Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Cohen GoFundMe launched with 500,000 goal
I ain't donating.


Trumps tweets this morning are...interesting.

If anyone is looking for a good lawyer, I would strongly suggest that you don’t retain the services of Michael Cohen!
THE BEST PEOPLE.

A large number of counts, ten, could not even be decided in the Paul Manafort case. Witch Hunt!
Nevermind that 8 counts stuck...

Michael Cohen plead guilty to two counts of campaign finance violations that are not a crime. President Obama had a big campaign finance violation and it was easily settled!
Well Donny boy, if he pled guilty to a crime, then apparently it was a crime...

 DrGiggles wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Remember that whole "Punch a Nazi" thing? Well, apparently Bernie voters are now Nazis.

Bravo Antifa. Bravo.

Spoiler:

I can't say I'm shocked that a militant group known for using violence on others was violent to someone. I just don't get how someone could associate the american flag with fascism.

Portlander here, I'll explain. This is an unfortunate result of what can happen when one side waves around large flags in a nationalistic/jingoistic manner as partisan identity items and uses the flagpoles as spears/clubs at contentious political rallies, and someone shows up on the opposite side of said contentious rally with a large flag.

It's a stupid incident that should never have happened (and should absolutely result in arrests) that's the result of the microcontext of that particular protest environment, but it's not really reflective of much anything outside of that. Nobody was going around attempting to pull the flag off the Battleship Oregon memorial in that park for example.


North Korea jumps into the fray on US domestic turmoil
Looking at the actual Rodong Sinmun post, found this gem

Rodong Sinmun wrote:As President Trump admitted, the “fantastic meeting”, realized by no other president in the history of America, could come to success to be greatly cheered and welcomed by the world and American people because he acted with his own decision and will, not wavering by the opposition’s offensive nor blindly following his aides’ view.

Secretary of State Pompeo should not be forced to meet a “miserable destiny” but resolutely smash the opposition’s unreasonable and foolish assertions with his own view and courage and display his wisdom and bargaining power in negotiation as the chief of the U.S. diplomacy both in name and reality in order to realize the president’s will.

 Just Tony wrote:

Iron_Captain wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
I could have sworn that we WERE doing something about the violent crimes committed by citizens. We call it the Criminal Justice System. If you can find a way to make those crimes preventable, then I'm all ears. Violent crimes by illegal aliens are preventable insofar as preventing breaches of our border would eliminate them from the equation.

The criminal justice system is also there to do something about crimes committed by illegal immigrants. Why is it that crimes committed by illegal immigrants need more to be done against than crimes committed by US citizens and legal immigrants? Sure, you could prevent illegal immigrant crime by preventing them from coming into the US. You could also prevent US citizen crime by preventing them from being born. A more realistic way of preventing illegal immigrant crime is simply to provide better living conditions, registration and legal avenues for immigration, meaning that less immigrants will have to resort to crime.

Our criminal justice system is already overtaxed with crimes committed by citizens, and even crimes committed by law enforcement officials at times. Adding more caseload isn't exactly a high point.

If it is overtaxed, than I would say it needs to be expanded.

 Just Tony wrote:
I do indeed love the hyperbole driven suggesting of stopping criminals by keeping them from being born. Good form, and definitely not arguing in bad faith.

Here's a thought, and it'll blow your fething mind. Rather than working to provide them with better living conditions here, why not work towards improving their living conditions THERE? Wild idea, I know. You're a big fan of seizing the means of production. How is it that large groups of people can marshal the strength to come from South America all the way through Central America to jump the US border, but they can't marshal the strength to overthrow an oppressive government, or to rise against and defeat a cartel? We spend tons of money to ship food to impoverished countries, why not invest that money in improving quality of life permanently? Give a man fire, teach a man to make fire, yadda yadda...

Indeed not arguing in bad fate. You are never going to be realistically able to stop illegal immigration, people will always find a way. Therefore, trying to stop illegal immigrant crimes by preventing illegal immigration is as unrealistic as trying to stop citizen crimes by preventing citizens from being born. It just won't work.

Improving the living conditions there is indeed the best possible solution. It is the only permanent solution, and the only way to really stop illegal immigration. The problem with that is that it is of course easier said than done. A lot of countries in Central and South America suffer from longstanding structural issues that can't be fixed simply by overthrowing an oppressive government (which would just be replaced by another oppressive government) or destroying a cartel (which would leave a hole that would just be filled by another cartel). As to why people are not rising up against these corrupt institutions? Usually that is because they lack a revolutionary vanguard (people like Lenin or Che Guevara). People are generally reluctant to be the first to act. They need someone to act as example. Or as they say in the Netherlands: once one sheep has crossed the dam the rest will follow.
Anyways, improving living conditions in South and Central America would be a very long, costly process. But it could be done, if there was political will for it. However, I am afraid there is not much will to do anything about this issue.

