Yes, But How Does It Work, Exactly?

[carbonelle]

I am one of those tiresome people who, when told about some amazing cure, whether it's an herbal supplement or waving a crystal over the general region of my internal plumbing, want to know just how and why I'm going to get better. Yes, there's no doubt a placebo effect, but I don't want to waste time and money (and potentially poison myself).

Comments

[ndrosen]

Delightfully rational as usual, and on the right side, IMHO.

[houseboatonstyx]

Nitpik. Palin did no such thing. She wasn't informed of any issue about rape kits.

[houseboatonstyx]

It wasn't an issue at the time: she went line-by-line through the budget crossing out any item that didn't need to be replaced, updated etc. to save money. Including automatically purchasing new rape kits when the current ones hadn't been used.

[houseboatonstyx]

Cite?

Were rape kits specifically mentioned in the alleged line item, or were they just included in something like "misc unused police supplies'?

[carbonelle]

Eh: you've missed the point: it doesn't matter either way, if you don't need to use them.

There is an actually objection you could make (i.e. there's a flaw in my argument, a non sequitor): d'you spot it?

[ejmam]

But does a ban on assault weapons lead to a decreased number of massacres? Massacres aren't a big percentage of gun-related homicides, but they have a huge impact on society. I think it's worthwhile to work to decrease their number. That's a legitimate topic to discuss.

And I sure hope "shooting the Nazis" is never the first response to worrying that they will "come for the nice lesbian couple." Voting them out, or not voting them in, would be much preferable. I find most politicians much more worried about the votes than the guns of the voters.

[houseboatonstyx]

Massacres aren't a big percentage of gun-related homicides, but they have a huge impact on society. I think it's worthwhile to work to decrease their number.

Yes. And expanding the topic from 'school and theatre shootings' to 'all gun-related homicides' is not helpful.

[carbonelle]

Er. The set of "gun related homicides" does include school and other attempted mass-shootings that use, yanno, guns. So yes: applicable.

And to answer your question: yes: the number of massacres has also decreased where law-abiding gun owners are present. In fact, whenever a law-abiding gun owner with a concealed carry permit is present at an attempted mass-shooting, they stop it. The would-be mass-murder never manages to kill more than two or three persons (I include the would-be mass-murderer, though there are those who won't: one never learns until later whether the killer is an evil man, an Islamic zealot or just some poor insane schmuck who can't get the help he needs thanks to the wacky "nobody's insane! it's all A Plot" wing of the progressive party

[houseboatonstyx]

Massacres aren't a big percentage of gun-related homicides, but they have a huge impact on society.

If you mean school or theatre shootings etc, then you're definitely right. Elsewhere I've seen support from both sides for an approach of 'keep the most dangerous people from getting the most dangerous guns'.

We've been having some constructive discussion of that approach at http://milwaukeesfs.livejournal.com/230227.html

[juliet_winters]

I guess my question would be, how does this fit into their political strategy? What good does it do them?

A lot, I think. A whole, whole lot, which is why rational arguments please us in the choir but don't make much head-way with a crowd who thinks the Constitution is an open-edit document.

People keep forcing us to listen to Lennon's Imagine--featured on the New Year's Eve celebration in Times Square. An ode to peace, love, and non-religion.

How about The Beatles' Revolution? I can get behind that one.

[carbonelle]

You are, of course, correct, but in these parlous days, it seems to me that the choir needs encouragement, if only to answer the mushy-minded, ill-informed "independent" who gets his news from Law & Order re-runs and Jon Stewart.