--be cognizant of your surroundings-----

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daltex

Would any of you good folks support stricter laws that hold the people accountable rather than just the tools?

Would you support a law of mandatory life in prison / no parole for anyone that commits any offense while in the possession of an illegally obtained hand gun. Steal a car with a stolen gun in your pocket? Immediately removed from society forever. Drunk driving with a gun you purchased without a background check on the street? Same thing.

---

First, I applaud you for trying to provide some balance in this thread. You're more persistent than I am, I've come to the conclusion that it's futile for the most part.

As for the law you propose, the larger problem is that we don't bother to enforce the laws we already have. I have posted this before but it's worth repeating. As an FYI, it is a Fed crime for a convicted felon to attempt to purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer.

The NCIS data (background checks for the uninitiated) from 2010 shows that 72,659 applicants were denied a firearms transaction for various reason. 34,459 of those were for felony indictment or conviction and 13,862 were fugitives from justice (48,321 total). Yet only 62 cases were referred to Fed attorneys for prosecution and 49 of those were actually prosecuted. Look at that again....49 people actually prosecuted out of 48,000. Those are miserable statistics and everyone responsible for them should be fired IMO. That data is available at NCJRS Abstract - National Criminal Justice Reference Service I've also looked at data available from other years and it is the same...many denials and few prosecutions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davids

Fewer handguns and no semi-auto or automatic weapons legally in civilian hands would dramatically reduce the available weaponry for more quotidian murder and suicide.

---

You'll probably think I'm nit-picking and maybe I am but as far as the statistics go legally held full-auto weapons have only been used twice in a crime since they were first regulated in 1934 and one of those was an off duty police officer who used his department issued weapon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bcm119

But, I think the root cause of the explosion of hatred is the explosion of misinformation. This is a new age of misinformation and conspiracy theories running amok on the internet. It is the common thread among every recent hate crime. Misinformation and conspiracies are infecting many of our emotionally and intellectually vulnerable citizens like a cancer. And we seem to have no viable solution at this point; any effort to raise awareness or counter the misinformation campaigns play right into their rhetoric. I’m convinced that the internet will bring a repeat cycle of some of the ugliest periods in history.

---

IMHO, this paragraph 'won' VS today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saab2000

I firmly believe it really began with Rupert Murdoch and Fox News in the mainstream media. There has been far right conspiracy radio for much longer.

That’s just me thinking out loud. I have no data to support a theory but that is my gut feeling.

---

Thomas Jefferson would probably disagree with you. :smile: In 1807 he wrote:

Quote:

---

To your request of my opinion of the manner in which a newspaper should be conducted, so as to be most useful, I should answer, “by restraining it to true facts & sound principles only.” Yet I fear such a paper would find few subscribers. It is a melancholy truth, that a suppression of the press could not more compleatly deprive the nation of it's benefits, than is done by it's abandoned prostitution to falsehood. Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day.

---

The full text of his letter is at Image 1 of Thomas Jefferson to John Norvell, June 11, 187 | Library of Congress

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daltex

But in similar circumstances would you rather be the guy with the ability to defend himself and others, or the guy that isn't?

---

But that's the rub. I'm not in the anti-gun camp but a person who is concealed or open carrying does so for their defense and in some situations that of their loved ones. I live in AZ, I don't need a permit to carry, concealed of open, but if I decide to stop a crime with my gun, I'm outside the law. If I go to a situation with my gun because I think I can stop it, I'm outside the law. I'm not law enforcement. If a person is directly threatening me with a weapon, I could take action with my weapon. I'd still likely go to jail but not likely charged. FTR, I have a concealed carry weapon, but I've only used it at the range. I haven't felt the need to carry it, even in methy, sketchy Kingman, AZ.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daltex

I could not agree with the above more.

can I assume that you believe this is limited to one tribe and not the other?

---

For the most part it is. While I am sure you can find examples of crackpots on the left, this is far more pervasive on the right because the outrage it foments is central to sustaining present day Republicanism. There is no equivalence between Fox News and Breitbart and CNN and the New York Times. If you can't tell the difference maybe its time for a bit of self reflection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigbill

But that's the rub. I'm not in the anti-gun camp but a person who is concealed or open carrying does so for their defense and in some situations that of their loved ones. I live in AZ, I don't need a permit to carry, concealed of open, but if I decide to stop a crime with my gun, I'm outside the law. If I go to a situation with my gun because I think I can stop it, I'm outside the law. I'm not law enforcement. If a person is directly threatening me with a weapon, I could take action with my weapon. I'd still likely go to jail but not likely charged. FTR, I have a concealed carry weapon, but I've only used it at the range. I haven't felt the need to carry it, even in methy, sketchy Kingman, AZ.