 Just Tony wrote:

Iron_Captain wrote:Anyways, back in the days of Lenin, immigration to the US used to be a lot easier than it is now. Your ancestors likely just booked a trip on a boat and turned up at Ellis island to get a stamp of approval, the whole process being complete within a few hours. My family got into the US the same way. Ran away from the Reds, got on a boat, got a stamp, et voilà! And it wasn't much more difficult for my mother's side family who emigrated from the Netherlands to the US after WW2. Nowadays, immigrating to the US is quite a bit more difficult, especially for people from Latin-American countries who are running away from the gangs and cartels. Once they get away, they have to make an incredibly hazardous trek across Mexico, and once they reach the border there is no real place for them to apply for immigration. Well, there is the border checkpoint of course, but applying there is hazardous for various reasons. For that reason, many have to actually make it across the wall and the desert into the US first, to apply for asylum on US soil, and then they likely will still get deported because they can't "proof" that they face persecution at home (which is nearly impossible). And that is only the start of the process. Your family or my family likely never had to proof that they were actually persecuted by the Reds or go through a lengthy process, so that is a massive difference.

Now this is an immigration reform talking point I can actually get behind. If the issue is the lack of ease of applying for asylum, then fix those issues. Staff the embassies better to accommodate asylum seekers, place embassies in areas where there is a crisis that is creating the influx of refugees/asylum seekers, facilitate transport to keep the coyotes from making money off of them. Granted not everyone will be brought in, but it at least makes the process easier to the point that trekking almost a hemisphere isn't comparable.

Yeah, that would go a long way towards stopping the flow of illegal immigrants, not to mention that it would make the whole thing a lot more humane, since currently thousands of people die (or have other horrible things happen to them) every year trying to travel to the US. It still wouldn't stop it entirely, since the US has quite strict demands and so people who can't meet those demands for various reasons might still try to get to the US illegally. But it would be a massive improvement nonetheless.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Cohen GoFundMe launched with 500,000 goal
I ain't donating.

Lanny Davis took the case pro bono (I saw that somewhere, but can't confirm otherwise). He's looking to get paaaaaaaaaaaaid.

Also, for folks to think it's weird that Cohen is working for long time Democrat Davis... guess what.... Cohen's a Democrat too.

Trumps tweets this morning are...interesting.

If anyone is looking for a good lawyer, I would strongly suggest that you don’t retain the services of Michael Cohen!
THE BEST PEOPLE.

A large number of counts, ten, could not even be decided in the Paul Manafort case. Witch Hunt!
Nevermind that 8 counts stuck...

Michael Cohen plead guilty to two counts of campaign finance violations that are not a crime. President Obama had a big campaign finance violation and it was easily settled!
Well Donny boy, if he pled guilty to a crime, then apparently it was a crime...

Indeed. And he can't shut up.

What this does, I think, is makes this midterm a referendum on a Trump impeachment given how close this House is... not sure if that's a good political strategy either way.

 DrGiggles wrote:

If they were just defending themselves that would be one thing, but when you are attacking innocent people for doing nothing but carrying a flag then I don't get how you can claim they are the ones being threatened.

This is what is referred to as a "disingenuous argument".

You're not seeing "innocent people attacked for doing nothing but carrying a flag". You're seeing people who many times have come to these events with "armor"(hockey/football pads, helmets, etc), "shields"(sometimes legit riot shields--which makes me wonder how the hell they're getting those, but often makeshift things), and other items getting "attacked" after they try to be antagonistic towards people who are peaceably protesting. Once that happens, the "antifa" crowd that Cuda loves to complain about usually starts swinging.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skyth wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

He's referring to the fact that the right has been consistently wrapping themselves up in national identity, to the point where people act as though the flag is a sacred icon.

This isn't hard. Anyone who's paid attention to the US post-9/11 would be aware of this.

It's been happening even before 9/11.

True, but after 9/11 you started seeing the right doing it far more blatantly.

I mean seriously, the "Patriot Act"?

 Wolfblade wrote:
And again, you're focusing on a group that commits fewer violent crimes than other groups on average. What is your solution beyond "illegals bad." Build the wall!? Spend billions to potentially reduce the number of violent crimes by a very small amount?

What is my solution? Depends, What is on the opposite spectrum of Open Borders? The stupidest solutions seem to come from the left. Either crack the borders wide open or finance illegals better when they get here. Both ideas are pants on head stupid, and do nothing to mitigate the issue, if anything it exacerbates the issue. I'd rather spend millions to improve conditions in their home country so there's no NEED to somehow bypass a dozen countries to come here to escape squalor or oppression. Even a safe haven ran by us in their country is better than the current illegal alien issue we have.

But to reiterate and address your quantification comment: even reducing crimes by a small amount is a step in the right direction.

 Wolfblade wrote:
Didn't you just go on and on about control points? There's one right there! Gun violence is a serious issue in the US (in case you missed it), more so than any other first world country. Ban or reduce the number of guns, and you reduce the number of violent deaths, but suddenly that's a bad thing huh? (and yes, knives are harder to kill with than guns)

The difference between guns and knives is that guns are designed purely for killing by the way.

