done - constitutional amendment, state laws, federal laws, new court rulings.

President Obama is calling, again, for bipartisan effort to address these shootings.

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-calls-bipartisan-effort-address-shootings-221928854....

What measures might address the shootings? There are already a good many guns.

And it is not just the mass shootings that are running up the death totals.

And it is not just civilian shooters either.

Of that list of 18 shootings 5, 6 if you count San Bernandino, happened in 2015. That's almost a third, which implies the rate is, indeed, accelerating.

The question I have for the gun lovers is when will it happen? When will the prevalence of firearms serve to lower the rate of violence? The U.S. has some of the most permissive gun laws in the industrialized world, and yet the rate of violent crime, especially murder, is higher than that of almost every comparable country. We have more guns in private hands per capita than any other nation - more than twice as many as the gun-lover's favorite country Switzerland, and yet we seem no closer to the peaceful gun utopia that all the gun advocates seem to think is just around the corner. That number, by the way, is 112 guns per hundred residents of the U.S. Do we need 200 guns per 100 residents? Will that usher in an era of peace?

Because it really doesn't seem to be working. The U.S. has had more than 350 mass shootings in 2015 alone. The homicide rate in the U.S. is four to five times as high as that of France, Portugal, Austria, New Zealand, Sweden, and pretty much every other industrialized nation. So when do all these guns that we have start protecting us? Tell me when that will happen, because they aren't doing it now.

StormRaven,

I had hoped you might comment.

What law changes might help?

What of the existing arsenal?

President Obama wants a bipartisan effort to curb gun violence? What measures are available to that effort?

At least in this latest in San Bernardino---it doesn't appear to be some loner's pathology playing out in public. This one in particular at least looks to me to be worthy of differentiation from most of these acting out instances of gun violence. I don't know why a small group of people would set their sights on a building of people with developmental disabilities and those who work with them but I'm kind of wondering if this is a cell of people operating at the behest of an overseas terrorist organization. Maybe I'm wrong but three people usually don't get together to do shit like this. I strongly suspect that there is something more unusual going on here.

>5 lriley: It also seems (for an outsider like me, I live in Denmark) to be rather easy for people to get large numbers of guns and ammo without attracting attention. While I'm quite sure you can buy an illegal gun in say Copenhagen, I also think that trying to buy much more than that would be risky business.
Selling an illegal gun to someone who probably won't use it in anything less than an emergency is one thing. Selling an illegal gun that you suspect will be used in a mass shooting the next day is another.

But as you say the San Barnardino shooting is probably really weird. Let's see if the police can uncover wtf was going on.

Maybe, Californians' anger will result in action this time...eventually...

"...on Twitter, full-on prayer shaming set in: Anger about the shooting was turned not toward the perpetrator or perpetrators, whose identities are still unknown, but at those (politicians) who offered their prayers (rather than action)."

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/prayer-gun-control-mass-shoo...

>4 richardbsmith:
Just get rid of the fucking guns ! If you live in the boonies and need a gun for survival apply for a special permit. Very few people NEED a gun......most owners WANT one and clearly far too many individuals can not handle the freedom of owning a weapon. Too many are dying.

It is not hard.......the concept is simple.....the lives of those who prefer living in a free society over those who would rather roam about ruling through fear and intimidation should have precedence, if not the whole idea of this country is a sham.

This is beyond sickening.......there are no laws that will stop this now except NO FUCKING WEAPONS. Good guy bad guy mental guy weird guy.....no guns. It has become a black or white situation.......thanks to the NRA and those who felt that anything short of complete chaos was an infringement on their right to do as they please.

Are we then suggesting that government search all persons and homes and businesses to confiscate guns?

Create a prohibition era for guns?

Are the guns stored, destroyed, provided to the police and military?

How easily will this prohibition and confiscation be passed and executed?

>9 richardbsmith:
Extreme problems call for extreme measures. What do you think should happen ? Hind sight says it should NEVER have gotten this bad but now it is.....so.......

There is a Facebook group which is private ..... Sells stuff in my area. Saturday there was an AK 47 for sale with "lots of fun extras" listed on this site. I could have picked it up on Sunday if I wanted. No questions asked.

What does one do about such insanity ? I suppose the same thing that is happening with healthcare....put a bandaide on it and call it fixed. BS....Home of the brave ? I think not.

Had I any ideas, I might not have started this thread. The President has stated this cannot be the normal. I agree.

He has called for a bipartisan effort to address the violence.

We can target guns in a general way
We can target the people who might commit such crimes - gangs, disillusioned, angry people, insane people

I do not have an idea how to approach either solution.

You would like an extreme measure? Does that mean loss of all rights and the implementation of a police state?

A war on guns? and on all gun owners? which I think would mean on all residents because how does the government know faceinbook does not own a gun?

>11 richardbsmith: You would like an extreme measure? Does that mean loss of all rights and the implementation of a police state?

Personally, I could live without the 2nd Amendment.

Funny how rhetoric, when empty of content, soon becomes cliche: 'A war on guns'...ever since a 'war on drugs' was announced. Worse is affixing gate as a suffix to all kinds of scandals.

Anyway, I think the extreme measures vis a vis guns would be a change in gun laws combined with a buy-back program, registration and a strict regimen for obtaining a gun, a rent-a-gun program for hunters, and, inevitably, some police measures involving raids on illegal gun traders, of course.

Targeting gangs, disillusioned, angry, insane people would of course be impossible, as the country is composed primarily of angry disillusioned insane people belonging to various gangs.

>13 RickHarsch: Anyway, I think the extreme measures vis a vis guns would be a change in gun laws combined with a buy-back program, registration and a strict regimen for obtaining a gun

The costs of having a gun should also be reflected in insurance and tax rates. And guns should not be able to be sold privately, but only through a licensed dealer.

>11 richardbsmith:
"You would like an extreme measure? Does that mean loss of all rights and the implementation of a police state?"

http://news.yahoo.com/fbi-background-checks-gun-sales-peak-black-friday-01071708....

American's can not handle this so called "freedom" or "right". When humanity fails to govern itself, then it falls to an organization to do so. I think pro gunners have failed to self govern to the point where they have lost rights and need to be policed into proper behaviors.

Who actually NEEDS a gun ?

I do not own a gun, and I am not well informed of ownership requirements. I think most states have gun registration and checks. Those could be enhanced I suppose.

When there is an incident, do the police trace the gun ownership history? Where and how the guns involved were obtained. Surely that is the case.

I wonder what effect on violence would result from increased insurance and tax rates? Perhaps it would tend over time to reduce gun ownership. How does the government increase insurance rates?

What about gun carrying laws? I think in TN at least people obtain permits and pay fees to have a gun carrying permit.

SR mentioned 350 mass shootings. That is a different metric than the 18 major major shootings I posted in the OP. I am not sure what explains the difference. My sense is that there have been many more that 18 over the last several years. They seem to be almost at least weekly.

Are these guns legally owned.

I know the police have legal weapons. I think they seem to have killed a good number of people with shootings that seem not to be justified.

What of the other mass shooters? Legal weapons?

>15 faceinbook:

"American's can not handle this so called "freedom" or "right".

How many mass shootings vs how many gun owners?

I am not sure that statement is correct or persuasive.

Still though I am curious about your interest in person and property searches to remove all guns? And then how effective would that be in removing all guns.

"Who actually NEEDS a gun?

I don't know. I suppose we would need to agree on what constitutes a need. I know some real estate agents, often female, who feel they need a gun because they make appointments to show people they do not know vacant homes.

Do they need a gun?

I don't know.

This just popped up on MSN.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/breakingnews/couples-motive-in-california-rampage-...

This article confirms 350 mass shootings, 4 or more wounded or killed, in US during 2015.

"According to the police chief, Farook was a county public health employee who attended the party, held in a conference building on the campus of the Inland Regional Center - a social services agency - and at some point stormed out. He returned with Malik to open fire on the celebration. The couple were dressed in assault-style clothing and also placed several bombs at the scene, which police detonated."

This couple was not the normal gun owner. Assault rifles and bombs.

They were in a relationship and he worked at that agency.

>18 richardbsmith:
"normal gun owner"

At this point in time, after all that has happened, I do not consider anyone who insists that they are entitled to own a gun, as any where near being "normal".

Here is the info about guns.

They were purchased legally.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/breakingnews/the-latest-guns-used-in-california-sh...

"She says all four guns were bought four years ago but she's not saying whether they were purchased out of state or how and when they got into the hands of the two shooters."

"She also says the rifles involved were .223-caliber — powerful enough to pierce the standard protective vest worn by police officers, and some types of ammo can even plow through walls."

I might wonder why someone needs this type of gun. Unless you are interested in shooting through walls and protective vests.

SLB: I think if this were a committee, we could solve the problem...or supply a solution to be ignored. Your mention of tax rates and insurance is quite apt: actuarialists could easily prove the costs inflicted by weaponry of this sort.

But, as Richardbsmith, infers, or as I take from what he mentions, at this point police should be strictly controlled as well, by perhaps external agencies charged with investigating ALL police violence, and with inescapable punitive powers that would make shooting a person without reason a catastrophic event for the department.

(The other night Springsteen's 41 shots was playing and my children asked about it...and my wife, too, and it is the genius of the song's structure that as soon as the first words are out Diallo and African migrant come to mind...Yet the shooting of this Laquan fellow was worse in a sense, as if anything could be, because Diallo if I am right was hit by a hail of bullets from multiple guns, while L was shot be one officer, downed immediately, shot until the gun was empty, and the killer was RELOADING when another cop stopped him. The first case is bad enough in that it amplifies the fear of the black, the codification of the black, and so on, while this last one amplifies an incomprehensible HATRED of the black.)

>18 richardbsmith: This couple was not the normal gun owner. Assault rifles and bombs

It's my impression that anyone who owns a gun considers themselves to be a "normal" (ei, "responsible") gun owner. The gun lobby has been steadfast in its opposition to things like bans on assault rifles.

How many mass shootings vs how many gun owners?

We are in danger of losing our souls if we hide behind statistics. Usually, when we are faced with the realities of a real loss of life -- the ultimate sacrifice of "human rights" -- we consider the problem serious enough to take sufficient measures against it. When people suffered and died in unsafe work conditions, we made laws to regulate that and protect them. When substances were found to be toxic enough to cause sickness, permanent disability, and even death in the people exposed to them, we regulated their use or banned them altogether.