---

I don't have a carry license. I've thought about getting one. Along the lines of your post, I'm currently more afraid of going to jail for a bad split second decision than I am of getting shot.

I think Daltex and Choke make some points. Here is a link to some analysis of the 7 tribes in America.
Hidden Tribes — More in Common

It's worth a download and quick read. The hard contrast between the far left and far right prevents compromise.
The largest segment of the population is the portion that is disenfranchised and chooses not to vote.

Add this to the gerrymandered map of safe districts I previously posted, and because of primaries, you get the most motivated voter which tends to be farthest right and left. It drowns out the options for compromise. I heard on NPR today there are only 4 districts in Texas that ever have a chance at swinging.

I do think the most corrosive part of the current President is his complete disregard of facts and only winning counts. If you lie, that is okay as long as you win.

For example, when he tells the FFA group that he spoke to Dick Grasso during 9/11 and the NYSE reopened the day after the towers came down, it is factually incorrect. The markets were closed for a week. Any responsible WH would correct the misinformation, instead you repeat it 2 more times at different rallies. This is when misquoting, confusion, misremembering becomes lying.

As for this thread, I totally understand Ronnie's - be cognizant of your surroundings. But as someone who as spent most of his adult life out of the US in some really 'be cognizant of your surroundings' locations, it gets really old and tiring fast. You slip up a little and you're eff'd in the trunk of car, or robbed, or mugged, or whatever.

More policing works for a while, but in a lawless society, the police basically become a criminal gang too. See latin America for details. or you get a situation where the definition of a fair trial is when you both bribe the judge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davids

Thank you for trying to turn this conversation away from gun control (which is a secondary or maybe tertiary issue when it comes to this terrorist attack) and back towards the primary issue in play here: Antisemitism, racism, xenophobia and hate.

This starts with the President. He has consistently and predictably enabled all of these things for decades. Begin with the Central Park Five and end with whatever hateful lies he tweeted this weekend.

It continues to his enablers, the politicians who shut up or who condemn his noxious statements while working with him to advance their shared interests. They are complicit and I do not excuse them.

And then there are the emboldened racists and antisemites who want me, my friends, and my family dead or gone.

We must condemn them, and work to remove them from positions of influence and power.

---

One more thing, because she say it well: Stop trying to understand what Trump says and look at what his followers do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daltex

I could not agree with the above more.

can I assume that you believe this is limited to one tribe and not the other?

---

I don’t think this is actually about tribes in terms of political left/right. It’s about vulnerable people being sucked into radical thinking. Those people are disproportionately being pulled into the Republican tribe by Trump’s anti-establishment tone and racist dog whistles. The people who are leveraging internet hoaxes, misinformation, and conspiracy theories for their own power gains are disproportionately choosing the Republican party as their vehicle. I don’t think that’s because they are inherently conservative thinkers, I think it’s because data shows that they have the best chance to gain power if they run as republicans. Politics today is about using data, gerrymandering, and psychology to exploit the emotions of vulnerable people to gain power, all facilitaed by the internet. It’s up to responsible people on both the right and left to distance themselves from these frauds, despite them giving you some policy wins. I understand that is very difficult. But right now, the onus is on republicans to kick Trump to the curb and take your party back. If we can get back to debating actual policy instead of basic facts, we will have made progress, but I don’t see how that happens right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bcm119

I don’t think this is actually about tribes in terms of political left/right. It’s about vulnerable people being sucked into radical thinking. Those people are disproportionately being pulled into the Republican tribe by Trump’s anti-establishment tone and racist dog whistles. The people who are leveraging internet hoaxes, misinformation, and conspiracy theories for their own power gains are disproportionately choosing the Republican party as their vehicle. I don’t think that’s because they are inherently conservative thinkers, I think it’s because data shows that they have the best chance to gain power if they run as republicans. Politics today is about using data, gerrymandering, and psychology to exploit the emotions of vulnerable people to gain power, all facilitaed by the internet. It’s up to responsible people on both the right and left to distance themselves from these frauds, despite them giving you some policy wins. I understand that is very difficult. But right now, the onus is on republicans to kick Trump to the curb and take your party back. If we can get back to debating actual policy instead of basic facts, we will have made progress, but I don’t see how that happens right now.

---

You're very insightful, and your 'vulnerable people' description is a bullseye imho. Though I would expand the vulnerable to include the teenagers, fresh out of high school, that get sucked into this new 'forcible oppression of opposing opinions' thing. It shocks me, and at Berkeley!!! I never saw that coming.