Yes, guns are made to kill things. So are bows and crossbows. There are literally a dozen ways to kill people, and at least a dozen ways to commit mass murder. Gun violence is a serious issue in the US, that much is certain, and reducing gun deaths is nowhere near a bad thing, but is there an answer that doesn't ban guns completely? Some actors in this debate aim for a middle ground, but the majority seem stuck on banning or unrestricted ownership. The correct answer is somewhere in the middle, and retains the 2nd Amendment's intent. Not to mention the fact that illegally obtained unregistered guns are responsible for far more deaths than registered guns, which tells me that banning firearms will not solve the whole problem, but will leave us stuck with another one.

 Just Tony wrote:

Yes, guns are made to kill things. So are bows and crossbows. There are literally a dozen ways to kill people, and at least a dozen ways to commit mass murder. Gun violence is a serious issue in the US, that much is certain, and reducing gun deaths is nowhere near a bad thing, but is there an answer that doesn't ban guns completely? Some actors in this debate aim for a middle ground, but the majority seem stuck on banning or unrestricted ownership. The correct answer is somewhere in the middle, and retains the 2nd Amendment's intent. Not to mention the fact that illegally obtained unregistered guns are responsible for far more deaths than registered guns, which tells me that banning firearms will not solve the whole problem, but will leave us stuck with another one.

Ignoring the absolutely ridiculous comparison of firearms to bows and crossbows, you are aware that you cannot actually have hard facts about "illegally obtained unregistered guns" being responsible for "far more deaths than registered guns" right?

 Just Tony wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:
And again, you're focusing on a group that commits fewer violent crimes than other groups on average. What is your solution beyond "illegals bad." Build the wall!? Spend billions to potentially reduce the number of violent crimes by a very small amount?

What is my solution? Depends, What is on the opposite spectrum of Open Borders? The stupidest solutions seem to come from the left. Either crack the borders wide open or finance illegals better when they get here. Both ideas are pants on head stupid, and do nothing to mitigate the issue, if anything it exacerbates the issue. I'd rather spend millions to improve conditions in their home country so there's no NEED to somehow bypass a dozen countries to come here to escape squalor or oppression. Even a safe haven ran by us in their country is better than the current illegal alien issue we have.

But to reiterate and address your quantification comment: even reducing crimes by a small amount is a step in the right direction.

The dumbest solutions come from the left? What about that wall would cost at least billions to build before you even get into building infrastructure to support (and build) the wall, land rights/eminent domain, and the long drawn out court battles of those? (and that's not even getting into how ineffective it would be)

But to reiterate and address your quantification comment: even reducing crimes by a small amount is a step in the right direction.

So are you for, or against banning guns because it would reduce violent crime by at least a small amount?

 Just Tony wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:
Didn't you just go on and on about control points? There's one right there! Gun violence is a serious issue in the US (in case you missed it), more so than any other first world country. Ban or reduce the number of guns, and you reduce the number of violent deaths, but suddenly that's a bad thing huh? (and yes, knives are harder to kill with than guns)

The difference between guns and knives is that guns are designed purely for killing by the way.

Yes, guns are made to kill things. So are bows and crossbows. There are literally a dozen ways to kill people, and at least a dozen ways to commit mass murder. Gun violence is a serious issue in the US, that much is certain, and reducing gun deaths is nowhere near a bad thing, but is there an answer that doesn't ban guns completely? Some actors in this debate aim for a middle ground, but the majority seem stuck on banning or unrestricted ownership. The correct answer is somewhere in the middle, and retains the 2nd Amendment's intent. Not to mention the fact that illegally obtained unregistered guns are responsible for far more deaths than registered guns, which tells me that banning firearms will not solve the whole problem, but will leave us stuck with another one.

As kanluwen said, you have no statistics to back up your statement, and crossbows/bows to guns is a silly comparison. I'll ask it again differently: Why are you against banning guns when it would reduce crime as "even reducing crimes by a small amount is a step in the right direction," right? That's what you said after all.

In the grand scheme, the big picture of things, I don't really blame Trump for this debacle. Trump's just the logical conclusion of a system that's been wrecked for years.

We had a zombie GOP, lurching around for somebody to put it out of its misery, and their 'approved' candidates were picked off one by one by an outsider who would have ran for the Democrats if he thought it would give him victory. That is the pitiful state that American Conservatism had been reduced too.

And on the other side, the Democrats, in their own Kamikaze world view, thought that Clinton, the Wall Street poster girl, a woman that's been reviled by the Right since the late 1980s, would sweep to power.

Sweet baby Jesus, but Richard Nixon's corpse would have defeated Clinton, that is how loathed Clinton is by large segments of America.

So I look at this debacle, remember the warnings of the Founding Fathers: political parties are bad, don't let money become a player in politics, beware of demagogues etc etc

and wonder what took America so long to get to this inevitiable stage...