Ultimately, the problem here is that the pro-gun lobby considers gun control a matter of an individual's rights, while gun control groups consider it a matter of public safety. We idolize individual rights in the United States, so "public good" has always been a step behind, so to speak, in our priorities. It takes a massive effort to implement something for the public good. What I don't understand, though, is why we aren't there yet. The fact that we live in a society where elementary schools, health clinics, and organizations for disabled people -- those most in need of our love and protection -- the fact that we live in a society where these places are targets, is insane. The shooters may be insane for going on such shooting sprees, but we are insane for just watching it happen over and over.

Your mention of tax rates and insurance is quite apt: actuarialists could easily prove the costs inflicted by weaponry of this sort.

The traditional response of the pro-gun lobby is that it is morally wrong to tax a human right.

I actually agree, it is. I don't think food should be taxed, or health care services, or education -- all things I consider "human rights."

The thing is, I don't think the right enshrined in the 2nd Amendment -- really translates into "guns are a human right." I can't equate a gun with food or medicine in my constellation of things that should be human rights, mostly because the purpose of a gun is to kill, which means the purpose is to deny someone else their own right to live.

RickHarsch,

I think most problems can be resolved. Which is the problem I have with politicians. I don't think they are motivated to resolve problems. The motivation seems to be to use problems as currency for votes.

Keeping in mind that are plenty of unregistered guns in the United States. If someone who has pathologic problems has the cash he/she can probably find one and what weapon(s) that would be---well the sky's the limit. IMO you can enact all the laws you want and there will still be plenty of avenues for angry/depressed/pathological people or people affiliated to a gang or working at the behest of a terrorist organization to find a weapon(s) and create an event.

Personally it seems to me that there are plenty of angry/depressed/pathological people in law enforcement these days and you can add a healthy number of racists.

Anyway extreme measures lead to extreme failures. Prohibition would be one example. There will be people who have been law abiding all their lives who will not willingly give up their handguns or deer rifles or whatever. What some people here are asking for I'm afraid is a lot more blood.

Unfortunately, the self-interested rationalizations of the National Rifle Manufacturers Association, which stand opposed to the public good, have become common sense. The only way to shatter this doxa is the creation of another narrative which would shine a spotlight on the toxic, nihilistic ideology of the gun subculture. One might start with the idea that the gun lobby is a fifth column.

>25 theoria:
I would argue that one needs to recognize the difference between the year 2015 and 1776. The difference between what constituted being "armed" in 1776 and what it means to bear arms today. American's have to realize what a fallacy it is to use a personal "right" drafted in the past to support what has become a gun culture. Otherwise, the NRA and other lunatics are going to keep pounding on our poor document in much the same manner literalists pound on the bible. It doesn't have to make a lick of sense. The word of the fore fathers is up there next to god......no matter how much time has passed since what was written, it is not relevant to today but.....they will make it so.

That would be where I started......any thing less will be a legal battle for years and years.....while people continue to buy, hoard, use and abuse guns. Many of our state government loosened laws lately.....that is the typical response...and they use the 2nd Amendment as a crutch to prop up their decisions. Take it away from them. It has to be done or the problems will not go away. They will be come legal issues that go no where.

CLICHES SUCK! Iriley, you of all people: 'Anyway extreme measures lead to extreme failures.' What utter bullshit. There is no thinking behind that statement, which is the goal of cliche. (All right a simple counter example: Extreme measures were taken to spank Saddam Hussein in 1991 and they worked. He was spanked. But he became a recidivist, arguably because of the no fly zone bullshit and the strict sanctions; so another simple counter example: Extreme measure were used to get rid of Saddam Hussein. He is gone. In both cases extreme measures worked.)

>23 richardbsmith: and >25 theoria: There is a nice continuity to these posts.

Re the nice word doxa I just looked up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxa

What law changes might help?

What of the existing arsenal?

President Obama wants a bipartisan effort to curb gun violence? What measures are available to that effort?

I'll take these in reverse order.

As far as bipartisianship goes, I doubt there is much that could encourage that. Everyone likes bipartisanship in theory because it sounds nice, but very little is passed that way. In the end, it doesn't really matter: Things passed by partisan vote and signed into law are just as much the law as things passed with bipartisan support.

That said, I doubt much of anything will pass this Congress. The Republican party has adopted a position of almost complete intransigence, reflexively voting against anything supported by the President. Too many members of Congress are beholden to the NRA, too many members have bought in to the "good guy with a gun" myth, and so on.

The only way I see to get bipartisan support for legal efforts to curb gun violence would be to get a new Congress. Voting out a fair number of the current members and replacing them with ones who aren't beholden to the NRA, who aren't ideologically opposed to compromise, and who actually care about fixing the problem. That seems unlikely to happen in the near future.

As far as the existing stocks of weapons in the hands of private individuals in the U.S., a buyback program would probably help a fair amount. It was used in Australia and it worked fairly well there. Tightening up on rules regarding private gun sellers, or even outright banning such sales and requiring all guns be bought through a regulated gun dealer would probably go a long way to reducing the stockpiles as well. Neither of these would work immediately, and neither would completely solve the issue, but the perfect is the enemy of the good, and I'd be happy with at least good.

As far as law changes are concerned, the big question one has to deal with is simply this: Are we going to amend or repeal the Second Amendment. If we are (and that is something that would likely require substantial bipartisan consensus), then the array of changes that can be made is almost limitless.

If we are not, and I don't think there is the political will to make the change, then the options are somewhat more constrained. There is room in the text of the Amendment to allow for a fair amount of regulation of guns, but there are definite limits.

At the outset, it should be noted that gun control laws work. There is almost no doubt of this. Similarly situated countries across the world that have gun control laws have far lower rates of gun violence (and for the most part, far lower rates of violence in general) than countries that do not. Gun lovers like to cite Chicago's murder rate as evidence that gun control laws don't work, but they always seem to conveniently leave out the fact that most of the guns used in Chicago are legally purchased in Indiana or Wisconsin, two states that have comparatively permissive gun laws. Gun regulations don't work if it is easy to walk next door and evade them. Any solution has to be comprehensive and nationwide for it to work.

So what can be done?

One thing that could be done right now is ending the prohibition on Federal research on the subject of gun violence. At least then we wouldn't have to guess about the problem like we do now. The problem is that what little research there is on the subject mostly contradicts the cherished myths of the gun lovers, and they fear that more research will show their talking points to be completely groundless.

We can look at the sensible regulations imposed by many other nations. For example, background checks are often required. Gun safety courses as well. Drug tests and mental health evaluations for would-be gun purchasers are also good options. Requiring gun safety courses to be renewed on a regular basis is a good idea, as well as regular renewals of background and mental health evaluations.

Many places (for example, Sweden, Japan, and Israel) require that gun owners prove they have a secure gun safe before they purchase a gun. They also require that the guns be stored separately from their ammunition. Many countries keep an official registry of those who hold firearms licenses. Police make regular inspections of gun owners' homes to make sure these rules are followed.

Gun owners could be required to obtain liability insurance for their weapons, just as car owners are required to obtain liability insurance for their cars, to include insurance against the possibility of injuries or deaths caused by the weapon. This would probably serve to reduce the desire of many gun owners to keep lots of weapons on hand, as the liability insurance costs would probably get quite high.

Eliminating the general right to carry guns in public, and permitting them to be carried only for specific uses is a fairly common regulation, and would probably be a good idea. A lot of gun violence seems to be spur of the moment, as people act out of anger during an altercation that without the gun present would otherwise be a nonlethal event. Limiting the number of guns being carried about seems to reduce this.

Those regulations could probably all be passed even with the Second Amendment in place. There are some other regulations that are fairly common, but may not pass Constitutional muster. For example, many countries require that someone applying for a firearms license must demonstrate a need for a gun, and limiting the number of firearms or the amount of ammunition someone may own are also rules that are used. I doubt these would be permitted under the Second Amendment, but there's no harm in trying.

How often do mass shootings occur now? On average, daily. Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/03/us/how-often-do-mass-shootings-occur-on-averag...

What bothers me most about this debate is the feeling of helplessness and powerlessness that has overwhelmed people, who feel that since nothing was done after Sandy Hook, nothing will ever be done. This is simply acquiescing to a vision of our country as an apocalyptic, every-man-for-himself dystopia that sane people should not buy into. It may be difficult, it may take a long time, but change is possible. We have plenty of examples of this that should inspire us.

Daily News cover today. (larger version)

Any chance of liability for the registered gun owner, for its illegal and/or accidental use?

The President is not ruling out terrorism as a motive. Surely some organization would be claiming credit by now?

Who NEEDS a gun? Farmers, ranchers, hunters--although fewer of the latter these days. I'm sure my hunter would give up his shotgun, crossbow and 22 if it meant an end to these mass killings--or even suicides and domestic killings and accidents. Meanwhile, his guns are locked and hidden in a rather inaccessible spot, and he is very careful in taking a shot--mostly to avoid wounding rather than killing, but also to avoid mistaking a person for a deer. Old school, responsible gun ownership.

(I'm more afraid of the neighbor with the Glock and dogs, and the idiots who fire at stop signs.)

>31 richardbsmith: ISIS has claimed responsibility before for acts it did not commit, but some time has to pass lest the motive is clear and they then look plain stupid. At this point it seems the best possibility is that this couple was very angry in a very secular manner.

There are reports he was radicalized, meaning I think he was in communication with radical groups.

I think though he may have acted on his own, just pissed off at the party.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/california-shooting-suspect-farook-apparently-r...

Not sure if that qualifies as terrorist or not.

It is time for a change in America, no more illegal immigration. Close the Border now and deport all CRIMINAL illegal immigrants. Crack down on domestic crime in America now. Too much crime of all types.... a crack down on crime has to come from the Top of our government! Domestic and Foreign Terrorism is here to stay I'm afraid. When up against people that don't care if they die, its hard to overcome. Also, too much political correctness being thrown around, a neighbor who wanted to report strange activity at the apartment of the assassins yesterday in Ca. was afraid of being labeled as biased or racists and didn't say anything. If she had reported those people, 14 people wouldn't have lost their lives yesterday. Take out the politics and start doing what is right for American Citizens, sooner rather than later.

>35 JaneAustenNut: It is time for a change in America, no more illegal immigration.

