Roseburg, Oregon. Yet Another Gun Massacre

[Flixy]

If I am unwilling to support government spending for programs that I believe fundamentally better mankind and our understanding of the world, do you think I would also support some kind of financial restitution, support, or subsidy for plantation owners who profiteered off the backs, blood, and tears of slaves? Should I be willing to postpone emancipation by even one day for someone who has been enslaved their whole life because it might negatively impact a slave owners bottom line? That hardly seems right to me.

Not talking about postponing anything, or about the slave owners bottom line (at least not directly), but effectively dissolving a major part of the economy in about half of your country will have major economic effects, and it's better to know what it will be than to be surprised by it. Of course, in this case a cvil war erupted which makes it a bit of a moot point. BTW, if such a financial restitution would have prevented a destructive civil war, would it still be a bad idea? I've heard some people use that argument (though I also heard it was bullshit because it could not be paid anyway).

I don't believe everything of worth should be publicly funded. It's likely true that development in space would not be where it is today without federal funding. It's also true that there have been developments from the space race that have made lasting impacts on the global economy. I can recognize these things and still have a philosophical objection to public funding for space. Just as I can recognize that good can be done with social welfare and still be ideologically opposed to public funding for it. I do not believe that without government spending on space mankind would be forever terrestrially bound. There may not have been the rapid developments we saw in the 60's and 70's, but I think it would have inevitably happened one way or the other.

In that same vein, would you be willing to support funding increases to the US Military because that funding has also lead to technological developments that have had positive economic impacts? The internet and computing likely wouldn't be nearly as developed without substantial investments by them.

I'm not opposed to funding their research, no. I've visited the Naval Research Lab, was very interesting. BTW, also flight, atomic energy.. well the list goes on and on. Hell, spaceflight, since we were talking about that, pretty much all derives from the German military research.

Sure, without government funding spaceflight might have developed eventually, but keep in mind pretty much all missile technology is military (government funded), which laid the ground work, and pretty much all knowledge about actually being in space also comes from government projects. Without that, I doubt the current private space projects would exist, because it would be prohibitively expensive, with huge unknown risks, and not much (if any) known benefits for the company doing it in the first place. I think we would probably still have suborbital projects like the ones that still are not running commercially (and use a lot of knowledge from government projects), but I doubt we'd have orbital spaceflight by now. Keep in mind that the first private orbital spaceflight was in 2012, and only exists because of NASA contracts ánd knowledge. Unless you count Arianespace, but while that is commercial, it's owned by European governments and used government funded hardware. Satellites have been commercially available for some time, but again, only using government funded knowledge, and launched by government launch vehicles. And even now, for commercial launches, government satellites are the majority of the market. The importance is quite clear if you see that private space ventures have gone bankrupt after losing their government contracts.

Sure, government regulations and monopoly and red tape also held it back, but that is more than offset by the knowledge and technology developed by... you guessed it, government projects. For example, Golden Spike estimates about $8 billion is needed for development to reach the moon (excluding the actual costs of the trip itself), and that's already using technology developed earlier (the reason it's so 'cheap' is because they plan te use existing rockets). Imagine the costs if they had to start from scratch. It's not surprising that even now most privately funded spaceflight is more of a hobby for billionaires than actually expected to be a profitable business. But hey, that works, since space is cool

Essentially this is why I think it's good for governments to fund fundamental research in general, the applications will be privately funded and beneficial for the world.

And on a side note, it does give a lovely example of the amusing way the US names its bills with the SPACE act - Spurring Private Aerospace Competitiveness and Entrepeneurship Act And now I want to play Kerbal Space Program again..

In the hypothetical I wasn't attempting to give the impression that I would be interested in passing such a law, but instead was using a clearly unjust law that is already on the books for good in the situations that it could. That may not have been clear through my wording. Apologies.