On the plus side

I would say what I always say to Americans: only Americans can defeat America, your love of liberty and freedom is strong, and your foundations are good. Even if the walls and roof come off, the foundations of the USA would always survive. It's in your DNA and always will be.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:




One person's "gakstain" is another's political belief. I despise wannabe communists and anarchists with a passion, and consider them to be braindead, know-nothing pricks. But I wouldn't think for one minute of disallowing them a voice on a public platform.

Difference is one side is not intentionally trying to hurt and insult other people and take away their humanity. Communists and anarchists are a legitimate political form of government. Racists are not. Telling lies is not a political belief. These things are not the same.

And the idea of a "protected class" is one that contradicts the mantra of "equal oppurtunity" and "equal protection under the law". It's an outdated concept that should've died back in the 1990's.

Since we still don't have equal opportunity, it can't contradict it. There are certain groups that are have a lot less power and opportunity than other groups in our society and certain groups are working to make this continue.

He praised him for speaking fluent English, as opposed to being surprised that he spoke English at all. Trump may be a lot of things, including trollish and juvenile. But "stupid" isn't one of them.

On a similar note, you would probably be surprised how many hispanic U.S. citizens cannot speak English, either very well or at all. That being said, in my humble opinion, praising somebody you would safely assume speaks good English (because, you know, the person's current employment), just because they can do so, is a dumb thing to do. But racist? Nah.

Would he have praised the officer for speaking good English if he looked like a proper white male? If no, then the reason he praised the Hispanic officer was flat out racism. It may not be intentional (though I wouldn't put it past the dumpster fire to be dog whistling for his base) but it still is racism.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 DrGiggles wrote:

If they were just defending themselves that would be one thing, but when you are attacking innocent people for doing nothing but carrying a flag then I don't get how you can claim they are the ones being threatened.

This is what is referred to as a "disingenuous argument".

You're not seeing "innocent people attacked for doing nothing but carrying a flag". You're seeing people who many times have come to these events with "armor"(hockey/football pads, helmets, etc), "shields"(sometimes legit riot shields--which makes me wonder how the hell they're getting those, but often makeshift things), and other items getting "attacked" after they try to be antagonistic towards people who are peaceably protesting. Once that happens, the "antifa" crowd that Cuda loves to complain about usually starts swinging.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skyth wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

He's referring to the fact that the right has been consistently wrapping themselves up in national identity, to the point where people act as though the flag is a sacred icon.

This isn't hard. Anyone who's paid attention to the US post-9/11 would be aware of this.

It's been happening even before 9/11.

True, but after 9/11 you started seeing the right doing it far more blatantly.

I mean seriously, the "Patriot Act"?

In the last few protests the right wingers were disarmed by police before hand. No pepper spray, no clubs, no shields, no helmets. Only antifa had those. Also, someone saying jackhole stuff isn't justification for instigating violent acts.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 DrGiggles wrote:

If they were just defending themselves that would be one thing, but when you are attacking innocent people for doing nothing but carrying a flag then I don't get how you can claim they are the ones being threatened.

This is what is referred to as a "disingenuous argument".

You're not seeing "innocent people attacked for doing nothing but carrying a flag". You're seeing people who many times have come to these events with "armor"(hockey/football pads, helmets, etc), "shields"(sometimes legit riot shields--which makes me wonder how the hell they're getting those, but often makeshift things), and other items getting "attacked" after they try to be antagonistic towards people who are peaceably protesting. Once that happens, the "antifa" crowd that Cuda loves to complain about usually starts swinging.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

It's been happening even before 9/11.

True, but after 9/11 you started seeing the right doing it far more blatantly.

I mean seriously, the "Patriot Act"?

 Wolfblade wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:
And again, you're focusing on a group that commits fewer violent crimes than other groups on average. What is your solution beyond "illegals bad." Build the wall!? Spend billions to potentially reduce the number of violent crimes by a very small amount?

What is my solution? Depends, What is on the opposite spectrum of Open Borders? The stupidest solutions seem to come from the left. Either crack the borders wide open or finance illegals better when they get here. Both ideas are pants on head stupid, and do nothing to mitigate the issue, if anything it exacerbates the issue. I'd rather spend millions to improve conditions in their home country so there's no NEED to somehow bypass a dozen countries to come here to escape squalor or oppression. Even a safe haven ran by us in their country is better than the current illegal alien issue we have.

But to reiterate and address your quantification comment: even reducing crimes by a small amount is a step in the right direction.

The dumbest solutions come from the left? What about that wall would cost at least billions to build before you even get into building infrastructure to support (and build) the wall, land rights/eminent domain, and the long drawn out court battles of those? (and that's not even getting into how ineffective it would be)

But to reiterate and address your quantification comment: even reducing crimes by a small amount is a step in the right direction.

So are you for, or against banning guns because it would reduce violent crime by at least a small amount?

