Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[Pariah]

On 8/14/2019 at 7:55 PM, megaplayboy said:

My actual view on the issue is that we need federally funded, unrestricted scientific research <snip>

 

Sadly, this doesn't exist in the United States right now. One of the first things the President did after he took office was to gag the government's science agencies.

[Hermit]

10 minutes ago, Pariah said:

 

Sadly, this doesn't exist in the United States right now. One of the first things the President did after he took office was to gag the government's science agencies.

 

Krypton is NOT in danger, and the council will not hear anyone raising such baseless concerns. Someone one kindly tell Citizen Jor-El to please sit down.

 

 

[Pariah]

A scientifically-literate population is not in the current Administration's best interests, as it turns out. 

[Pattern Ghost]

Or . . . just literate.

[Pariah]

22 minutes ago, Pattern Ghost said:

Or . . . just literate.

 

You're not wrong. I've often said that if you really want to know where this President stands in terms of the importance of Education, just look at who he appointed to be in charge of it.

[ScottishFox]

48 minutes ago, Pariah said:

A scientifically-literate population is not in the current Administration's best interests, as it turns out. 

 

Nor the last one, nor the one before that.

 

The last thing our less-popular-than-root-canals congress wants is anyone who understands that complex societal problems cannot be resolved with sound-bite answers and ridiculous overspending (23 trillion in the hole, 100+ trillion in unfunded liabilities).

 

Everyone on the bus stay calm.  The cliff is not real..

[archer]

On 8/14/2019 at 1:45 PM, Hermit said:

 

If we landed a man on Mars in Trump's watch he'd start selling chunks of the red planet's real estate and putting his name on it with a giant laser

 

 

You're saying that like it's a bad thing.

 

j/k

[archer]

On 8/15/2019 at 1:02 PM, Simon said:

I think that throughout our society there is a general use of guns as defensive weapons that is both pervasive and misleading.  They are not good at self defense -- there are much better ways to defend oneself from an attack. 

 

I'm curious about those much better ways to defend myself from attack.

 

Let's say that I were able to better control my hands and fingers than I can in reality.

 

I still have limited mobility and balance problems when I try to stand and walk.

 

I live a couple of miles away from a part of town where drugs are literally sold on every street corner by guys wearing gang colors. I've had people try to mug me while I'm just doing simple things like coming out of a bookstore.

 

Can you point out some of those much better ways to defend myself from attack? Because I have to be damned careful when I step outside my house and sometimes don't feel terribly secure inside my house and could use some pointers to pass along to the other people at the senior center.

[Ternaugh]

25 minutes ago, archer said:

 

I'm curious about those much better ways to defend myself from attack.

 

Let's say that I were able to better control my hands and fingers than I can in reality.

 

I still have limited mobility and balance problems when I try to stand and walk.

 

I live a couple of miles away from a part of town where drugs are literally sold on every street corner by guys wearing gang colors. I've had people try to mug me while I'm just doing simple things like coming out of a bookstore.

 

Can you point out some of those much better ways to defend myself from attack? Because I have to be damned careful when I step outside my house and sometimes don't feel terribly secure inside my house and could use some pointers to pass along to the other people at the senior center.

 

Try this: http://www.functionalselfdefense.org/awareness-prevention

 

Quote

The Short Version:

Avoiding or preventing an attack is easy, and in the vast majority of situations it does not require physical self defense or martial arts. If you follow these simple guidelines, the chance you’ll ever be attacked is incredibly small:

• Avoid dangerous places and people.
• Don’t be a good target.
• Be aware of your surroundings.
• Do not argue, provoke, or allow a verbal conflict to escalate.
• Escape or create distance if you feel threatened.
• Give up your money or valuables if bodily harm is threatened and you cannot escape.
• Keep your private areas secure.

 

[megaplayboy]

There's also: home security systems, owning a dog, neighborhood watch, etc.  

[Simon]

1 hour ago, archer said:

 

I'm curious about those much better ways to defend myself from attack.

 

Let's say that I were able to better control my hands and fingers than I can in reality.

 

I still have limited mobility and balance problems when I try to stand and walk.

 

I live a couple of miles away from a part of town where drugs are literally sold on every street corner by guys wearing gang colors. I've had people try to mug me while I'm just doing simple things like coming out of a bookstore.

 

Can you point out some of those much better ways to defend myself from attack? Because I have to be damned careful when I step outside my house and sometimes don't feel terribly secure inside my house and could use some pointers to pass along to the other people at the senior center.

