Jump to content

TrickstaPriest

HERO Member
  • Posts

    1,262
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    TrickstaPriest got a reaction from Lord Liaden in Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)   
    Yes.  I appreciate both Pattern Ghost and Tom talking and sharing more on subjects I don't know about, and having the patience to do so.
  2. Thanks
    TrickstaPriest got a reaction from Tom in Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)   
    Yes.  I appreciate both Pattern Ghost and Tom talking and sharing more on subjects I don't know about, and having the patience to do so.
  3. Like
    TrickstaPriest reacted to BarretWallace in Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)   
    Although my Hero gaming is not what it once was, posts like this are a large part of why I still lurk and occasionally post on these forums.  Disputes happen even in this community, but by and large they stay civil and mutually respectful.  Posters also tend to show far more effort and articulate thinking than the average comment section on FB or a typical online news article.  While there are many well-written posts, for me, this one is a recent stand-out.  Thank you for putting in the time and effort it took to write it!
  4. Thanks
    TrickstaPriest reacted to Tom in Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)   
    Coming back to this a bit, I thought I'd provide a bit of context for the typical (from a gun person perspective) on inclusion of selective fire as part of the definition of an 'assault rifle' and one possible explanation for why the term 'assault weapon' seems so hard to pin down.
     
    For someone with a historic interest in military firearms, the 'assault rifle' is an actual thing.  We know what it is and what characteristics define it.  We can even point to a specific gun and say: "this is where it all begins..."
     
    We might debate whether 'this' gun or 'that' gun is an 'assault rifle' or a 'battle rifle' (gun nerds can be as bad as Hero gamers tearing apart a character sheet -- well, maybe not that bad), but we can agree on what isn't an 'assault rifle' and selective fire is part of the core definition.
     
    'Assault weapon' as we are seeing, is a nice vague term that sounds threatening, but that we're having a hard time (though we haven't really dug that deep into things here) actually defining it.  Sort of like 'pornography' - "I know it when I see it."  Or, more simply, it's whatever I say it is.
     
    For anyone interested in a bit of military history:
     
     
  5. Sad
    TrickstaPriest reacted to Old Man in Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)   
    Tennessee House passes bill that would allow county clerks to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples. And interracial couples. In fact any couple, based on the clerk's "conscience"
  6. Sad
    TrickstaPriest reacted to Ranxerox in Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)   
    Whether or not Stewart's tactics are underhanded depends on whether he legitimately considers teenage gang members to be children.  At a certain age, it is not a hard thing to do.  Personally, I consider everyone under twenty a quite a few people over 20 to be children. 
     
    No one is born a violent gang member and no one needs to die one.  Of course if you die young, you  lose the ability to walk away from that life.  Gang diversion and gang intervention programs age great, but why are we limited to those solutions.  We could do those things and make gun access harder to get.  Yes, they could still stab one another, but knives simply are not as good at killing people as guns in the hands of the untrained.  Everything that reduces the chance of dying young gives the young and foolish more time to turn their lives around.
  7. Like
    TrickstaPriest reacted to csyphrett in Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)   
    Gun tracing would be helped by automated processing like the fingerprint system, or Vicap, but the ATF is forbidden to computerize their records. Their Gov page tries to paint a rosy picture of the process but this is what NBC Chicago says:
    https://www.nbcchicago.com/violence-in-chicago/how-crime-guns-are-traced-in-the-us-one-page-at-a-time/2615068/  
     
    Pay attention to the fact that when they get a request to track a gun, someone has to go into the record area and manually search for the number from the manufacturer, and then call the manufacturer to find out the chain of deals that happened with any one gun.
    CES  
  8. Thanks
    TrickstaPriest reacted to Pattern Ghost in Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)   
    Note: I'm responding to this quote first, but don't take the length of the post as I continue on into the weeds personally, Tricksta. I just found myself expanding on a thought that started here.
     
    Microstamping isn't really viable. But, let's say it works exactly as advertised. The police recover a spent casing at the scene of a crime. They run it through a database and determine who the last owner was. Does this solve the crime?
     
    Another point Stewart makes is that it should be easier for the ATF to trace gun transfers. Which they can already do.  Do gun traces solve crimes? These are essentially the same result as microstamping. I don't know the answer to that, because Google doesn't return any results for searches for crimes solved by ATW traces (and you can't prove a negative). I suspect the number of crimes actually solved by ATF transfer traces is low, because most crimes are committed by people who aren't the original owners. In the case of mass shooters, most of those (I'm guessing) seem to be legally obtained, but ATF traces are a moot point, because the person is usually caught or killed without the need for a trace.
     