 Just Tony wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:
Didn't you just go on and on about control points? There's one right there! Gun violence is a serious issue in the US (in case you missed it), more so than any other first world country. Ban or reduce the number of guns, and you reduce the number of violent deaths, but suddenly that's a bad thing huh? (and yes, knives are harder to kill with than guns)

The difference between guns and knives is that guns are designed purely for killing by the way.

Yes, guns are made to kill things. So are bows and crossbows. There are literally a dozen ways to kill people, and at least a dozen ways to commit mass murder. Gun violence is a serious issue in the US, that much is certain, and reducing gun deaths is nowhere near a bad thing, but is there an answer that doesn't ban guns completely? Some actors in this debate aim for a middle ground, but the majority seem stuck on banning or unrestricted ownership. The correct answer is somewhere in the middle, and retains the 2nd Amendment's intent. Not to mention the fact that illegally obtained unregistered guns are responsible for far more deaths than registered guns, which tells me that banning firearms will not solve the whole problem, but will leave us stuck with another one.

As kanluwen said, you have no statistics to back up your statement, and crossbows/bows to guns is a silly comparison. I'll ask it again differently: Why are you against banning guns when it would reduce crime as "even reducing crimes by a small amount is a step in the right direction," right? That's what you said after all.

According to a CDC study done in 2015 guns are used by citizens to stop a crime at least as often, and likely much more often, than they are used to commit crime.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:
And again, you're focusing on a group that commits fewer violent crimes than other groups on average. What is your solution beyond "illegals bad." Build the wall!? Spend billions to potentially reduce the number of violent crimes by a very small amount?

What is my solution? Depends, What is on the opposite spectrum of Open Borders? The stupidest solutions seem to come from the left. Either crack the borders wide open or finance illegals better when they get here. Both ideas are pants on head stupid, and do nothing to mitigate the issue, if anything it exacerbates the issue. I'd rather spend millions to improve conditions in their home country so there's no NEED to somehow bypass a dozen countries to come here to escape squalor or oppression. Even a safe haven ran by us in their country is better than the current illegal alien issue we have.

But to reiterate and address your quantification comment: even reducing crimes by a small amount is a step in the right direction.

The dumbest solutions come from the left? What about that wall would cost at least billions to build before you even get into building infrastructure to support (and build) the wall, land rights/eminent domain, and the long drawn out court battles of those? (and that's not even getting into how ineffective it would be)

But to reiterate and address your quantification comment: even reducing crimes by a small amount is a step in the right direction.

So are you for, or against banning guns because it would reduce violent crime by at least a small amount?

 Just Tony wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:
Didn't you just go on and on about control points? There's one right there! Gun violence is a serious issue in the US (in case you missed it), more so than any other first world country. Ban or reduce the number of guns, and you reduce the number of violent deaths, but suddenly that's a bad thing huh? (and yes, knives are harder to kill with than guns)

The difference between guns and knives is that guns are designed purely for killing by the way.

Yes, guns are made to kill things. So are bows and crossbows. There are literally a dozen ways to kill people, and at least a dozen ways to commit mass murder. Gun violence is a serious issue in the US, that much is certain, and reducing gun deaths is nowhere near a bad thing, but is there an answer that doesn't ban guns completely? Some actors in this debate aim for a middle ground, but the majority seem stuck on banning or unrestricted ownership. The correct answer is somewhere in the middle, and retains the 2nd Amendment's intent. Not to mention the fact that illegally obtained unregistered guns are responsible for far more deaths than registered guns, which tells me that banning firearms will not solve the whole problem, but will leave us stuck with another one.

As kanluwen said, you have no statistics to back up your statement, and crossbows/bows to guns is a silly comparison. I'll ask it again differently: Why are you against banning guns when it would reduce crime as "even reducing crimes by a small amount is a step in the right direction," right? That's what you said after all.

According to a CDC study done in 2015 guns are used by citizens to stop a crime at least as often, and likely much more often, than they are used to commit crime.

Can you link that study when you get the chance?

 Wolfblade wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:
And again, you're focusing on a group that commits fewer violent crimes than other groups on average. What is your solution beyond "illegals bad." Build the wall!? Spend billions to potentially reduce the number of violent crimes by a very small amount?

What is my solution? Depends, What is on the opposite spectrum of Open Borders? The stupidest solutions seem to come from the left. Either crack the borders wide open or finance illegals better when they get here. Both ideas are pants on head stupid, and do nothing to mitigate the issue, if anything it exacerbates the issue. I'd rather spend millions to improve conditions in their home country so there's no NEED to somehow bypass a dozen countries to come here to escape squalor or oppression. Even a safe haven ran by us in their country is better than the current illegal alien issue we have.

But to reiterate and address your quantification comment: even reducing crimes by a small amount is a step in the right direction.

The dumbest solutions come from the left? What about that wall would cost at least billions to build before you even get into building infrastructure to support (and build) the wall, land rights/eminent domain, and the long drawn out court battles of those? (and that's not even getting into how ineffective it would be)

But to reiterate and address your quantification comment: even reducing crimes by a small amount is a step in the right direction.