Then I'm not sure what your argument is. You mean you would be supportive of an existing law preventing just white people from being executed, because it at least leaves some people alive? You are aware you can be against an existing law by being for expanding it (in this case to all people instead of just white), instead of just wanting to abolish it? I'm really not sure what you're saying. To return to slavery, you would be supportive of the slavery laws as they were because at least white people couldn't be enslaved? Well yeah, but I'm pretty sure that the people who thought slavery was extremely racist didn't mean to expand slavery to all races, but wanted to stop it altogether.


edit: maybe we should move this to a new thread, it's far gone from shootings. My original point was that it's stupid to ban research on gun violence specifically (while not banning other research, so it's obviously not a matter of principle on government funded research), because it's clearly a big issue, and knowing what you're actually dealing with is a good thing. You could learn that perhaps you can combat it somewhat within existing laws by shifting enforcement and priorities, you might learn how to better respond to it, and debates about new regulations could be rooted in facts rather than wishful thinking, In this thread we've already encountered a buyback program with one guy saying it's a good idea, and one guy saying it wouldn't work. Would be nice to have, you know, actual research on how effective it would be.

Furthermore you're not with anyone except maybe your significant other most of the time. The context of a conversation and who you're talking to and why can shape what you discuss and how it is received. On this forum I've been called a eurosceptic little Englander and on another site I post in I've been called a Quisling traitor who wants a European superstate. For expressing the same opinion on both sites.

Obviously you want England to conquer Europe and become​ the European superstate.

[Enoch the Red]

Not talking about postponing anything, or about the slave owners bottom line (at least not directly), but effectively dissolving a major part of the economy in about half of your country will have major economic effects, and it's better to know what it will be than to be surprised by it. Of course, in this case a cvil war erupted which makes it a bit of a moot point. BTW, if such a financial restitution would have prevented a destructive civil war, would it still be a bad idea? I've heard some people use that argument (though I also heard it was bullshit because it could not be paid anyway).

I think you are fooling yourself if you believe that you get to define what the research finds, or what actions are taken on account of it. If the research found the costs were too high for plantation owners and the economy as a whole, or that there would be zero economic impact on plantation owners if slavery was phased out over a period of years, or decades, would that be a valuable result? It certainly could be used as a compelling argument against emancipation, and one that might have found traction especially among those that are not slaves. Is that a just result though? Or perhaps research might find that because a woman's brain is demonstrably smaller than a man's that they clearly don't have the mental faculties required for suffrage. It might be nice to imagine that research would always be completely impartial, and find results that align well with our own understanding, but that is not always the case.

I'm not opposed to funding their research, no. I've visited the Naval Research Lab, was very interesting. BTW, also flight, atomic energy.. well the list goes on and on. Hell, spaceflight, since we were talking about that, pretty much all derives from the German military research.

Sure, without government funding spaceflight might have developed eventually, but keep in mind pretty much all missile technology is military (government funded), which laid the ground work, and pretty much all knowledge about actually being in space also comes from government projects. Without that, I doubt the current private space projects would exist, because it would be prohibitively expensive, with huge unknown risks, and not much (if any) known benefits for the company doing it in the first place. I think we would probably still have suborbital projects like the ones that still are not running commercially (and use a lot of knowledge from government projects), but I doubt we'd have orbital spaceflight by now. Keep in mind that the first private orbital spaceflight was in 2012, and only exists because of NASA contracts ánd knowledge. Unless you count Arianespace, but while that is commercial, it's owned by European governments and used government funded hardware. Satellites have been commercially available for some time, but again, only using government funded knowledge, and launched by government launch vehicles. And even now, for commercial launches, government satellites are the majority of the market. The importance is quite clear if you see that private space ventures have gone bankrupt after losing their government contracts.

Sure, government regulations and monopoly and red tape also held it back, but that is more than offset by the knowledge and technology developed by... you guessed it, government projects. For example, Golden Spike estimates about $8 billion is needed for development to reach the moon (excluding the actual costs of the trip itself), and that's already using technology developed earlier (the reason it's so 'cheap' is because they plan te use existing rockets). Imagine the costs if they had to start from scratch. It's not surprising that even now most privately funded spaceflight is more of a hobby for billionaires than actually expected to be a profitable business. But hey, that works, since space is cool

Essentially this is why I think it's good for governments to fund fundamental research in general, the applications will be privately funded and beneficial for the world.