    But, let's look at this more optimistically and say that microstamping and better ATF tracing of firearms increases the solve rate for homicides by a significant amount. Does that prevent gun violence? I don't think it would. The death penalty isn't a deterrent, so I doubt an increased chance of getting caught would be.
     
    So, even with the best rose-colored glasses on, these things that sound like good, "common sense," ideas just aren't going to curtail our murder rate.
     
    Which is another lie told by Stewart in that interview, using statistics. Here's a decent, unbiased (as far as I can tell), analysis of gun death data from Pew:
     
    https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/
     
    So, how is Stewart lying about the increased number of murders? He isn't. But he is using the numbers disingenuously to sow fear.*
     
     
    So far, so good. The number of gun homicides has clearly gone up. Horrible. We must do something. Stewart says we must reduce the number of guns (probably won't do squat), fund the ATF (agreed), research gun violence (agreed), require microstamping (disagreed), while Fox News says we all need to fund the police better (agreed, but not for their idiot reasons), and all go out and buy a gun (disagreed), because blood is flowing in the streets! Chaos! Calamity! (disagreed, as denoted by the sarcastic exclamation points).
     
    OK, so what's the problem? The problem is that the number doesn't have context. Fortunately, the Pew report seems to be pretty clear at providing context:
     
     
    OK, we can all breath a sigh of relief. Numbers are up, but it's not quite as bad as the raw numbers show, since our per capita rate is only slightly up.
     
    Well, there were still 45,222 gun deaths in 2020, according to CDC data. That's a lot of people dead. This is a picture of a 44,000 people protest in Vienna, and it doesn't even have all the people in it:
     

     
    Imagine the United States losing all those people in 2020 from gun deaths. If we could reduce that, we could save a lot of people.
     
    According to the CDC, there were 3,358,814 deaths in the US in 2020. I don't think I can find a picture of that many people in one place.
     
    The percentage of people who died that died from firearms:  45,222/3,358,814 = 0.013463, so about 1.35%.
     
    Now, saving some of those 45k+ lives is a good thing. But you aren't very likely to get shot just walking down the street or engaging in normal daily activities like going to school, going to the movies, going shopping, etc. You might, but it's unlikely.
     
    How's our overall death rate looking? Surely we're dropping like flies, right?
     
    Here's a sortable ranking of death rates from World Bank. The numbers are from 2020 and per 1000 population. The whole list is rather long, but here are some highlights:
     
    Bulgaria is the winner with 18
    Ukraine is 3rd with 15.9
    Russia is 7th with 14.6
     
    OK, that was just to show the higher end of things and the Ukraine/Russia pairing. Not to pick on them, but to give a baseline. Let's look at some countries who have it "good," or at least should: Canada, Sweden and Japan. Just pulled those out of a hat b/c they're frequently mentioned as pretty decent, civilized places.
     
    Canada in 84th place at 8.1
    Sweden in 50th place at 9.5
    Japan in 29th place at 11.1
     
    OK, I thought those numbers were going to be better, especially Japan.
     
    How about the US?
     
    USA in 38th place at 10.3
     
    What does this mean? Means we're not quite as horrible as some people would have us think, but we're also not as awesome as others would have us think. We can do better, but we could do much worse.
     
    And why did I zoom out to deaths in general vs. gun deaths? Partly for the obvious perspective. We could reduce gun deaths to 0 and it wouldn't move our death rate dial by very much at all. The panic is disproportionate to the threat. This does not mean we do nothing, it means, as the Hitchiker's Guide reminds us:

    So, my first point in all of this is we can, and should, approach the problem rationally.
     
    My second point is that just as "national death rate" is too broad in scope, so is "gun violence" or even "homicide rate."
     
    I'll reiterate my basic stance on the issue again: We need to solve root causes. We need to interpret the data not for the sake of drumming up fear for our proposed solution (including that of "do nothing" that some hold), but for a study of the causes of violence and homicide. At the end of the day, acting like guns alone can cause or prevent homicides is not productive. Neither position is true.

    And that's why both Stewart and his interviewees annoy me.
     
    How much has been spent by either side on root cause analysis and removing the root causes? I'm betting it's a low number.
     
    My point is this: We are not a society of Mutant Biker Cowboy Barbarians.
     
    We're a Confederacy of Dunces ruled by an Idiocracy.
     
     
     
     
    *Note: That sounds nefarious. I don't think Stewart is nefarious. I think he cares deeply and is simply engaging in his own fears and spreading them around due to not looking at the subject dispassionately.
  9. Like
    TrickstaPriest reacted to Cygnia in Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)   
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Saskatchewan_stabbings
     
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/06/thailand-shooting-attack-at-pre-school-centre
     
    https://euroweeklynews.com/2023/03/04/breaking-three-children-dead-and-two-injured-after-mass-stabbing-attack-in-italy-texas/

    (the last is a town called Italy, TX, not two separate locations)
  10. Thanks
    TrickstaPriest reacted to DShomshak in Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)   
    Hey, you know Adam Smith? The Wealth of Nations guy, prophet of the Free Market that infallibly regulates as by an Invisible Hand? That wasn't what he said at all.
     