If we're really looking to reduce the criminal element in the United States, we should deport all single white men between the ages of 18 and 35. But who would take them?

#33--FWIW whether an ISIS op or not---these people may have gotten inspiration from ISIS.

Anyway sorry for throwing (#26) cliches about. As you say in #27 the US of A really spanked Saddam and arguably those extreme measures worked though with some unintended and unknowable (at the time) future consequences that are still reverberating to this very day in Iraq and Syria.

It's easy though to say take everyone's guns away but doing it would be another thing. Walking into someone's home and demanding they turn over their deer rifle---well I wouldn't want to do it. #28 Storm Raven brings up some interesting ideas about regulating and taxing and making people pay insurance that make a lot of sense IMO. Still best to keep in mind that even all those measures won't keep someone determined enough with the wherewithal to purchase something on the black market from creating a lot of havoc. The best intentions of a governing body cannot stop that--altogether.

Another thing--I have a friend whose oldest son was in the USMC--he died back in 2009 and my friend inherited his gun collection. These weren't gun people really (I don't think my friend had any guns) but his kid over the course of his enlistment had purchased several on his own for close combat situations--45 magnum's--a pistol grip shotgun--some of which might not even be legal in at least some states. Military bodies have the tendency to look the other way on this kind of stuff. They issue their own stuff---and if you want to enhance that on your own---they're more than fine with it. We have all kinds of PTSD people now home from these recent wars and many of them I would assume have their own cache's.

The other thing I think about is how the USA exports so much military hardware around the world. I think it's a little bit fucked up that this is not an issue for most of the good people arguing about this on this thread now. If we want to clean up the gun violence here IMO we should also start putting an end to the part we play in promoting it in other regions of the world.

It is time for a change in America, no more illegal immigration.

Syad Farook wasn't an immigrant. He was born in the U.S. In fact, if one looks at most of the mass shootings in the U.S. this year, almost all of the perpetrators were home grown domestic terrorists. Based upon the data, it would seem that letting in more immigrants would make the nation more peaceful, not less.

I wonder what Jane Austen would think.

>37 lriley: My examples were easy ones, and naturally what is more important than the success of the Bush cabal in getting rid of Saddam Hussein is the surrounding matter: Lies, illegal wars, profiteering, war crime after war crime, destabilizing the region, destroying Iraq, killing a number of people estimated by some to be over 1 million and the inevitable encouragement of the use of the most modern weaponry, including drones, the delayed but inevitable rise of a more radicalized organization of extremist Muslims...

#39--there are numbers of former Iraqi military officers in the ranks of ISIS---one of the reasons they've been able to organize and to strategize militarily. If the Bush administration hadn't disbanded the Iraqi army I wonder whether we'd have this problem today. I really think we wouldn't. It was just another ill thought decision on their part and IMO did almost as much to destabilize Iraq as the invasion itself. If you're asking me are GW Bush, Cheney and the rest to their crew of hawks war criminals?--I would say yes. Then again I would sadly say (and I voted for him the first time) Obama is as well--for not pulling out our troops much sooner--for forgiving the previous administration from the get go--for keeping Guantanamo running--for the drone strikes. Not a doubt that Bush and his people were worse but........

There was the oil--there was the propagating of lies to the American people who for the most part loved the whole invasion thing--there was the oil--the chance to be a brave man after he chickened out of Viet Nam (as Cheney did)--there was the oil--there were his rich buddies and the power and the fame of becoming president and showing the world just what a boss he could be--there was the oil and the corporations and the need to prove that the neo-conservative neo-liberal economic ideology that has infected everyone of our POTUS's since Carter is something so fucking wonderful. This whole business when I take the time to think about it makes me sick now and made me sick then-----so I don't like to spend a lot of time thinking about it. I'd rather think about positive things--about the sun coming up for instance.

>34 richardbsmith: "I think though he may have acted on his own, just pissed off at the party."

And they had all of these pipe bombs pre-made on the off-chance that there would be a party in the future that would upset them?

If liberals want to outlaw all guns, I wish they would say so, instead of "We have to do something" or "Ain't guns terrible" or "Ain't people with guns terrible?" If the president has a solution, I'd like to hear it.

OK, outlaw guns. Then what do you do with the guns that currently exist?

I have no problem outlawing certain kinds of guns, e.g. assault rifles. But you don't need an assault rifle to do a lot of damage. You can always use box cutters. Should we outlaw box cutters?

>42 barney67: Several suggestions are made throughout this thread.

>41 cpg: Yes, the pipe bombs are troubling, but so is the simple story the guy losing his temper and coming back with a gun. It IS a classic situation and we can read about such an event virtually everyday somewhere in the US, but returning with multiple weapons and a dress-alike mate isn't generally the case. And it seems that dressed as they were they likely planted the bombs, or he did, before a staged argument. The best scenario I can hope for now is a very disgruntled employee deciding to ask one more time for whatever, and if he gets the wrong answer he does a USAmerican berserker.

>40 lriley: Abu Ghraib turned out to be a good place for the upper ranks of ISIS to meet and formulate plans.

>42 barney67: If the president has a solution, I'd like to hear it.

This wasn't too hard to google.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/summary-president-obama-...

barney67

The couple loaded up weapons, or more accurately ammo and pipe bombs. Not on the chance that there would be a flare up at work. It seems likely they were preparing for some action.

I don't think this action was the plan. I think they got pissed and decided this, now, was as good as anything else, later.

The assault rifles were not purchase by the couple. The handguns were. It will be interesting to know the route those assault rifles took to reach the couple's armory.

I am also interesting to know if the trip he took to Pakistan to get married was the start of his radicalization, or if that had already begun prior to the trip.

"Liberals" are not trying to outlaw all guns, to my knowledge. Well maybe faceinbook is.

And just fyi, I am not a liberal. Except that in some company I am the most liberal person present.

I think it would be helpful though if the NRA, et al, would join in the effort to find an effective approach to curbing the number of weapons and the kind of weapons.

If gun owners and the NRA want to protect the right to gun ownership, they need to take part in the responsibility of gun accessibility. Unreasonable, kneejerk, reactions and misstate of any efforts to address the violence and the over supply of weapons in our nation will eventually lead to enough unnecessary deaths to turn conservative non gun owners.

How They Got Their Guns http://nyti.ms/1VtVPMa

‘I Think About It Daily’: Life in a Time of Mass Shootings http://nyti.ms/1lzG0mF

The NRA refuses to budge one inch out of the irrational fear that all guns will be outlawed.

Yet the NRA Dare to Castigate Australia! http://www.news.com.au/national/crime/the-national-rifle-association-attacks-aus...

>42 barney67: I think you should start with the guns and yes, assault rifles would be high on my list. It can surely be done, but I don't now if the US can do it. I'm truly sorry for all your dead in these shootings.

Box cutters can do harm too. Current Danish law makes it a crime to carry stuff like that in public, except if you have a reasonable reason like "I just purchased this 8 inch knife and I'm bringing it home and it is still in its package". Unreasonable reasons like "I just purchased this 8 inch knife and I took it out of its package and I just stopped on my way home to show it to my ex-wife" and even "Oh dear, I forgot I had the box-cutter in my pocket" will land you in hot water.

This is not something enforced by having paramillitary forces strip search every man and woman all the time. It is just a constant caring for removing preventable causes of death. People killed in gun and knife fights tend to be young people, so it is an awful loss of years.

To take a less controversial thing. Headache pills like Panodil contain paracetamol which destroys your liver if you take too many. After doctors warned about a rise in suicide attempts using these pills, the maximum package size was reduced to 10. The numbers of suicides has dropped, so you don't just prevent the use of headache pills for suicide, you actually reduce the number of suicides by making it slightly harder to do.

There is a whole lot of things you can do to prevent mass shootings in the US.

>50 bnielsen: Thanks, good post.

"Also, too much political correctness being thrown around,"

"It is time for a change in America, no more illegal immigration. Close the Border now and deport all CRIMINAL illegal immigrants."

"But you don't need an assault rifle to do a lot of damage. You can always use box cutters. Should we outlaw box cutters?"

"OK, outlaw guns. Then what do you do with the guns that currently exist?"

Is there a "Willfully Ignorant" button somewhere....did someone push it ?

Here's a cliché, especially for Rick.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people (with guns)

Combine that relationship with a few other premises.

The evidence that mass shootings and killings are increasing and increasingly violent/costly.
We should not accept this state and trend as our new normal.
Reversing the trend is a worthy goal.

We must do something about the people or about the guns or both.

It seems to be that the most effective approach that does the least damage to freedoms is some combination - making it more difficult to obtain and to own guns. The difficulty increasing with increasingly dangerous guns, perhaps defines as the number of rounds fired and the amount of force with each round.

Restrict the types of weaponry that can be purchased without justification and amount and type of ammunition available.

Taxes seem to be a reasonable option. Although I hate to give politicians more money with which to expand our civic debt. Perhaps that money could be sent to someone more reliable than the government for use to pay medical expenses for accidental shootings?

Perhaps there should be a control over private gun sales. The original owner is responsible for the subsequent use of the gun in any crime or accidental discharge.

A verified legal sale, with the new owner registering and meeting all gun purchase checks, could relieve the original owner of liability.

For stolen weapons, the original owner should show adequate security measures - perhaps safe and locked storage?

>45 richardbsmith: "I don't think this action was the plan. I think they got pissed and decided this, now, was as good as anything else, later."

"The Muslim husband and wife behind the mass shooting in San Bernardino began erasing their digital footprint a day in advance of the deadly attack, deleting email accounts, disposing of hard drives and smashing their cellphones, according to law enforcement investigators who are treating the probe as a counterterrorism case."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/dec/3/syed-farook-tashfeen-malik-erased...

>45 richardbsmith:
""Liberals" are not trying to outlaw all guns, to my knowledge. Well maybe faceinbook is. "

Yes she would like that ! She is too old for this carnage. She saw it coming years back with this gun thing. AND, she has learned that people refuse to govern themselves when it comes to all kinds of harmful behaviors.
Right now faceinbook is over the top ticked off ! Other countries ACT when their citizens are being blasted to heck. America takes steps to make it easier to keep blasting.