I fail to see much difference in the level of hatred and misinformation right vs left. I could be wrong. I see folks trying to draw a causal relationship from this latest incident to the Right. Not that long ago, when left wing James Hodgkinson shot up republicans practicing for a charity baseball game, I didn't see the same folks drawing similar conclusions on the left.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daltex

I fail to see much difference in the level of hatred and misinformation right vs left. I could be wrong.

---

You are.

Not everybody is entitled to their opinion. Xenophobia, racism, and basically denying other people's right to live, have no place, and those that owns them do not get to claim they are entitled to them.

And as those opinions are prevalent on one end of the table, and not the other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daltex

I see folks trying to draw a causal relationship from this latest incident to the Right.

---

I can only wonder why. Must not be because of what right wing politicians say (and post on tweeter, this being 2018).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daltex

Not that long ago, when left wing James Hodgkinson shot up republicans practicing for a charity baseball game, I didn't see the same folks drawing similar conclusions on the left.

---

Because he didn't had public support.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vertical_doug

I think Daltex and Choke make some points. Here is a link to some analysis of the 7 tribes in America.
Hidden Tribes — More in Common

It's worth a download and quick read. The hard contrast between the far left and far right prevents compromise.
The largest segment of the population is the portion that is disenfranchised and chooses not to vote.
.

---

I read this last week when a friend forwarded it to me - What strikes me is that the positions identified as "left" are not (to my mind, historically) particularly "left" at all. For example, on immigration, the proposition on the left side of the line is, "Immigration is good for America, helping sectors of our economy to be more successful and competitive." That sounds like something out of a civics textbook and its a far cry from the characterizations of the democratic party priorities that are in play.

I note that it isn't a problem with the work itself, but with the way the work has been described - the guy who sent it to me is a committed progressive, and he used the same language.

Anyway, I agree that the whole thing is worth a read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daltex

I see folks trying to draw a causal relationship from this latest incident to the Right.

---

I think "connecting the dots" is the biggest problem in politics, maybe our contemporary society.
It's obvious - people are so out of their depth. They're looking to answers why their life has problems,
what's wrong with the country, and obviously drawing some conclusions based on poor logic and faulty information.

It can't be ignored you've got the individual conspiracy nut who joins all the dots to their obsessive fixations.
(see Jon Stewart sketch of him playing Glen Beck with the chalk board connecting everything possible and impossible)
I don't think that's the equivalent of making a broader argument about holding National political figures accountable for using
irresponsible and inflammatory rhetoric. It is after-all, not protected free speech to yell fire in a crowded theater.

Is the genie out of the bottle? in 2018, how do we use legitimate information to explain events and separate the truth from
half-baked con jobs, trolls, and click bait? I read the Breitbart headlines, and comments sections most days to get a sense of what issues and
arguments are resonating with people on the fringe - but really, the shocking level of paranoia, anger, delusion, and distance from reality?
All the False flags? Deep State? Crisis Actors? - Seriously? These people are deplorable, is there any legitimate role for this
in the political discourse?

So basically, i'm saying the power of the human mind to connect the dots incorrectly, is terrifying. The conclusions that an anti-Semite like
the Pittsburgh gunman thinks "his" country is under attack by the migrant caravan, and jews are helping this happen, therefore must be killed. WTF?

What's really worth discussing is how the kind of conspiracy rhetoric we see on the right can be so out in the open, that their politicians use this stuff,
frame their issues front and center, used as wedges to divide people and create distrust. It's fucking deplorable. Where is the center??!!

-g

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bcm119

Gun control is an important topic and I agree we need a lot more of it. And the GOP is certainly complicit in these hate crimes by their divisive rhetoric that is effectively fanning the flames of racial and class hatred. The GOP has smart strategists who understand there is a vulnerable population whose emotions are easily played.

But, I think the root cause of the explosion of hatred is the explosion of misinformation. This is a new age of misinformation and conspiracy theories running amok on the internet. It is the common thread among every recent hate crime. Misinformation and conspiracies are infecting many of our emotionally and intellectually vulnerable citizens like a cancer. And we seem to have no viable solution at this point; any effort to raise awareness or counter the misinformation campaigns play right into their rhetoric. I’m convinced that the internet will bring a repeat cycle of some of the ugliest periods in history.

---

Anti-semitism isn't some new conspiracy theory. Nor is racism, or political violence perpetrated by extremists.