So are you for, or against banning guns because it would reduce violent crime by at least a small amount?

 Just Tony wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:
Didn't you just go on and on about control points? There's one right there! Gun violence is a serious issue in the US (in case you missed it), more so than any other first world country. Ban or reduce the number of guns, and you reduce the number of violent deaths, but suddenly that's a bad thing huh? (and yes, knives are harder to kill with than guns)

The difference between guns and knives is that guns are designed purely for killing by the way.

Yes, guns are made to kill things. So are bows and crossbows. There are literally a dozen ways to kill people, and at least a dozen ways to commit mass murder. Gun violence is a serious issue in the US, that much is certain, and reducing gun deaths is nowhere near a bad thing, but is there an answer that doesn't ban guns completely? Some actors in this debate aim for a middle ground, but the majority seem stuck on banning or unrestricted ownership. The correct answer is somewhere in the middle, and retains the 2nd Amendment's intent. Not to mention the fact that illegally obtained unregistered guns are responsible for far more deaths than registered guns, which tells me that banning firearms will not solve the whole problem, but will leave us stuck with another one.

As kanluwen said, you have no statistics to back up your statement, and crossbows/bows to guns is a silly comparison. I'll ask it again differently: Why are you against banning guns when it would reduce crime as "even reducing crimes by a small amount is a step in the right direction," right? That's what you said after all.

Strange to say, a crossbow was used in a violent crime in Maine this year, when somebody killed a petting zoo goat....

The Auld Grump - and the idiot with the crossbow was later arrested, for violating parole.

 Just Tony wrote:
I'm a rule of law guy, pure and simple. I don't give a flying feth about anyone's "feels", I care about adherence to the law. The examples I showed were flippant disregard to rule of law, AND to US sovereignty as a whole. Why is it so hard to see that?

Well, perhaps because you don't care one iota about the companies and entire industries that employ paperless immigrants because they'll work for longer and cheaper because they have fewer rights. These companies commit more and far worse crimes than overstaying your visa.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
I'm a rule of law guy, pure and simple. I don't give a flying feth about anyone's "feels", I care about adherence to the law. The examples I showed were flippant disregard to rule of law, AND to US sovereignty as a whole. Why is it so hard to see that?

Well, perhaps because you don't care one iota about the companies and entire industries that employ paperless immigrants because they'll work for longer and cheaper because they have fewer rights. These companies commit more and far worse crimes than overstaying your visa.

Incredibly large and erroneous assumption on your part. In my mind there should be a zero tolerance policy for those companies. Maximum penalties and prosecution.

And what about those that didn't come here ON a visa, oh noble warrior? That's what I've been talking about. As far as overstaying visas, how difficult is it to remember to renew? I have no problem remembering the renewal dates for both military AND civilian IDs and documentations for myself, my spouse, and 6 children, not to mention medical appointments/check ups, school functions, Down Syndrome fundraisers. If I can keep THAT much straight, surely someone can remember "Oh, hey! On the 24th of August I need to have this paperwork filed so it gets there before the end of September."

Illegal Immigration Does Not Increase Violent Crime, 4 Studies Show


And here's another interesting study...

Tight visa controls encourage illegal immigration, say researchers

BBC news is reporting that Cohen is ready to tell everything he knows about Trump.

A risky move. The poor guy will probably end up dead, with the official verdict being he was trampled to death by a herd of migrating Brontosaurus.

The only way to stop people from immigrating to your country is to make it the kind of country no one wants to go to in the first place. Everything else is just adding hoops and the more hoops you put in place, the more likely people are to just bypass the hoops.

The only real "solution" is to try to crackdown on employers as they are the only ones that can make conditions seem less appealing to illegal migrants as once in your country they can not find work, and will then leave to someplace else.

What has the US done to crack down on employers rather that the migrants themselves?

 Darkjim wrote:
https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/fake-news-media-having-a-particularly-busy-day-20180822176570

That is so out of touch with reality of an article I have no words.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
BBC news is reporting that Cohen is ready to tell everything he knows about Trump.

A risky move. The poor guy will probably end up dead, with the official verdict being he was trampled to death by a herd of migrating Brontosaurus.

Yeah i hope they get the information from him before that and if they do. Man oh man its going to be interesting.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Darkjim wrote:
https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/fake-news-media-having-a-particularly-busy-day-20180822176570

That is so out of touch with reality of an article I have no words.

The Daily Mash is a satire website, like the Onion.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Darkjim wrote:
https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/fake-news-media-having-a-particularly-busy-day-20180822176570

That is so out of touch with reality of an article I have no words.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
BBC news is reporting that Cohen is ready to tell everything he knows about Trump.

A risky move. The poor guy will probably end up dead, with the official verdict being he was trampled to death by a herd of migrating Brontosaurus.

Yeah i hope they get the information from him before that and if they do. Man oh man its going to be interesting.