I am too old to move away and start over or I would. There is some kind of entitlement that is embedded in many American minds. A thought process that allows one to feel that, no matter how destructive one's behavior is to the whole,.....one is entitled to persist in that behavior. (not only in gun culture...healthcare....corporate behaviors....environmentally...you name it, we abuse it and cry foul when government intercepts that behavior) It is disheartening......

One comment from a guy on Yahoo......"Until you can promise me that nobody in my family will be killed by a gun, I am going to keep my gun"

Yeah well......that is a STUPID way of looking at things......Until someone can promise me that nobody in my family is going to be killed by a drunk driver....I am going to continue to drink and drive ! Seriously.....what is this disconnect in the American psyche.

Materialistically we may be the example of success to the rest of the world. You can get rich in America...you can move up the ladder. But, the cost has been giving up bits and pieces of our souls. I believe there is a difference between the soul and the ego. America is about the ego....all the way. Our current times would support this....mass shooting....Donald Trump.....corporate greed...health care that is a dirty dishonest business at the expense of the ill. Just name it....we have made a mash up.

I am not quite sure why liberals insist on thinking of the "rights of gun owners" Gun owners are doing just fine thinking of their rights on their own....they certainly are not thinking of anyone else's.

So we approach the problem of dead people, people shot to death for no good reason, by starting with the rights of the shooters ? Sounds American to me. BS

>44 jjwilson61: "This wasn't too hard to google."

It sounds like the purchasers of the San Bernardino weapons passed background checks. Is there anything in Bullet* 1 of the President's proposals that would make such a thing less likely in the future?

Bullet 3 limits magazines to 10 rounds. I believe the San Bernardino couple had 2 guns per person, fired a total of 76 rounds, and had time to reload. It sounds like the 10-round limit would have had no effect on them.

How would things likely have been different for the San Bernardino couple under the President's proposals?

*No pun intended.

>54 cpg:

That is very interesting. RickHarsch suggested above that the argument at the office party might have been staged. I did not understand the reason that the massacre needed an office argument as a precursor.

That they were erasing their cyber history ahead of the shooting definitely suggests that they were preparing to execute their plans.

>57 cpg:

Not to answer for JJ, I think proposals for gun control would have little effect on terrorist plots. More gun control might effect the other 355 shooting?

It sounds though like you might be calling for more restrictions than the President's proposal?

faceinbook wants guns totally eliminated.

>58 richardbsmith:
If you were to read back on prior threads you would find that this has not been my prior reaction. I realize that there are areas of this country where a gun is used for survival. Many Native reservations survive on hunted animals for their food supply.....

My response now comes as a reaction to how radical it has become on the other side of this issue. It is just as insane as my desire to see guns totally eliminated. It really is. Nobody NEEDS a gun everywhere they go. On and on and on with the guns......it is insane.

How would things likely have been different for the San Bernardino couple under the President's proposals?

The perfect is the enemy of the good. Just because something might not solve all problems does not mean it will solve no problems.

There are already so many guns out there, but could a program of

buyback programs for unwanted guns,
banning automatic-capable weapons, "cop-killing" bullets and plastic weapons,
requiring personal-recognition locking devices on handguns and new guns,
banning purchase by people on watchlists (once Pierre Trudeau and Farley Mowatt!),
Canada-like program of screening (spouse sign-off) and education on safe use and storage,
gun registry,
etc.

work, if political will was there?

All this talk about gun laws is probably irrelevant. We already have gun laws. These laws didn't stop this husband and wife Muslim terrorist team. We have laws against the other weapons they had, too, bombs and what not, and those laws didn't stop them. Does anyone think stricter guns laws would have stopped them? Very unlikely. As I said, you can always use box cutters for mass murder.

We can't turn the US into a police state and monitor everyone for weapons wherever they go. Criminals and terrorists always find a way to get the weapons they need, regardless of the laws, regardless of the countries they're in. That has always been true and always will be unless weapons somehow disppear from the earth. But that's impossible. Anything can become a weapon. Remember the beginning of the movie 2001, the caveman scene? A bone becomes a tool and soon after became a means to kill someone.

As usual, it does little good to look at the laws of other countries. We're not like other countries. If we have more shootings, that's probably because we have more people, more money, more weapons, a better economy, a better place to find a job and make money, a better place to live off government programs like welfare and unemployment, more lenient laws of all kinds, more freedom of all kinds, like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of cultural, ethnic, and racial diversity, and a greater free flow of information. For some reason, illegal activity is easier here. We have a populace that is naturally, maybe genetically opposed to law and government and restrictions of any kind -- don't tread on me -- to the point of self-destruction. We are a country where you are free to do pretty much whatever you damn well please, to be whoever you damn well please, where judgments of all kinds are frowned upon. We have bigger borders, more porous borders, that are impossible to close, unlike France's or other European countries'. We have a society that is more appealing in all kinds of ways than most modern societies in the world.

And thanks to a dumb poem by radical Emma Lazarus, chiseled onto a statue foisted on us by France, we got dubbed the place where immigrants are always welcome.

I don't know, barney67, that equating a box cutter or a bone as an instrument of killing with an assault weapon, or even a handgun, is persuasive.

>53 richardbsmith: Starting at a place of common sense and compromise... clearly, you are not a US politician.

Now that a link to isis has been shown, will that change any republican politician's opposition to all gun control measures? Although I see in the comments, this is somehow being blamed on Syrian refugees rather than easy access to guns...

San Bernardino Gunwoman Pledged Allegiance to ISIS, Officials Say http://nyti.ms/1Qkhxxi

>65 sturlington:
"San Bernardino Gunwoman Pledged Allegiance to ISIS,"

So what about the other 300 and some mass shootings in this country ? The Colorado Planned Parenthood shooting was done by someone who had a radical view of abortion........Our media and politicians are responsible for the lies and propaganda that drove this man to kill. Isn't that radicalization ?
Blacks and Whites....cops gone bad.....aren't these all incidents that are caused in some respect by radicalization of citizens by our media ?

I do not understand why it is worse for someone to decide to kill in the name of Islam than it is due to a doctored tape played ,along with repeated lies spewed by our media and political figures, as to what is going on in the Planned Parenthood organization.
It is OK to kill each other due to the radical language and irresponsible use of media by fellow Americans but not OK for ideas from other countries to cause someone to go bat shit nuts ? It really is all the same. Maybe not OK ? Just not as bad or as horrible.

I think what happened to precipitate the Colorado shooting was horrible. Irresponsible on the part of the media and especially those that repeated the lies long after they found the information to be untruthful.

It is my belief that once again we will breath a sigh of relief that this horrible event was due to the problems of the Middle East, when in reality, we are not different than they are.....we just are a younger country. Our mind set certainly is headed in the direction they have taken.

>62 barney67:
"We have a society that is more appealing in all kinds of ways than most modern societies in the world."

That is a pretty broad statement. I agree materialistically we have a lot that the world desires. I also think we have a pretty grandiose idea about how we appear to other countries..... American exceptionalism and all of that. There are plenty of areas in which we look like fools....like a bunch of heartless clowns. It all depends on one's priorities. Things or people We have a lot but we do not treat each other very well. (as a whole)

63 -- My point was that criminals and terrorist find what they need regardless of what they laws are. They are, by definition, outlaws.

Gun control hasn't stopped terrorism yet, so I have no reason to think it will do so in the future. I'm in favor of some changes -- I don't know why anyone needs an assault rifle -- but I know better than to put my faith in government or law.

>66 faceinbook: "So what about the other 300 and some mass shootings in this country ? .....aren't these all incidents that are caused in some respect by radicalization of citizens by our media ?"

The only mass shooting in my state this year has been a man who shot his wife (who was about to leave him) and two kids and then himself. Can we blame that one on the media?

>43 RickHarsch: "Abu Ghraib turned out to be a good place for the upper ranks of ISIS to meet and formulate plans."

Strange how watching a priest being anal penetrated and then released as innocent radicalises people.

http://www.tmj4.com/news/national/gun-toting-santa-billboard-stirs-controversy

The War on Christmas

>71 southernbooklady:
Scott Walker, the buffoon that he is just eliminated he waiting period in Wisconsin. In an interview with a gun shop owner the owner said "This is American....you should be able to get what you want when you want it "

>69 cpg:
Who knows ? People buy guns when Fox News tells them that Obama is going to try and take them away. I don't think we hold the media responsible for half the crazy shit they put out there.

>68 barney67:
So you are qualified to make your own rules and take the law into your own hands ? Using a weapon ?

Wow.

These comparisons help highlight how exceptional the United States is. Here, where the right to bear arms is cherished by much of the population, gun homicides are a significant public health concern. For men 15 to 29, they are the third leading cause of death, after accidents and suicides. In other high-income countries, gun homicides are unusual events. The recent Paris attacks killed 130 people, which is nearly as many as die from gun homicides in all of France in a typical year. But even if France had a mass shooting as deadly as the Paris attacks every month, its annual rate of gun homicide death would be lower than that in the United States.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/upshot/in-other-countries-youre-as-likely-to-b...

How a Conservative-Led Australia Ended Mass Killings

"...Pushed through by John Howard, (Australia's) conservative prime minister at the time, the National Firearms Agreement prohibited automatic and semiautomatic assault rifles and pump shotguns in all but unusual cases. It tightened licensing rules, established a 28-day waiting period for gun purchases, created a national gun registry and instituted a temporary buyback program that removed more than 20 percent of firearms from public circulation."

"Several of the measures, including waiting periods and background checks, have been adopted piecemeal by different states in America. But the United States has never tried a national gun buyback program; in Australia, that required raising taxes. And the United States has never been able to do what Mr. Howard did: forge a broad agreement on a sweeping set of gun control measures that applies to the entire nation..."

"Total intentional gun deaths fell by half in the decade after the 1996 restrictions were put in place, even as Australia’s population grew nearly 14 percent. The rate of gun suicides per 100,000 people dropped 65 percent from 1995 to 2006, and the rate of gun homicides fell 59 percent, according to a 2010 study by Andrew Leigh of Australian National University and Christine Neill of Wilfrid Laurier University..."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/world/australia/australia-gun-ban-shooting.htm...

>77 margd:

Interesting, our overall suicide rate also peaked around 1997. Now the overall rate is subject to a lot of factors, but still.