First and foremost:  what Ternaugh said...x1000.  Too many people think that "defending" starts when you're under active attack -- it's too late then.  At that point, you're hoping that you're better than your attacker.  There's no magic, no mystery -- you are either better than your attacker or you're willing and able to take things further than your attacker is willing to go (e.g. your attacker is just in it as a "simple" bar fight...and you're taking it to the gouging of eyes, stabbing, imminent death level -- that's a whole 'nother fight that they're likely not in for).

Before talking defenses (beyond what Ternaugh hit upon), let's talk about guns...since there's a LOT of misinformation and misconception about them.  A gun is pretty danged effective as an offensive weapon...from about 8 feet on.  Inside of 8 feet, it's non-ideal.  If you don't have the weapon drawn and your attacker is 8 feet away, forget about it.  We would routinely train police in exactly that point -- having a beginning student with a pool noodle run across the entire dojang floor and whap them over the head with it while they were fumbling for their sidearm (airsoft, in those cases).  All they had to do was move, but they were fixated on their gun.

 

Inside of 6 feet and it doesn't matter if you have the gun drawn -- they're too close.  IF you have it trained on them and they're inside of 6 feet, maybe you stand a chance...but again, you're back to are you better than they are....and are they not fully committed to the attack. If you're trying to draw or raise your weapon and someone is inside of 6 feet, you're more likely to have it used against you than you are to actually bring it into play against your attacker.

 

So...guns: great at distance, horrible close up.   

Keep in mind what Ternaugh posted -- if you're unaware of your situation to the point that you get attacked (maybe they were actively in hiding -- this isn't a knock on the person attacked), then you're dealing with an attacker that is well within that 6 foot radius.  You're in HTH range and need to handle it as such.  And by "handle it" I'm not referring to taking the fight to them...that just goes back to who's better trained and more committed to the fight.  De-escalating and avoiding a fight entirely should be your goal...and it's really not that hard (hint: a gun ALWAYS escalates, that's it's main purpose -- showing that one side is willing to take the fight to the lethal level).  A common/believable situation we often used to highlight de-escalating:

 

You're in a bar hanging out with friends, beer in hand.  The bar's pretty crowded...a big guy is walking by and bumps into you, causing you to spill your beer.  Gets mainly on you, but a little splashes on him.  He loses it and starts berating you, clearly angling for a fight.  You've done nothing wrong...you can yell back (escalating things) and hope that he backs down (he's not willing to take it to a fight)...you can actively escalate it to the point of a fight (ala Joe Pesci)...or you can try to de-escalate -- calm him down.  "Whoa, I am so sorry....I didn't see you.  Let me get something at the bar to dry you off.  What are you drinking?  I'll get your next round."  You've gone from your night being over (should a fight have broken out) and likely having some rather expensive medical bills (even if you won) to being out $6 and most likely not even that once the guy calms down...and they almost always do.  

 

You can apply similar in most situations.  Being mugged?  Unless you have thousands on you, give them what they're after -- you're already at a disadvantage (you didn't see them until it was too late) and you're likely going to get injured in a fight, even if you win and keep your stuff.  The cost of those injuries is going to vastly outweigh whatever it is that you're carrying in most cases.  

Too often we're more concerned with what's "fair" or "right" and end up escalating things needlessly.

[Simon]

Just being aware is 95% of self defense.  

 

It's very rare that someone is out there just looking to fight some random dude on the street - there's always a goal and that goal is almost always best met (by the attacker) by avoiding physical conflict.  Physical conflicts are risky...and noisy.

 

Put yourself in the mind of, say, a mugger.  You're not in this to fight, you're in this to find a target that you can take off guard, get their stuff, and get away with minimal commotion.  Get in, get your stuff, get out.  That guy who's walking down the street with his head down as he texts on his iPhone?  Great target.  Barely has the self awareness to avoid a pot hole much less see you coming up behind him.  That woman walking along with her purse over the opposite shoulder (not easy to take off), head up, and aware of where she is?  Not a great target...likely going to make a huge racket even if she doesn't actively fight back.  That's just initial target selection, but that self-aware woman stopped things before they ever moved past that.

[Pattern Ghost]

Can't agree more with what Simon and Ternaugh said above. Ternaugh's link is good reading.

 

 

[Lord Liaden]

I wonder if one of those factors you suggested differ among countries, is levels of confrontationalism? I've always noticed that Americans I know are readier to assert themselves than most Canadians. Perhaps Americans overall tend to escalate more than some other cultures.

[Pattern Ghost]

Maybe. I'd have said it's very likely before, but according to that survey, Canadians commit more violent crimes, so not sure now.

[Hugh Neilson]

On 8/16/2019 at 7:50 AM, ScottishFox said:

 

The CDC has done this at least twice that I know of and while the estimate is VERY rangey (500k to 3 million) the number of defensive gun uses is higher than the number of criminal gun uses.  Additionally, more than 3 out of 4 times a defensive gun use does not involve firing the gun.  Very often just presenting the gun is enough to make the criminal abandon their attempt to rob/harm the gun owner.