I'm not sure if this is a response to what I wrote or a way of getting your own thoughts down. I don't think I disagree with anything here, in fact it seems like a longer, more detailed way of saying what I already have. Without governmental involvement we may still have been ten, twenty years, or more from manned space flight. It's hard to know for sure how things would have played out. If your primary goal is funding research then it probably makes sense for the state to fund it. That is not my guiding principal, even though I recognize there can be benefits from it.

Then I'm not sure what your argument is. You mean you would be supportive of an existing law preventing just white people from being executed, because it at least leaves some people alive? You are aware you can be against an existing law by being for expanding it (in this case to all people instead of just white), instead of just wanting to abolish it? I'm really not sure what you're saying. To return to slavery, you would be supportive of the slavery laws as they were because at least white people couldn't be enslaved? Well yeah, but I'm pretty sure that the people who thought slavery was extremely racist didn't mean to expand slavery to all races, but wanted to stop it altogether.

I would find value in the law where there was value, while still recognizing the shortcomings. If you were for the legalization of drugs on the basis that an individual should be free to do with their body as they choose, would you find value in a law that allowed for cigarette and alcohol use without also allowing for marijuana? Is it better to have complete government control over the substances you put in your body, or is some freedom better than none?

[Steely Glint]

And what is it that you think Enoch (or whoever else you're referring to) has spent most of his time talking about.

Furthermore you're not with anyone except maybe your significant other most of the time. The context of a conversation and who you're talking to and why can shape what you discuss and how it is received. On this forum I've been called a eurosceptic little Englander and on another site I post in I've been called a Quisling traitor who wants a European superstate. For expressing the same opinion on both sites.

Was thinking more of public statements. Speech that might conceivably influence policy or at least opinion. Not drunken rambling conversations at 3.A.M.

[RandBlade]

Public statements depend upon context too. If someone asks you a question the answer is likely to be related to the question. If a politician is speaking to a group, the statement is likely to relate to the interests of that group.

[Steely Glint]

Hence, the need to look at career long patterns, not single statements.

[Loki]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34487997

[Steely Glint]

yesh.

[GGT]

Enoch, you're using "research" in a broad, non-specific way. (Just like you did with "regulation" for substance use.)

Your posts almost always begin by presuming that anything the government does is bad. And not just because it can restrict or limit certain freedoms, or use tax dollars unwisely or unfairly.....but because government is bad, especially at the federal level.

But here's the rub: the document you love to cite for 2nd Amendment "gun rights" also gives Congress their mandate to legislate, regulate, and tax. Flixy was right -- it's stupid that previous legislation can prohibit/prevent present legislators from knowing data or facts, because it was written as funding research.

The same conceptual confusion applies to Police Departments and guns. It's impossible to know if cops are shooting more people, or more people are dying from police shootings.....when that data is collected and submitted to the DOJ voluntarily.

[Aimless]

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2015...-nra-jihadists

Twitter Link

Shots fired

[Loki]

No doubt because the paranoid militia types are worried about the evil government putting them on the terror watch list.

[Veldan Rath]

Let's not give the list a lot of credence...wasn't Ted Kennedy on it?

[Ominous Gamer]

Thats why I'm on the fence about this. A lot of people are ending up on the list for non-terror reasons, like being a journalist. Thanks to its nature and how its handled its extremely difficult to get your name removed from the list. Its abused enough as is, tying it to more goods and services will just increase that abuse.

I like the idea of a list of people that shouldn't be trusted with certain weapons, but not in this manner.

[Enoch the Red]

Thats why I'm on the fence about this. A lot of people are ending up on the list for non-terror reasons, like being a journalist. Thanks to its nature and how its handled its extremely difficult to get your name removed from the list. Its abused enough as is, tying it to more goods and services will just increase that abuse.