If I were Cohen, I'd keep away from any Grassy Knolls

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:
And again, you're focusing on a group that commits fewer violent crimes than other groups on average. What is your solution beyond "illegals bad." Build the wall!? Spend billions to potentially reduce the number of violent crimes by a very small amount?

What is my solution? Depends, What is on the opposite spectrum of Open Borders? The stupidest solutions seem to come from the left. Either crack the borders wide open or finance illegals better when they get here. Both ideas are pants on head stupid, and do nothing to mitigate the issue, if anything it exacerbates the issue. I'd rather spend millions to improve conditions in their home country so there's no NEED to somehow bypass a dozen countries to come here to escape squalor or oppression. Even a safe haven ran by us in their country is better than the current illegal alien issue we have.

But to reiterate and address your quantification comment: even reducing crimes by a small amount is a step in the right direction.

The dumbest solutions come from the left? What about that wall would cost at least billions to build before you even get into building infrastructure to support (and build) the wall, land rights/eminent domain, and the long drawn out court battles of those? (and that's not even getting into how ineffective it would be)

But to reiterate and address your quantification comment: even reducing crimes by a small amount is a step in the right direction.

So are you for, or against banning guns because it would reduce violent crime by at least a small amount?

 Just Tony wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:
Didn't you just go on and on about control points? There's one right there! Gun violence is a serious issue in the US (in case you missed it), more so than any other first world country. Ban or reduce the number of guns, and you reduce the number of violent deaths, but suddenly that's a bad thing huh? (and yes, knives are harder to kill with than guns)

The difference between guns and knives is that guns are designed purely for killing by the way.

Yes, guns are made to kill things. So are bows and crossbows. There are literally a dozen ways to kill people, and at least a dozen ways to commit mass murder. Gun violence is a serious issue in the US, that much is certain, and reducing gun deaths is nowhere near a bad thing, but is there an answer that doesn't ban guns completely? Some actors in this debate aim for a middle ground, but the majority seem stuck on banning or unrestricted ownership. The correct answer is somewhere in the middle, and retains the 2nd Amendment's intent. Not to mention the fact that illegally obtained unregistered guns are responsible for far more deaths than registered guns, which tells me that banning firearms will not solve the whole problem, but will leave us stuck with another one.

As kanluwen said, you have no statistics to back up your statement, and crossbows/bows to guns is a silly comparison. I'll ask it again differently: Why are you against banning guns when it would reduce crime as "even reducing crimes by a small amount is a step in the right direction," right? That's what you said after all.

According to a CDC study done in 2015 guns are used by citizens to stop a crime at least as often, and likely much more often, than they are used to commit crime.

However that is besides the point. The point is banning guns would reduce overall violent crime because there would be fewer guns to do it with, and yet there's a double standard being imposed here. Illegal immigrants generally don't commit violent crimes (even when looked at as an entire group compared to other groups), so preventing illegal immigration (aside from being impractical or impossible to totally and completely shut down) would only reduce violent crimes by a small amount. Banning guns might not totally stop violent crime either, but it would reduce it by at least a small amount, so therefore he should be in favor of banning guns right? Instead he trots out the tired old "guns are tools, people kill people, knives are dangerous too" speech to sidestep that potential flaw in his logic.

(And I would be interested in that study too)

Here it is.

https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3

It is worth pointing out that it is not research carried out by the CDC on defensive gun uses, but rather a preliminary document examining the existing research and highlighting which areas are in need of further research, hence it's title "Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence".

It's section on defensive gun use is very small, discussing what research has been carried out by others. This includes pointing out that the number of defensive gun uses per year is in dispute, somewhere between 500k and 3million though some estimates are as low as 108k. It also highlights that in some surveys defensive gun use leads to less injury to the defensive gun user than other forms of defense, though this could be countered by greater risk of homicide and suicide by owning the gun.

It also says that the subject needs further research.

 Wolfblade wrote:
The point is banning guns would reduce overall violent crime because there would be fewer guns to do it with

Who cares? Too many Americans like having guns. They are not going anywhere so peeps should just get used to it. Our society is the way that it is because people just do not have respect for one another. There is a lot of violent crime that is done without guns. If you eliminate guns it might stop some of the mass shootings, but its not going to get rid of knife or other weapon attacks, or rapes, or other kind of crimes that are committed every day that shouldn't be happening at all. And to tell people who live in rural areas that they cannot own a gun for self defense is crazy to me too.

If you found some way to teach Americans to be nicer to each other, there would be less Americans shooting each other. Good luck changing that, and you might as well start trying, because that will happen long before anything happens to gun ownership. It is after all, the lack of respect people have for one another that is essentially the leading argument for wanting a gun in the first place.

As for illegal immigration, I don't give a rats ass what it does to violent crime. They are still illegal. I don't know what makes them so special that they can break laws and I can't. There is a system for immigrating into this country, follow it.