    Several weeks back, the Freakonomics radio program/podcast devoted three episodes to Adam Smith, tracing his biography, the development of his thought, and how ideologues have used and abused his writings ever since. Number One thing to know? He wrote *two* books, and his Theory of Moral Sentiments was jusgt as important as The Wealth of Nations -- and they are both necessary to understand Smith's full inquiry. He was primarily a moral philosopher, who ended up studying economics to examine what people actually did, and why.
     
    But people tend to pick phrases from Wealth to support whatever beliefs they want to push, and ignore everything else. (A bit like the Bible, that.) The cartoon version of Smith's analysis of markets pushed by the Austrian School and its Chicago School offshoot is particularly egregious.
     
    For the rest... hear the episodes, I can't possibly do them justice. Here's a link to the first episode, which has a link to the podcasts if you prefer that format.
    https://freakonomics.com/podcast/season-12-episode-19/
     
    Dean Shomshak
  11. Like
    TrickstaPriest reacted to Lord Liaden in Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)   
    I've always maintained that any system involving humans would work well if the type of human being postulated by the system in theory was in the overwhelming majority. For example, if most people were motivated to cooperate collectively for the greater good, rather than selfishly for themselves, communism would be a great political system.
  12. Thanks
    TrickstaPriest reacted to Hugh Neilson in Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)   
    As my intro Economics professor was fond of noting, in Economics, the real world is often a special case.
     
    A perfectly free marketplace would be self-correcting  but it requires perfect competition with no barriers to entry. When there are three employers, and thousands of workers, the workers are much closer to "perfect competition" than the employers, especially if they get together and agree on hiring practices.  In the entertainment industry, stars and superstars have a lot more power - given the choice of 100 drummers, one of whom is Ringo Starr and the rest of whose names you do not recognize, who do you want at your concert?
  13. Sad
    TrickstaPriest reacted to Iuz the Evil in Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)   
    I blame Newt Gingrich for many things. His interview on crime remains timeless, when he stated (to paraphrase, in response to declining FBI crime rates) “you can have your facts, and I’ll take how people feel every time”. 
     
    That’s pretty much where we are at with American politics these days. 
  14. Sad
    TrickstaPriest reacted to Old Man in Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)   
    Florida courts to take emergency custody of children with trans parents or siblings--in other states
     
    I'd already ruled Florida out of the drive-across-the-country-while-trans category, but this is something else.
  15. Thanks
    TrickstaPriest reacted to unclevlad in Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)   
    I note the copyright date at the bottom...2019.  OK, this is the Trump presidency so there's a lot going on...but it's before the entire stolen-election campaign and Jan. 6th.  Before the Supreme Court is stacked.  Before the Supreme Court knocked down Roe v. Wade, and multiple states moved to ban abortion.  Before a WHOLE lot of things.
     
    And Dr. D is also right:  the poll questions are questionable.  "I am proud to be an American, though I acknowledge my country's flaws."  What do you consider flaws?  It's also a compound question and the answers to each part might be wildly different.  "It is important that men are protected from false accusations pertaining to sexual assault."  What, precisely, does this mean?  I'll start with a core statement:  it is important that ANYONE be protected from ANY false accusation.  That said...protected, how?  Further, where is the balance between protecting the public from a crime, and protecting the rights of the accused?  That's where the hang-up often lies.  Take an old case...3 (?) Duke lacrosse players were accused of rape.  Their names were made public.  They were suspended from the University.  They were effectively excommunicated.  I can't even *imagine* the emotional hell they went through.  Oh, but the whole case was thrown out due to MASSIVE investigative flaws...the DA was disbarred and spent time in prison for what he did, that's how bad it was.  Duke settled with the 3 players;  the amount reported (but not confirmed) is rather substantial, and the 2 players who hadn't graduated, continued their educations at highly respectable institutions.  
     
    But that just says...ok, WHEN is it reasonable for names to be released?  For separation actions like suspensions be taken?  What is the balance between the rights of the accused, and the rights of the accuser?  That's what colors the interpretation of the poll question, and that's what makes it a questionable one.
     
  16. Thanks
    TrickstaPriest reacted to Dr.Device in Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)   
    That study doesn't show what they say it does. The statements are mostly either so vague as to be useless, so extreme as to be parodies, or just to vague.
     