First NY Times front page editorial since 1920: End the Gun Epidemic in America http://nyti.ms/21DrVpe

>78 hf22: our overall suicide rate also peaked around 1997

Must be an Australian public health analysis around somewhere? Perhaps effective gun measures had downward effect on overall suicide rates? Didn't a study of a bridge that was screened against jumpers, find decrease in suicides because the highly lethal method was eliminated for the impulsively suicidal, as was media coverage that might inspire others?

(As Cdn military officer, my dad led when one of his men committed suicide. He told me one should never shoot oneself in the head if one loves his family--there's a shocking mess. (Shocking even to a WW2 vet.) Arctic Stranger, who also had the "pleasure" of seeing aftermath of such a suicide, was similarly shocked at the amount of blood in a human body...)

This one's for faceinbook: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/michele-fiore-gun-christmas-card

>80 margd:

Yeah, the evidence seems good that ease matters. Smaller pill packages etc also appear to get results.

I find that the excuse that people will do X anyway despite policy discouragement is normally bullshit, even for matters of life and death (such as suicide or even for example seeking to be a refugee). Making something harder does not eliminate X, good or bad, but it will normally reduce it and often materially.

"OK, outlaw guns. Then what do you do with the guns that currently exist? "

Make the sale of ammunition illegal.

>81 sturlington:
Same people probably burst a blood vessel if you wish them a "Peaceful Holiday" rather than a "Merry Christmas"

A war on their Christian holiday indeed.

Flaming hypocrites

#84---when it comes to simplistic solutions you take the prize.

Part of the problem here is this is very much a state's right thing. There are federal gun laws however there's not all that much uniformity as far as state to state gun laws. And it's an issue that could lose a party electoral votes in a national election which could derail the whole process you're trying to accomplish along with a lot of other things. The federal government just can't issue an edict and say this is the way shit's going to be from now on overriding anything and everything.

You're a very pro police person--you must know that many policemen/women, corrections officers own their own handguns. That every so often they--as a requirement of their job have to qualify on a shooting range. Some voice in the back of your head might even tell you that such and such % of these people might even be bad actors themselves even if they're wearing a badge and/or seriously gung ho about administering the law (no matter how fucked up a particular law they administer) as aggressively as they can.

Which brings us to the military. I have a friend. He had a son who was USMC. He was killed in March 2009. My friend---not a gun person at all inherited his cache. The military of course issues it's own weaponry. It tends to look benignly on its members who like to add their own. So this friend of mine he inherited a pistol grip shotgun for one--along with some heavy duty hand weaponry--including other high velocity pistols for close quarter combat. Keep in mind that not every soldier dies. Keep in mind the numbers of PTSD coming back or who have come back from Afghanistan and Iraq. It's something serious to think about. It's not good and it's not good that a lot of them might have their own caches.

I agree it's a serious problem. But the solution is not going to be simple---it's going to be complicated and there's probably going to be a lot of holes in it if one can be worked out.

# 36, I am so sorry that you obviously hate young white people. I don't hate young people of any race. I just think it is time we started being serious about this radical Islam thinking where it is ok to just shoot up people of all races that were simply trying to help the disabled ( the 14 deceased were of various races & types of people). I believe it is about ideology and not about race. But, the political correct thinking is getting in the way of protecting our citizens. Do we have to wait until another 911 happens? The issue is that all people other than those of the Muslim faith are considered bad. Just think about how the Nazis thought the same thing about the Jews. People are getting their heads chopped off simply because they are Christians. These are scary times in America, prayer is needed to help heal our country! I haven't seen a division in the races this bad since the nineteen sixties. Crime is extremely bad in our large urban areas, the economy is still bad, hatred abounds almost everywhere, illegal drugs are now ok in some states -- now legal. Just close the borders and have a time out on illegal immigration. If and when those who are in the country illegally and are found to have previous criminal activity are deported. Then stabilize the rest of the immigrants with the proper education and understanding of what it means to be a hard working American Citizen. A new jobs program that will help American Citizens get good paying jobs first before giving them to the people crossing the border. Currently, there are more than 94 million americans without a job, they have just given up. A good paying job will give, strength to families, pride in oneself and eliminate a lot of the crime and social unrest in our country. Please excuse the long comments, but, I probably won't post to this forum for a long time. I haven't done so in a long time. I just felt led to comment on the tragic recent events.

>86 lriley:
"when it comes to simplistic solutions you take the prize."

Keep track of who buys ammunition. Why the heck is this too simplistic ? We have a problem that is getting worse and the solutions are too complex to deal with ? BS.....do SOMETHING besides make excuses for not doing anything.

If your child were killed by a bullet.....I am pretty sure that any idea regarding addressing the issue would sound better the simpering we keep hearing.

And the 2nd Amendment was not written by God......it was written by a hand full of men with guns that were almost too heavy to carry, powder bags and tamping rods. It is time to put on some big boy pants and admit that pro gun people are using something that no longer makes sense to continue to do what ever they want when it comes to buying and using weapons.

I am totally sick of politicians beginning the conversation about guns with "we don't want to take away your 2nd Amendment rights" The way pro gun people are interpreting the amendment means that they are going to have to lose some rights.

An employee has a right to attend a work meeting with out being shot......a woman has a right to go to a Planned Parenthood clinic without getting blasted....a 6 month old should not be shot in the head because cleaning a weapon is so second nature that many owners have become careless. It sucks. We simper.

>87 JaneAustenNut: # 36, I am so sorry that you obviously hate young white people.

Young white men, is what I said. But it is really just an observation about statistics and the assumption of criminality. Mass shootings are most often committed by men. Most often, men between the ages of 18 or 20 and 45 or so. Race is actually less significant, but apparently there is a correlation between the number of mass shooters and the size of the racial population -- there are more white mass shooters because there are more white people. So theoretically, if deporting potential criminals is a way to make a place safer -- which is what you were implying when you said we should deport all "CRIMINAL illegal immigrants," (aren't they criminal by default?) then young men should be the first we put on the boat.

The issue is that all people other than those of the Muslim faith are considered bad.

I agree that the issue it is a problem whenever anyone says "all people who are .....fill in the blank....are bad."

>87 JaneAustenNut:
"I am so sorry that you obviously hate young white people"

Right ! Good start for making your point.

Most of our problems come from American citizens.....most illegal immigrants don't want to get in trouble.....that is first. Secondly, Americans do not usually want the jobs that immigrants will do because they are usually not "good paying" jobs.

The rest of your ramble is so racist and biased....I don't know where to start.

Illegal drugs ? Now legal ? We have more problems with doctors prescribing legal drugs than we do with pot (if that is what you are referring to ?) In fact if we used pot instead of booze or prescription drugs we may solve a lot of our problems.

"These are scary times in America"

No....not scary....frustrating. Too many citizens want to stay stuck in stupid. Too many people view progress as destructive or radical or what ever.

God can not solve these issues he did not make the problems we did......so we need to fix them....and in order to start....we need to both prioritize and compromise. Have at it.

# 89 I was personally offended by your previous comments and found them to be profoundly racists in nature. The issue that was being discussed was the criminality of radical islamists that is currently found around the world. Including most all western nations. The problem is people and their illegal status in this country and a radicalized religion by people who will kill anyone that is not of their belief structure. I just read this morning of the amount of illegals coming across the border and how it has increased in recent days. Just a couple of days ago five middle eastern men with metal cylinders strapped on their backs were arrested in Arizona. It so disturbed the Border Patrol that homeland security was called in. Also, recently a number of middle eastern individuals were arrested in Texas with suspicious looking activities being demonstrated. This is becoming an almost daily occurrence along our southern border. It would only take one person with a dirty bomb to kill a massive number of people. The problem isn't Guns, but, people thinking irrational ideas with an aim to destroy our way of life. Wake up America! As for gun control; California has a very restrictive gun law and Chicago has very restrictive gun laws but look at the violence! Again, its people and not the weapon. Bad people can make weapons out of almost anything even a small pipe ( pipe bombs ) like in Ca.

If we're really looking to reduce the criminal element in the United States, we should deport all single white men between the ages of 18 and 35. But who would take them?

-- I don't understand this statement. Are you suggesting that whites commit more crimes than blacks?

>92 barney67:
More mass murders.

Funny how Blacks .... Illegals....Muslims become the "problem" in this society.

Nothing about the lawmakers who are, for the most part, White males, or those who are making huge profits by hiring illegal workers, (again White men) or corporate greed which has striped this country of many of it's "good paying jobs" (not sure but would bet the top 1% is primarily White men) OR religion (White or Brown men doesn't matter but it should be noted that men are usually the deciders) which tends to make some people bat shit crazy.

Did someone get beheaded in this country for being a Christian ?

>91 JaneAustenNut: # 89 I was personally offended by your previous comments and found them to be profoundly racists in nature.

Context is everything.

The issue that was being discussed was the criminality of radical islamists that is currently found around the world.

The issue is a discussion of the constitutionality of gun control in the United States, given the apparently precipitous rise of mass shootings, the latest of which was the shooting in San Bernardino. Any connections to radicalized Islam in this last case were just being uncovered as the discussion was ongoing. But illegal immigrants as on of the roots of the problem was first put forth by you, in >35 JaneAustenNut:. It was off topic with regards to San Berardino, however, since as has been pointed out, the couple identified as the prime suspects were American citizens (Sayeed Farook was born in Chicago, his wife was Pakistani, I think, but became a citizen when she was married) and obtained their guns legally.

Of course, it begs the question as to how shooting up a center for developmentally disabled people is somehow striking a blow against the enemies of Allah, but then people do some seriously crazy shit in the name of religion.

But it does seem worth asking why it is legal in this country for people to buy a Smith & Wesson MP Assault Rifle.

SBL: As a former young white person, and male at that, I was yet not the least offended by what you wrote. I scrolled back to #36 eager to see who the offender was, and, yes, it was you. I am not surprised as the nuts of Jane Austen are generally badly represented.

This strange notion that the politically correct among us are critical of all but Muslims is quite bizarre. I find that even my Muslim friends are critical of an Islam gone berserk. Today I watched Slavoj Žižek addressing those who ARE careful not to criticise Moslems. He mentioned a singer/songwriter from Palestine, who sang a song at UCLA or thereabouts, a song among other songs, that decried honour killings amongst Muslims. He was greeted with harsh criticism for aiding the Zionists. His response was that while they remain relatively safe and wealthy in southern California, he had to return to the place where among many horrible problems one of them was honour killings.