None of these are new ideas. But only this country provides the people who believe these things ready access to weapons best suited for the battlefield, and at your local sporting goods store to boot.

I get where you're coming from and misinformation and a political leadership in this country willing to peddle in and not loudly denounce this kind of conspiracy peddling has emboldened the wingnuts. The body count would be far lower if not for our over-eager desire to arm everyone to the teeth and then wonder why the mentally ill and the bigots start shooting once they're good and riled up.

To add to the Tribes piece there is an really interesting Knight-Gallup study of
the interaction of ones bias and the sources of ones news.

NYT report on the study.
Biased News Media or Biased Readers? An Experiment on Trust - The New York Times

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by theflashunc

why the mentally ill and the bigots start shooting

---

Those who suffer from mental disorders are rarely violent. And gun-totting bigots rarely suffer from a mental disorder. That's exactly the problem: they know very well what they are doing, as well as those who ̶d̶o̶g̶ train-whistle to them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daltex

I fail to see much difference in the level of hatred and misinformation right vs left. I could be wrong.

---

You are not wrong at all.

Last week I said "both sides"--and was jumped on big time here. I still feel we must admit one "side" isn't completely to blame, or we will never move forward, only continue the finger pointing circle.

It is also not my intent to judge or argue right or wrong on what the next paragraph outlines, it's simply a true situation.

I have a very dear friend who is a Greeter at a large Synagogue in the Boston area. Forgive me if the description or term Greeter is incorrect, but that's what I remember he told me he was. He's there basically all day on Saturday. Four years ago, he undertook gun training and was permitted to carry - specifically to help protect his Synagogue. He's in his early 60s, never felt the need to have a gun, but felt he had to, only to protect his place of worship "in this messed up world" as he put it.

He is the nicest, most honest and giving guy I know. I have not called him yet, as I know the recent tragedy must be hitting him very hard...and I'm at a loss for words at the moment.

I"ll call him soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corso

You are not wrong at all.

Last week I said "both sides"--and was jumped on big time here. I still feel we must admit one "side" isn't completely to blame, or we will never move forward, only continue the finger pointing circle.

---

Only thing is, it's not both sides. For political violence, it's not enough to incite anger towards a given group. Dr. King was angry. But he wasn't inciting violence. It's not enough to be angry against a given group: you also need to dehumanize them, to show contempt and disgust towards them, to portray them as disease-spreading leaches, as globalist conspiracy undermining your place in the world (further reading: SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research) So far, such speech has only came from one side of the political map. Only one party claims some people are not worthy of protection because their gender, sexual orientation, political leanings, country of origin, color of skin, etc etc…

So yes, it's not both sides. It's one side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daltex

You're very insightful, and your 'vulnerable people' description is a bullseye imho. Though I would expand the vulnerable to include the teenagers, fresh out of high school, that get sucked into this new 'forcible oppression of opposing opinions' thing. It shocks me, and at Berkeley!!! I never saw that coming.

I fail to see much difference in the level of hatred and misinformation right vs left. I could be wrong. I see folks trying to draw a causal relationship from this latest incident to the Right. Not that long ago, when left wing James Hodgkinson shot up republicans practicing for a charity baseball game, I didn't see the same folks drawing similar conclusions on the left.

---

What happened at Berkeley, if we’re talking about the same incident, may not be what you think. I live in berkeley and I walked up to campus that evening when Milo Y. was scheduled to speak. There was a peaceful protest. There were students with signs, mostly protesting the policy/opinions of Milo (since everyone knew what he was going to say from his many youtube videos). There were a few signs along the lines of “not on my campus”, which isn’t surprising considering these students are often the children of wealthy NIMBYs from upscale suburbs (there are no hippies at Berkeley anymore). And then a group of anarchists burst into the protest wearing masks and wielding torches and caused a few minutes of total mayhem. They lit things on fire and launched rocks at building windows. The students were afraid and then very angry. I overheard one student sobbing, telling her friend that “the world is going to think this was us”. She was right. The media, even the mainstream media, failed to distinguish between the peaceful students and the violent anarchists, broadbrushing it as a violent protest at Berkeley. The right wing media framed it as liberal hypocrisy of stifling free speech. Several other similar incidents followed in the coming months at Berkeley, mostly clashes of small groups of anarchists and Trump extremists, preplanned and organized on the internet, but resulting in the same misinformed headlines. These are the sort of complexities and nuances that are lost in anecdotes and so easily twisted into conspiricies on the internet.

Milo, like the rest of the white suprematist leadership, is a coward. He went to Berkeley exactly because he knew he wouldn't be at risk there.