    This is going to mean completely different things to Democrats and Republicans. 
    I've heard many republicans claim with a straight face that it does, but it's against white people. Others admit it exists, but say it isn't a significant problem.
     
    I won't go on, but look at just about any of those statements and think about how a Republican and a Democrat are likely to interpret it.
     
    And I notice there's no question about LGBTQIA rights in there.
  17. Like
    TrickstaPriest got a reaction from Dr.Device in Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)   
    Yeah, I do consider things like a 'minimum standard of rights' to kind of go beyond local government though.  ie- the primary benefits of having a 'Constitution' are to set a minimum standard (a public benefit for those living there) and a set of rules and agreements so we don't 'Sengoku Jidai' every time a leader dies off (a reason why the constitution/country doesn't get destroyed every decade or two, aka stability).  So public benefit + stability are a pretty decent motivation to follow a constitution, which sets a third benefit (ie a reason to fight or defend a country other than to protect another politician's career/riches)
     
    So I guess what I'm suggesting is that while we can debate what some quantifications of a 'minimum standard' are, my interpretation is that those rights aren't just a set of rules but the entire reason people/public abide by them to begin with.  Interpreting it as a 'minimum standard' is kind of the point.
  18. Like
    TrickstaPriest reacted to Iuz the Evil in Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)   
    I can understand the perspective. There’s a mechanism to change that Amendment with another one if enough folks agree, after all. It could get there, at some point.

    https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution
     
     It’s intentionally difficult to remove rights, I’m pretty comfortable with that as it can cut in another direction around those other ensconced rights I was talking about before.
     
     For now, it’s on the same list that I support until it isn’t.
  19. Like
    TrickstaPriest got a reaction from Iuz the Evil in Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)   
    Unfortunately for 2A rights, I do have to agree that the greater presence of guns in our culture and society has a marked effect on it - that is to say, the greater amount of deaths by guns.
     
    It's just not my priority right now one way or another. 😕
  20. Like
    TrickstaPriest got a reaction from Iuz the Evil in Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)   
    Yeah, I do consider things like a 'minimum standard of rights' to kind of go beyond local government though.  ie- the primary benefits of having a 'Constitution' are to set a minimum standard (a public benefit for those living there) and a set of rules and agreements so we don't 'Sengoku Jidai' every time a leader dies off (a reason why the constitution/country doesn't get destroyed every decade or two, aka stability).  So public benefit + stability are a pretty decent motivation to follow a constitution, which sets a third benefit (ie a reason to fight or defend a country other than to protect another politician's career/riches)
     
    So I guess what I'm suggesting is that while we can debate what some quantifications of a 'minimum standard' are, my interpretation is that those rights aren't just a set of rules but the entire reason people/public abide by them to begin with.  Interpreting it as a 'minimum standard' is kind of the point.
  21. Thanks
    TrickstaPriest reacted to Old Man in Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)   
    I wanted to dig into a previous post questioning whether a transgender person could legally drive across the country.  Good news: you can!  For now.  If you're an adult.
     
    Tennessee recently passed the first drag ban bill so trans people will want to avoid that state.  As far as driving cross country, we'll need to keep an eye on that Ohio-Kentucky bottleneck, as well as Missouri.  Iowa has a drag ban in the works.
     
    (I have yet to dig into any actual drag ban bills.  What constitutes drag?  Eyeliner?  Kilts?  Long hair?  Raise your hand if you're "guilty" of any of these.)
     
    Generally speaking non-adult trans people (i.e., children) are way worse off because they get the brunt of the bathroom bills and healthcare bans.
     
    I found a decent anti-trans legislation tracker if anyone else is interested in doomscrolling this particular American trainwreck.
     
     
  22. Thanks
    TrickstaPriest got a reaction from Old Man in Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)   
    Some light reading
     
    https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23691846-2023-02-27-redacted-dominions-answering-brief-in-opp-to-smj69
    Would love to get more official documentation, records, data on this
  23. Haha
    TrickstaPriest reacted to Cancer in Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)   
    Might go in Funny Pics, might go here ...
     

  24. Sad
    TrickstaPriest reacted to Old Man in Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)   
    It's okay, they hated you first.
     
    Also I'm pretty sure you already can't drive across the country.
     
    I may have mentioned this before but my team recently hired a new analyst, a girl who literally had to flee Texas for California because she's trans.  Texas' loss and our gain, though I'm a little resentful that she's better at our job than I am.
  25. Like
    TrickstaPriest got a reaction from Cygnia in Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)   
    Not even sure who responded to a poll.
     
    Like, botting an online poll can happen at the best of times.  Or paying/having people respond to your own service poll, if the agency giving the poll is malicious.
     
    There's so much I can do to fake something like this without even trying.
×
×
  • Create New...