I have found on this site a great number of people who understand that the US--with its Euro allies--is very much responsible for the worst of what is happening in the Middle East. But I have seen no evidence of pro-Muslim bias. In fact, janeaustenut, scroll around and look up our Lola Walser, who has repeatedly in varying degrees of eloquence and violence and violent eloquence charged full bore at the Muslims and their insanities.

>96 RickHarsch:

"At the Muslims"? No, I refuse to accept that offensive description. I "charged", at the maximum, at ISIS and Islamists. If anyone can find one instance where I'm "charging" "at the Muslims", I'd be grateful for a link, so I can make amends.

P.S. I don't know whether you know, but JaneAustenNut is, as far as I recall from his previous visits, a man. Good to know when cracking (jokes about) nuts.

Let me change only to 'at the insanities of Muslims'; thanks for the control (i never re-read posts here, write as fast as possible, often hesitate and decide fuck it I will not...).

As for the gender of JaneAustensnuts, I did know, absolutely, but I can't say how.

You're still making me sound like some fucking Xtian racist, I would never in a trillion years rail about "the insanities of Muslims". That phrase--and similar--is not in my vocabulary because that thought, that kind of thinking, is not in my head. Muslims are people. If I had an audience of sea cucumbers I might rail about the insanities of people. But Muslims, Christians--it makes no sense.

I'm really not concerned so much with rewriting your post (wouldn't dare) as with your apparent opinion of me. I suppose it's my fault, but I really thought that the distinction I make--effortlessly--between scum who kills and rapes in the name of religion (hate them and wish them prompt demise), religion (hate it and object to it on various abstract and practical grounds), and "religious people" broadly defined (feel them as my fellow human beings for better and for worse, deserving of every sympathy--and criticism--I wish for myself), comes through.

Sorry if this is too many words for something you consider a trifle. I grew up among Muslims, I still have more (devout) Muslim friends than of any other faith. And yeah, I'm gonna blaspheme against Muhammad as I do against Jesus and every single sacred cow from Switzerland to Punjab --depending on context and reasons when I think to do so is necessary, however unpleasantly impolite and hurtful I think such behaviour is otherwise--and criticise Islamism and wish ISIS fell dead of thirty gruesomely painful diseases all at once... because one has nothing to do with the other.

Well, at least I offer you the opportunity to express your opinions again. What I meant to do was praise you for your vigilance and that is the extent of it. You have put it in your own words, better than I could put it. I am impressed by your mind and your ability to distinguish right from wrong, and agree with your posts almost always. I don't consider it a trifle, and your words are not too many at all. I understand, I hope, your need to clarify your expressions. I meant merely to use your example as proof that people here are discriminating in their judgments of Islam as well as that of other religions. My posts quite often can use revision, so please do dare. You write, often you write, with what seems to me sincere outrage, and I think we could use more of that here.

Let us offer LolaWalser an opportunity to redirect passion.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/jerry-falwell-jr-if-more-good-people-had-concea...

>101 richardbsmith:

Don't concern yourself with me, august "We".

>100 RickHarsch:

Well, thanks for understanding.

OK. Will do.

Unconcerned with LolaWalser.

It perhaps remains a topic to discuss, that the consideration of gun control can be sidestepped by the tactic of confusing attacks related to terrorism and the more frequent shootings which might be more appropriately the concern of such consideration.

The problem is people and their illegal status in this country and a radicalized religion by people who will kill anyone that is not of their belief structure.

What mass shooting has recently been committed by illegal aliens in the U.S.? Can you name one?

Crime is extremely bad in our large urban areas,

Crime in our urban areas has declined significantly in the last two decades.

the economy is still bad,

It seems that Money magazine and the stock market disagree with you.

hatred abounds almost everywhere,

Your hatred of muslims and immigrants is noted.

illegal drugs are now ok in some states -- now legal.

It seems you are unclear on the concept of legal and illegal.

>96 RickHarsch: This strange notion that the politically correct among us are critical of all but Muslims is quite bizarre.

I've run into this more than once in recent days, including one quick study who consistently accused me of wanting to exclude Christian refugees from safety, despite me explicitly (and gradually using explicit language) stating more than once, that I though that religious affiliation has no place in determining whether or not a person should be welcomed into the United States. But there does seem to be a longing among some to see this crisis as a religious war, rather than a call for mercy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/erick-erickson-new-york-times-bullet-holes_5...

This is what many pro gun people think about your rights......free speech.....screw that. Going to get worse before it gets better.

This idiot should not have a gun.....can we start here ? With him ? I really do not think he respects others enough to carry a weapon around.

As you see, if you want, in the conservative or liberal post (I'm guessing--I haven't read a word of it...well, okay, a few posts), people need clarity where clarity is unobtainable, so they make clear distinctions and misapply them to circumstances.
Something rarely noted is that the wealthiest countries of the Middle East (barring Israel, which should be barred from this particular discussion for very practical reasons) are taking in absolutely no refugees. This is utterly senseless. If you were an Arab speaking Muslim refugee, your life would probably be a lot easier if you were accepted in Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi...given living quarters there, offered a job. No need to learn Norwegian, Swedish, German, French, English...fit in with the majority (Sunnis in particular)...And it is worth noting as well that Saudi has contributed to the crisis, not nearly to the extent of the US, but perhaps even more in the short term history--a few years as opposed to 100--than France and certainly Germany.
Christian Syrians ARE in Lebanon, and might find it uncomfortable in Saudi Arabia in terms of religion, but otherwise culturally they would fit better there than in Germany or Nordic countries.
When Slavoj Žižek visited refugees at the Slovene border what he heard most often was that they wanted to go to Norway, where they could get an apartment and a job--out of the side of his mouth Žižek said 'Never mind three quarters of Slovenes would like the same thing.' When I told someone that, my son said, 'That's true.' And it really is. At the same time, of course there are the true xenophobes who are posting pictures of the mess left behind by refugees, like, for example, the littered ground where 500 people were camped in a space that would comfortably fit 100, where they were delivered food and drink in plastic containers, and, well, just left their garbage there on the ground (as opposed to what? carrying the detritus of months of travel on their heads?).

Christian Syrians ARE in Lebanon, and might find it uncomfortable in Saudi Arabia in terms of religion, but otherwise culturally they would fit better there than in Germany or Nordic countries.

Oh god, I'm gonna say, absolutely not. Lots of Muslims don't fit culturally with the Saudis, let alone people who, believe it or not, lived their whole lives as, I'm not going to insult them and say "Western", but modern people.

Sorry, but this just reinforces stark ignorance and ass-fucked conceptions of what life in Syria (and Lebanon for that matter) was like. Syria had female industrialists. Female Muslim, uncovered, disco-ing, bikini-wearing industrialists.

'Never mind three quarters of Slovenes would like the same thing.'

Yes, isn't it a pity the JNA didn't actually bomb Slovenia to smithereens? What a chance wasted, they could have all beaten the Syrians to Norway.

What an ugly, nasty post.

The main point is that no one is discussing the fact that NO refugees are taken in by wealthy neighboring countries with more similarities than otherwise. This does not mean I wish to condemn refugee women to suffer Saudi laws, but are you not one of those who support the women in Saudi who are fighting for change? Is it not time to hold Saudis to account as others are?

Obviously like anywhere else places in the Middle East are quite various, but that's hardly to my point. I offer something to consider.

Stark ignorant and ass-fucked conceptions of what Syria was like, and Lebanon for that matter, are also abetted by your simple-minded notion of FEMALE Mulsims uncovered disco-ing and bikini-wearing industrialists as if that's all to a woman's life in advanced utopian Syria.

Have you counted the dead women from the last Israeli assault on utopian Lebanon, where, rumor has it, women have some of the rights men have? They can even eat the same foods, just like in Syria.

Sovenia is suffering an EU imposed (with the cooperation of greedy post-Jugo enabled industrialists, male mostly, and politicians, male only mostly--a sort of Med-Balkan Syria as we have uncovered, discoing bikini wearing women too along with a still sexist homophobic population) recession, enforced austerity, and so yes, what Žižek said is much to the point. Slovenia DID join NATO, which was silly, but it was under coercion, yet they have done nothing to stir up the Middle East.

No, Lola, you are not the only person who knows that throughout the Middle East people have lived as modern lives as insulted Westerners. I dated a commie Irani for a couple years, poor woman, but I did learn a lot about Iran.

Finally, you should take a good look at your own fanaticism and the way it eclipses your thought and compare it to an ISIS propagandist. Love your methodology, baby.

>111 RickHarsch:

Posting while drunk again?

This does not mean I wish to condemn refugee women to suffer Saudi laws, but are you not one of those who support the women in Saudi who are fighting for change? Is it not time to hold Saudis to account as others are?

I've made my feelings about Saudia and its system clear enough in the past. I don't know what you mean by "holding to account". Yammering on the internet about how vile it is--fine. Bombing a la Afghanistan--"for the women" no doubt--no.

your simple-minded notion of FEMALE Mulsims uncovered disco-ing and bikini-wearing industrialists as if that's all to a woman's life in advanced utopian Syria.

Fuck off. I'm talking about people I know. People with whom I went to those discos, whose weddings I attended, whose careers I've followed. People who are now in the Emirates, Dubai, Lebanon and Europe. Not Saudia--NEVER Saudia. Because reasons. "Cultural" foremost.

Have you counted the dead women from the last Israeli assault on utopian Lebanon, where, rumor has it, women has some of the rights men have? They can even eat the same foods, just like in Syria.

Omg, you can do better than this utter crapola. "Counting dead women" indeed. Stop embarrassing yourself.

what Žižek said is much to the point.

You're blathering so incoherently I'm not sure what you're on about here, but I know what I'm seeing-- a fucking disgusting and sort-of hilarious, in its wretchedness, envy of people whom misery has sent into Europe and who MIGHT end up, somewhere better than Slovenia. They are not asking to remain in Slovenia, are they? They want to go to NORWAY, right? What Slovenes want is neither here nor there to some guy from Aleppo, very rightly so.

Finally, you should take a good look at your own fanaticism and the way it eclipses your thought and compare it to an ISIS propagandist. Love your methodology, baby.

You should take a nap.

My son just asked why you wrote that bizarre line about the JNA--I had to explain that you took what I wrote out of context, that of course that was not what you meant.

Explain also to your son about sarcasm.