 Just Tony wrote:
Not to mention the fact that illegally obtained unregistered guns are responsible for far more deaths than registered guns,

Is it possible that today's "illegally obtained unregistered" guns are yesterday's "registered" guns, and that reducing the numbers of the latter would over time lead to reduced numbers of the former?

 Wolfblade wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:
And again, you're focusing on a group that commits fewer violent crimes than other groups on average. What is your solution beyond "illegals bad." Build the wall!? Spend billions to potentially reduce the number of violent crimes by a very small amount?

What is my solution? Depends, What is on the opposite spectrum of Open Borders? The stupidest solutions seem to come from the left. Either crack the borders wide open or finance illegals better when they get here. Both ideas are pants on head stupid, and do nothing to mitigate the issue, if anything it exacerbates the issue. I'd rather spend millions to improve conditions in their home country so there's no NEED to somehow bypass a dozen countries to come here to escape squalor or oppression. Even a safe haven ran by us in their country is better than the current illegal alien issue we have.

But to reiterate and address your quantification comment: even reducing crimes by a small amount is a step in the right direction.

The dumbest solutions come from the left? What about that wall would cost at least billions to build before you even get into building infrastructure to support (and build) the wall, land rights/eminent domain, and the long drawn out court battles of those? (and that's not even getting into how ineffective it would be)

But to reiterate and address your quantification comment: even reducing crimes by a small amount is a step in the right direction.

So are you for, or against banning guns because it would reduce violent crime by at least a small amount?

 Just Tony wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:
Didn't you just go on and on about control points? There's one right there! Gun violence is a serious issue in the US (in case you missed it), more so than any other first world country. Ban or reduce the number of guns, and you reduce the number of violent deaths, but suddenly that's a bad thing huh? (and yes, knives are harder to kill with than guns)

The difference between guns and knives is that guns are designed purely for killing by the way.

Yes, guns are made to kill things. So are bows and crossbows. There are literally a dozen ways to kill people, and at least a dozen ways to commit mass murder. Gun violence is a serious issue in the US, that much is certain, and reducing gun deaths is nowhere near a bad thing, but is there an answer that doesn't ban guns completely? Some actors in this debate aim for a middle ground, but the majority seem stuck on banning or unrestricted ownership. The correct answer is somewhere in the middle, and retains the 2nd Amendment's intent. Not to mention the fact that illegally obtained unregistered guns are responsible for far more deaths than registered guns, which tells me that banning firearms will not solve the whole problem, but will leave us stuck with another one.

As kanluwen said, you have no statistics to back up your statement, and crossbows/bows to guns is a silly comparison. I'll ask it again differently: Why are you against banning guns when it would reduce crime as "even reducing crimes by a small amount is a step in the right direction," right? That's what you said after all.

According to a CDC study done in 2015 guns are used by citizens to stop a crime at least as often, and likely much more often, than they are used to commit crime.

However that is besides the point. The point is banning guns would reduce overall violent crime because there would be fewer guns to do it with, and yet there's a double standard being imposed here. Illegal immigrants generally don't commit violent crimes (even when looked at as an entire group compared to other groups), so preventing illegal immigration (aside from being impractical or impossible to totally and completely shut down) would only reduce violent crimes by a small amount. Banning guns might not totally stop violent crime either, but it would reduce it by at least a small amount, so therefore he should be in favor of banning guns right? Instead he trots out the tired old "guns are tools, people kill people, knives are dangerous too" speech to sidestep that potential flaw in his logic.

(And I would be interested in that study too)

Lets look at a country that had mandatory buybacks then, it isn't a total ban but Australia's 1996 buyback reduced the # of guns by over 600k https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Agreement

Looking at the stats compiled by the Australian Gov. here http://www.crimestats.aic.gov.au/NHMP/1_trends/ The chart titled "WEAPON USE IN HOMICIDE INCIDENTS, 1989-90 TO 2013-14 (N)" looks like homicides where a gun was used was declining from '89 to '92 before spiking in '93 and '95 with the buyback happening in '96 . What is interesting is that in '96 the # of homicides where the gun was used as a weapon did drop, but it was only by 16% which is surprising given the scope of the buyback program. That said based on their data homicides with guns are declining, but that was the trend before the buyback anyway. Homicides with knives however have remained fairly stable over the same time period.

 infinite_array wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Darkjim wrote:
https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/fake-news-media-having-a-particularly-busy-day-20180822176570

That is so out of touch with reality of an article I have no words.

The Daily Mash is a satire website, like the Onion.

Kind of hard to tell. And why was it posted here if it isn't real news at all?

"Registered" guns is something of a misnomer in the first place. The only guns registered in the US are NFA items (machineguns, short barreled rifles, suppresors, destructive devices, etc) at the federal level, and a few state level registries that typically only apply to handguns and nebulously defined "assault weapons" except I think for DC, CA and Hawaii which now register all firearms after a certain date. So "registered" firearms are relatively very far and few between.

I don't think anyone is actually trying to ban firearms, just pointing out Tony's hypocrisy...