 

So if the primary defense of owning a firearm is the potential attacker seeing it and backing off,

 

On 8/16/2019 at 7:50 AM, ScottishFox said:

Still, concealed carry permits have gone up dramatically since the 90s and the crime rate of concealed carry permit holders is extremely low.  Here in Texas the crime rate of concealed carry permit holders is lower than that of police officers.

 

Why would you want to CONCEAL it, rather than display the gun so your potential assailant knows to back off?

 

I'm also tempted to note that, if your main benefit is him seeing the gun, it doesn't actually need to be loaded, or even in working order.  It definitely does not need a large magazine or rapid firing capabilities.

[Hermit]

10 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

Maybe. I'd have said it's very likely before, but according to that survey, Canadians commit more violent crimes, so not sure now.

 

Politely, they commit them politely

 

 

[Ranxerox]

10 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

Maybe. I'd have said it's very likely before, but according to that survey, Canadians commit more violent crimes, so not sure now.

 

What survey?

[Pattern Ghost]

3 hours ago, Ranxerox said:

 

What survey?

 

I linked the chart a few pages back in this post.

 

It's from a Vox article that Sociotard originally posted. The chart is from the International Crime Victims Survey, Gallup Europe. It shows that the US is a bit below average of 15 industrialized countries in 11 violent crimes. (The next chart shows that we have about three times more homicides.)

 

The Vox is trying to use the two charts to support the following conclusion:

 

"This is in many ways intuitive: People of every country get into arguments and fights with friends, family, and peers. But in the US, it’s much more likely that someone will get angry at an argument and be able to pull out a gun and kill someone."

 

Of course, they're making an enormous logical leap here, since their chart doesn't address crime motives at all, and most of our crime is concentrated into certain areas (per the earlier article found on one of the anti-gun lobby websites by csyphrett), which is more of an indicator that most homicides aren't crimes of passion. They've not actually shown how many of those we have. (I'd say the rate of success is probably a bit higher in those sorts of homicides given odds of guns becoming involved being greater in the US, but there aren't really any numbers presented by the Vox author to show exactly what the ratio of these crimes of passion is.)

[Ranxerox]

8 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

I linked the chart a few pages back in this post.

 

It's from a Vox article that Sociotard originally posted. The chart is from the International Crime Victims Survey, Gallup Europe. It shows that the US is a bit below average of 15 industrialized countries in 11 violent crimes. (The next chart shows that we have about three times more homicides.)

 

Thanks for pointing me to the link that you were talking about, but I am not buying the Vox article at all.  In the relevant year for their chart, 2000, the US had a 5.5 homicide rate per 100,000 citizens.  The Vox article claimed that our violent crime rate was 5.5.  So unless, the only violent crime in the us is murder, the Vox article doesn't add up.  

 

I don't know what the 11 index crimes that are being referred to by graph in the Vox article, but in 2000 the US had a forcible rape rate of 32.0 per 100,000 people and a robbery rate of 145 per 100,000 people (link).  What sort of crime index skips over forcible rape and robbery?

[Hermit]

So in ..'lighter' political news... Trump has ticked off Greenland and , naturally, Denmark

[CrosshairCollie]

Easier at this point to name the countries Trump hasn't pissed off.

Russia, North Korea ... yeah, think that's it.

[Lucius]

4 hours ago, Hermit said:

So in ..'lighter' political news... Trump has ticked off Greenland and , naturally, Denmark

 

My understanding is he wanted to buy Greenland from Denmark, but Denmark doesn't want to sell and Greenland doesn't want to be sold?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary wants to buy Canada

[Lord Liaden]

11 minutes ago, Lucius said:

My understanding is he wanted to buy Greenland from Denmark, but Denmark doesn't want to sell and Greenland doesn't want to be sold?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary wants to buy Canada

 

The magnitude of Trump's ignorance and arrogance doesn't even surprise any more.

 

But the government of the Canadian province of Alberta is making one of its periodic rumblings about separating from Canada, so you might be able to buy that. With oil prices depressed right now you could probably get a good deal.

[Hugh Neilson]

23 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

But the government of the Canadian province of Alberta is making one of its periodic rumblings about separating from Canada, so you might be able to buy that. With oil prices depressed right now you could probably get a good deal.

 

Please, not even in jest...

 

In fairness to The Donald, let's not forget the Louisiana Purchase, or how the US acquired Alaska.

 

Anyway, with separation cooling off in Quebec, someone has to pick up the slack, don't they?