Look, I realise you're determined to vent at any cost, and vent everything, all the obviously deep, vast and crapulous stores of resentment in you. I can't really imagine I'm the real target here, but you HAVE made me a target, along with whatever really ails you.

It's funny that yesterday your opinion of me mattered to me. It does not any longer.

Cunt away all you want, in any language you want, give an expression to the real you, by all means.

Anyone need a gun?

>115 richardbsmith:

I'm anti-gun. I fight off bullies with smiles and sunflowers.

Rick, Slovenia is in the EU, and therefore its citizens have the right to move freely about the member states. Norway may not be an EU member, but Sweden and Germany are. Why would Norway be more attractive to them than a place they can move to, should they so choose?

FOOD FIGHT!

>117 RidgewayGirl:

There's Schengen. (At least for now.) But that's not really the point here...

>117 RidgewayGirl:

I'll probably earn another earful of "cunting" (with adjectives to match) if that individual decides I'm pre-empting his answer, but I'm interested in taking up your question myself, so if you don't mind: I don't think Norway's the point.

Slovenia is in economic straits (although better off than her neighbours and ex-sister states to the east) and many people find the idea of a place where "a job and an apartment" are waiting for you understandably pleasant. But I don't think many Slovenes would care to buy that opportunity at the cost of what the refugees went through.

ETA: x-post with krolik...

>117 RidgewayGirl: I have no idea, but the point being made would have been made as well using any other well off EU country. All he meant to say was that the refugee crisis is more complicated than those who say Bring them all tend to realize. Regarding Slovenes it was an aside, not just a joke but a joke, about how what refugees want is something Slovenes would like as well. But to be serious, Slovenes want it where they ought to have it, at home. They do migrate: far too many people I know have gone to Germany against their deeper desires, obviously mostly younger people. What Žižek was doing was expanding the discourse of the crisis. He has no time for anyone who is merely xenophobic or racist or anti-Islam, so whatever he says is aimed at the rest, whom he finds over simple. For instance, as I wrote in 96, he spoke of the very strange situation in which a Palestinian singer was roundly criticized for including in his play list a song against honor killings, which his audience found supportive of the Zionists. I think he would find your being accused of wanting to keep the Christians out fairly predictable. Of course, Žižek is these days being called a fascist even though from what I can tell he absolutely supports the practical notion of supporting refugees and getting them to safe places. I don't know what he thinks practically about the countries of the Saudi peninsula, but what I think is that whether or not any of those countries take anyone for any amount of time, the utterly bizarre fact that they are taking NONE is worth including in the overall discussion.
Right now I am certain it is too late to prevent a great deal of refugee suffering, and so what is left is to manage SOMETHING before they start dying in droves.

The fact that Norway came up at all is likely a matter of the rumors of a particular day. Sweden would have been the Nordic country of choice, and Germany still is predominantly the hoped for destination.

Ten years ago a Serbian professor made roughly half what a Slovene professor made. Recently someone told me that hasn't changed. They are probably wrong, as the Slovene professor makes less now. The odd thing is that, to take just Serbia, they are in deep shit after a decade or so of war on and off, the loss of healthy chunks of economic territory, the NATO bombing of some 150 plus factories, and years of sanctions (a Serb lit professor, expert on US lit of all things, who wrote one of the best summary of US politics I've ever read in the intro to her literary discussion, went into great detail with me on the horrors caused by the sanctions), while Slovenia is in deep shit having escaped war, and joined the EU and NATO, supposedly the right things to do. Unfortunately, on the outside there is the euro debacle and on the inside there is the formula by which the leaders have jettisoned the best of the Jugo ideas and taken on the worst of the neolib capitalist ideas.

>114 LolaWalser: 'Sorry, but this just reinforces stark ignorance and ass-fucked conceptions...' I wonder who REALLY needed to vent and attack. 'Fuck off.' Resentment in me?

>116 LolaWalser: Shame you don't attempt your bullying with smiles and sunflowers.

These really should have their separate space, don't you think? Perhaps you can go back and check who got all tetchy first. As for the really personal stuff, I keep that for a private site that was closed specifically to keep one of us out that there might be peace. Here, I am just getting on.

>121 RickHarsch: It's not entirely true that Saudia Arabia and the Gulf states are not allowing any Syrian refugees in. They aren't party to the UN protocols on refugees, and so they are not included in the counts.

With Saudi Arabia's non-signatory status, the Syrians residing in Saudi Arabia are classified as "Arab brothers and sisters in distress" instead of refugees covered by UN treaties. According to Nabil Othman, the UNHCR regional representative to the Gulf region, there were 500,000 Syrian refugees in Saudi Arabia at the time of his statement. The government itself of Saudi Arabia has stated that it has, over the past five years since the start of the conflict hosted 2.5 million refugees.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anhvinh-doanvo/europes-crisis-refugees_b_8175924.h...

>124 RidgewayGirl: If your article is accurate 'It's not entirely true' is a nice way of putting it. How about I was utterly wrong? We have to trust someone who has information, and until otherwise persuaded I will go with the regional rep. of UNHCR, though with the question: why didn't UNHCR act more aggressively to correct the misunderstanding in the media?

>125 RickHarsch: It's a comment that I've been hearing over and over again, usually by fine American Christians eager to find a good reason why their politics should trump the dictates of their own faith. It has been widely reported, and the UNHCR's own reporting doesn't seem to be going out of its way to correct the mistake.

And Jerry Falwell, the president of Liberty University, a large Evangelical Christian institution, recently gave a speech to students telling them to arm themselves against Muslims. He would later (and in a much more low key way) correct himself to say Muslim terrorists, but even his supporters are content with the first wording.

>126 RidgewayGirl: I don't understand the UNHCR's failure to get the information out. The problem is that sometimes good questions seem to be complicit with ugly world views and asking the questions risks being categorized among the uglies. Thanks for relieving me of the need to ask one of those questions.

I'm afraid nothing can be done about Baby Falwell and his ilk. That's a part of the US I could never bring myself to experience first hand, not even a second of televangelism.

The effect of the approach that Falwell makes is to confuse terrorism and violence with gun violence, and to justify arguments against any gun control because it will not stop terrorism.

He confuses the debate, and gains momentum in his argument from that confusion.

That was the point attempted with the linked article above >101 richardbsmith:

The two are separate, I think. And also their solutions.

I heard on the radio driving home today that Germany has accepted over 100,000 more refugees so far this year than the 800,000 it had originally said it would take in.

I hope they don't mind working with Slovenes.

Germans continue to overcompensate with misguided "openness" due to their overlong, excessive guilt about Hitler. Terrorists flock to Germany in part because of its social programs.

>131 barney67: I guess you don't know much about Germany or Germans. The country has not been dormant since 1945.

>131 barney67: I didn't know that terrorists were especially fond of social programs. How do you know this? And, do you think that if they are treated like human beings, and integrated into society, that they might become peaceful terrorists with jobs, families and vacation plans? Would they still be terrorists, then?

>133 RidgewayGirl: if (terrorists) are treated like human beings, and integrated into society, that they might become peaceful terrorists with jobs, families and vacation plans? Would they still be terrorists, then?

I read somewhere that the (PLO?) found wives for (Black October?) terrorists, in attempt to bring them back into society. The ladies were told that they were doing their people a service? Something like that! Wonder how well it worked.

I rather comfortably missed the potential Vietnam call-up, but I have been certain my whole life that I would have dodged. At the same time, for more than 30 years I have been certain that had I been born a Palestinian I would have died young.

One thing congress can do to reduce gun violence is allow assisted suicide centers in the US.

"peaceful terrorists"

-- Wow! Ha ha ha ha ha.......!

http://www.channel3000.com/news/family-of-biker-killed-in-hostage-standoff-consi...

What this article does not address but I just now heard on the news that this man also had gun. He did not drop the weapon when the police said to drop all weapons. According to people interviewed he was just looking out for everyone else.
So, I guess when the cops show up to a gun type situation, it is important to identify oneself as a "good guy" with the gun, leaving the bad guy to remain silent or plead his case as to whether he feels that he too is a good guy with a gun.

INSANE. Now the cops are in trouble. If I were a cop, I would let the stupid people in this country take care of themselves.....they want to so bad......have at it.

Really....where the fuck are we going with this crap ?

Is calling people "cunt", "putrid cunt" and so on in languages other than English allowed by the TOS?

>140 LolaWalser: Gosh, I would hope not. We'd have people telling each other to fuck off left and right.

Mmm? We have plenty of pictures of one of my aunts on the beach in the UAE in a Bikini. Dubai is a major resort.

Yes, I asked that one be sent, but I didn't ask you so don't feel obliged. That was well off the point by that time in the failed discussion.

My first impulse was to behave as we do when we step on a turd--clean up and move on; you don't hang around arguing with it.

But it occurred to me how different I'd feel if it had happened to someone else. I'd be outraged, and I'd certainly protest such abuse.

Even worse, it had happened before, and to the same pattern: a wildly, deliberately misconstrued notion serving as pretext, a bunch of misrepresentations and non sequiturs, followed by a torrent of swinish abuse. Then too I did and said nothing, and I believe now that was a big mistake.

So this is me not being silent about the abuse I suffered in this thread, the same way I wouldn't have let it slide in silence if it had happened to anyone else.

(Incidentally, if any male posters have been told to "GO FUCK YOURSELF, YOU PUTRID CUNT", or been called a "CUNT", SLUT or WHORE by RickHarsch, I'd appreciate you letting me know--with links if possible--I need it, as the kids say, for science.)

Moreover, in retrospect I count as deliberate abuse the way my name has been dragged into this thread, the motivation for that.

Until post #96 I have not been present in the thread at all, not as poster, certainly not as a topic, then I'm invoked out of the blue here, and that, outrageously, as someone who "charges at the Muslims".

I addressed that above and I won't say more here about my feelings on the subject except to say that after the "developments" I am even more furious about it now than I was then. But it seemed, or at least I decided to believe so, that my complaint was understood and accepted.

I should explain, for those who've been around a while, that some time ago Rick approached me with apologies about his past behaviour and I, surprised and moved as you wouldn't believe, apologised for mine. You may have noticed something had changed. I won't go into the whats and whys of the past, although it quite obviously "informs" the present, I just want to point out that my basic disposition toward Rick had changed to one of sincere friendship, and it's from that "place" that I replied to him in this thread, from posts #97 to post #110.

That post is vulgar ("Sorry, but this just reinforces stark ignorance and ass-fucked conceptions of what life in Syria (and Lebanon for that matter) was like.") and sarcastic ("Yes, isn't it a pity the JNA didn't actually bomb Slovenia to smithereens? What a chance wasted, they could have all beaten the Syrians to Norway.") but I believe it's clear to anyone with basic reading comprehension skills that the subject of a) vulgarity are the misconceptions I said Rick's post reinforced--not Rick, and not even the specific idea he expressed (a lot of unexceptional, neutral or even partly correct notions reinforce terrible stuff)--and the subject of b) sarcasm was (Zizek's) juxtaposition of the situation of Syrian war refugees and that of incomparably more comfortable Slovenes. Whatever the original context of Zizek's words, in the context of Rick's post noting that masses of Slovenes would like to "go to Norway" followed the idea that Syrian Christians might be better off in Saudi Arabia than "Norway"--so you see where I got the impulse to laugh. Sarcastically.

Reading that post again, and fully accepting, as of course I always do, that employment of vulgar language and sarcasm comes at cost of many person's good will (although Rick is the last one I'd expect to get ruffled), I simply can't see that anything other than malicious intent could persist in reading it as a personal insult.

Which brings me to to the worst thing about this: my feeling--conviction, at this point--that for whatever reason only a psychiatrist could really explain, this person has zeroed on me as a punching bag whenever circumstances bring him to a boil and I'm conveniently "in the vicinity".

I've blocked him but I notice he's been posting after me in various threads. Please let me know if he's being abusive again, or displaying apparent polyglot skills.

I haven't reported this to the staff, I simply wanted to mark my protest in this thread, but if he's doing it again, they should know.

>145 LolaWalser: And yet you seem to be completely blind to the abuse that your sarcasm represents. I've seen it time and time again that you're sarcastic, bullying responses completely shuts down a conversation or at least the other side of it. Sometimes people post things because they are working through the issues in their head and need a sounding board and there should be a place for that, but your passion is often just too overwhelming.

Just my 2 cents.

>143 SimonW11:

Ah, my favourite topics, beaches, women and bikinis...! Arab beaches with Arab women in bikinis! My whole childhood telescopes into those scenes now.

I don't have any of our photo albums with me but the next time I go home I shall start scanning and posting photos. I had that planned for a while, for purely personal reasons, but now that Syria has been devastated it seems like a necessity.

The more so as there seems to be little online, or it's completely submerged by recent pictures.

In Lattakia, where we spent most of the time, the two beaches we visited most often were Afamia and Blue Beach. Afamia (much developed now), the public beach, was my favourite:



It drew crowds in swimsuits as well as women covered from head to toe. The latter would go sit in the sea with the abayas floating around them like giant lotuses. They stared endlessly at "naked" people but it seemed mostly good natured wonder. I remember one time one woman asked me to come to her so she could touch the fabric of the piece I was wearing.

Blue Beach was close to a hotel and a lot "tonier".

>146 jjwilson61:

And yet you seem to be completely blind to the abuse that your sarcasm represents.

One--are you saying "my sarcasm" (or maybe "sarcasm" in general) is therefore justifiably addressed by calling me a "putrid cunt"?

Two--you seem to want to make a general indictment of (my) sarcasm. Kindly show exactly WHAT sarcasm (of mine) abused whom, or save all your pennies.

ETA: Three--this:

sometimes people post things because they are working through the issues in their head and need a sounding board and there should be a place for that,

I take as evidence proving that the abuse I got here is seen as "people working through the issues".

but your passion is often just too overwhelming.

Really. And yet, somehow, my "passion" has never led me to call anyone a "putrid cunt", a slut, a whore etc.

On topic of abuse, I want to note for the record that @jjwilson61 has chosen to blame ME, and that in general terms, while being wholly silent about actual abuse that happened in the thread.

Remembering jjwilson's opinions on sexism and rape, I'm not very surprised by that, only by the transparency of his attitude.

>148 LolaWalser: One--are you saying "my sarcasm" (or maybe "sarcasm" in general) is therefore justifiably addressed by calling me a "putrid cunt"?

I'm just saying that your tone contributed to the negative tone of the entire thread leading up to that exchange. Your the one who seems to think that you're entirely neutral and people just come along out of the blue and abuse you.

>150 jjwilson61:

I'm just saying that your tone contributed to the negative tone of the entire thread leading up to that exchange. Your the one who seems to think that you're entirely neutral and people just come along out of the blue and abuse you.

No. Read my post again--you'll see I acknowledge completely how my vulgarity and sarcasm (to name only two "risqué" stylistic elements I employ on occasion) may negatively affect the audience, and pre-judge them against me.

And again--do you have anything other to contribute except general criticisms of my character and attacks on ME?

To this point which I believe should be on a separate post and I apologize to all that it is taking place here:
I was told to fuck off before I hurled any obscenities. LolaWalser was 'dragged' into this post as a positive example, someone who is not, in this case, shy about posting her critiques of Islamic nastinesses when they occur. I believe that should have been understood, but here as elsewhere in the recent past, she chose to misunderstand me (that is what I think, anyway), and I graciously brought to her notice what I was trying to say. Then she had one of her frequent tantrums, again regarding something she and I are in basic agreement on (these posts are to me generally throw away conversations; I try to be clear but when someone takes me the wrong way I will attempt to clarify--when they don't, I sometimes don't...it's not unusual for people to generalize by saying something usually shorter than this example, but similar:

#112: "You're blathering so incoherently I'm not sure what you're on about here, but I know what I'm seeing-- a fucking disgusting and sort-of hilarious, in its wretchedness, envy of people whom misery has sent into Europe and who MIGHT end up, somewhere better than Slovenia. They are not asking to remain in Slovenia, are they? They want to go to NORWAY, right? What Slovenes want is neither here nor there to some guy from Aleppo, very rightly so." So I am accused of a disgusting, wretched envy of people in misery. I believe anyone who knows me even here would regard that as a strange diagnosis. In fact, those who like me least would still guess rightly that I support bringing as many refugees to Europe as possible.

About the past, I recall many abusive posts directed at me by LW, one beginning, precisely, 'I do not like Rick Harsch, I do not like Rick Harsch at all...' which I found rather odd because it was in response to a post someone wrote suggesting I was misunderstood and that I was not, in fact, making fun of people with a certain disease. After an exchange with her I received more than ten private messages (I was rather new to LT) urging me not to feel bad as this sort of thing happened often with LW.

My own actual problem with LW has nothing to do with outlandish and misplaced rants, sudden hypersensitivities--remember, I brought her up as a very positive example and have quite recently on this site expressed admiration for her mind and style, which is genuine--my problem had to do with her lack of graciousness, for there were a few posts in the past in which I came to see her point and at that time she never replied. She would only communicate to criticize.

She is not complaining to the 'authorities', though #140 seems a complaint to the authorities to me.

I believe she is really upset because I let slip that I spend my finer time in a group that is private specifically to keep her disruptive presence out.

I apologize to anyone who is offended by my comments--they were in Slovene for two reasons: 1) to keep the ugliest of the spat private, and 2) because LW once called me, without knowing me at all, a monolingual something or other.

Now, I will continue to post as I see fit, and if LW is involved in the conversation and my post follows hers to je živiljenje, which is my monolingual way of saying c'est la vie.

I'm not reading Rick's posts, he's been back on Ignore since the last time I replied to him, I just want an answer to the question I posed above:

Does the TOS allow calling people "putrid cunt", "cunt" or whore or slut etc.--if it's done in language other than English?

As for others who may want to take up themes raised by my protest, please start a thread for that purpose. Note, though, if you're just another MRA type who wants to explain how I brought it on myself (I'm not a nice person after all...)--you too can fuck off to kingdom come.

I'm not the person who derailed the thread from its original theme, but I've contributed to it, and I don't want to do that longer than necessary.

Simon--see you in some "Arab Beach of Yesteryear" or "Arab Urban Life" thread by-and-by!

>153 LolaWalser: I'd rather have you at the party; that is all I know or need to know. As for the rest, Mene, mene...

>154 SomeGuyInVirginia:

True blue courage!! :)

Respect, Guy, you're a Mensch.

And we don't even agree politically. :)

>153 LolaWalser: If you could point me to the # of the offending message, I would happily flag it.

>156 theoria:

Thanks for the offer, and if you really want to I will, but I want to say first that that's not the point of my question.

I just want an answer that would let us ALL know (whether there's a loophole in the TOS or whether there isn't).

>157 LolaWalser: I understand that's not your intention.

But to answer your question: there should be no loophole. However, the only way to find out if there's a non-English language loophole in fact is to flag the offender and await a response from the site management.

>158 theoria:

Yes, you're right. In fact, considering that I decided to protest publicly, it's ridiculous that I haven't flagged his post myself (it's ridiculous, now that I think of it, that I've never done so. As if people who post stuff like that appreciate honour.)

Post # 113: http://www.librarything.com/topic/206516#5363609

Note: that's the last post of his I've read.

Done.

Okay, so I guess I am bound to ask whether 'Fuck off' violates the TOS. I violated the TOS, in my way for my reason explained above, but I was the first offended, told to fuck off. I recognize that is a weak excuse, and the language I used in Slovene I do not use in attack in real life.

Regarding this quote: "(Incidentally, if any male posters have been told to "GO FUCK YOURSELF, YOU PUTRID CUNT", or been called a "CUNT", SLUT or WHORE by RickHarsch, I'd appreciate you letting me know--with links if possible--I need it, as the kids say, for science.)" In Slovene I said what was said to me, that is, 'fuck off', and added the second and third, but not the fourth or fifth. One intention I didn't mention--aside from being attacked first and responding to a past insult regarding language--was to mock the very process of name-calling.

I was hoping we were done with this as I trusted that most would find this sort of spat something to avoid, something in itself repulsive, but now I guess I have to ask anyone who flags my post to consider whether the previous post, which tells me to fuck off, #112 is not also due a flagging.

http://www.tmj4.com/news/local-news/deputies-shut-down-i-43-south-for-multiple-i...

How many lost work hours for how many people ? Nuts !

On Twitter: side-eye spice @goldengateblond / PROPOSAL: Rebrand shootings as "late-term abortion." Watch the GOP scramble to stop them.