I like the idea of a list of people that shouldn't be trusted with certain weapons, but not in this manner.

And should those same people not be trusted with other constitutionally protected rights? Should freedom of speech and assembly also be restricted based off of some government list of people who may or may not be dangerous? What about their fourth amendment rights? Do we discard those as well once they find themselves on a watch list? And that is without looking at the efficacy of the program. Did French gun dealers sell the terrorists the weapons that were used in the Paris attack? Are we assuming that these same criminal masterminds aren't capable of forging papers to conceal their identity, purchasing weapons illegally off the black market, or through a straw purchaser who acquired the gun legally? Isn't this just more security theater?

Look, if someone is committing a crime, put them in jail. Otherwise it's patently wrong to force people into a second class citizen status for some unknown, undefined reason through an opaque and extrajudicial process.

[Lewkowski]

Let's not give the list a lot of credence...wasn't Ted Kennedy on it?

Well it sure wasn't safe to get in a car with him...

[Ominous Gamer]

And should those same people not be trusted with other constitutionally protected rights? Should freedom of speech and assembly also be restricted based off of some government list of people who may or may not be dangerous? What about their fourth amendment rights? Do we discard those as well once they find themselves on a watch list? And that is without looking at the efficacy of the program. Did French gun dealers sell the terrorists the weapons that were used in the Paris attack? Are we assuming that these same criminal masterminds aren't capable of forging papers to conceal their identity, purchasing weapons illegally off the black market, or through a straw purchaser who acquired the gun legally? Isn't this just more security theater?

Look, if someone is committing a crime, put them in jail. Otherwise it's patently wrong to force people into a second class citizen status for some unknown, undefined reason through an opaque and extrajudicial process.

Calm down skippy. Perhaps give comprehension a second try before over reacting with a reply full of fallacies?

[Enoch the Red]

Calm down skippy. Perhaps give comprehension a second try before over reacting with a reply full of fallacies?

Maybe you could explain the manner in which such a list could be created that you would like.

[Timbuk2]

More guns guns guns death death death

San Bernardino shooting: Police kill two suspects after hunt

Police in California have named two suspects killed after a mass shooting which left 14 people dead at a social services centre.

The man and woman, Syed Rizwan Farook, 28, and Tashfeen Malik, 27, were killed in an exchange of fire with police.
Farook had been a county employee for five years, San Bernadino Police Chief Jarrod Burguan said.
The attack took place at an event on Wednesday for employees of the San Bernadino public health department.

None of the victims has been identified.

The Inland Regional Center, where the shooting took place, provides services for people with developmental disabilities, but the shooting appeared to be unrelated to its clients.

The incident marks the deadliest mass shooting in the US since 26 people were killed at a school in Newtown, Connecticut in 2012.

Mr Burguan, who said another 17 people were wounded, said police were "reasonably confident" that there were just two shooters.
A third person seen running from the scene was detained, but police said it was unclear whether that person was involved.
Both suspects were killed in their vehicle after a shoot-out with police involving 20 officers. A tip-off had earlier led police to a house in nearby Redlands.

The dead man and woman were believed to be a couple, the police chief said. They were armed with assault rifles and semi-automatic handguns and wore military-style clothing.
The US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) told the BBC two of the four guns recovered were linked to "an individual associated with this investigation". They are investigating the origin of the other two guns.

One police officer was injured, but his injuries are not life threatening.
Three possible explosive devices were found at the Inland Regional Center, where the shooting took place.
Mr Burguan said that Farook had left the event - which was possibly a holiday party for employees or a meeting - "under some circumstances that were described as angry," and returned with Malik.

Earlier, the FBI said it was not ruling out the possibility of terrorism but the situation was still being investigated.
San Bernardino is a city of about 200,000 people, 60 miles (100 km) east of Los Angeles.

[Lewkowski]

More Jihadists. It is interesting that even in staunch anti-gun countries similar attacks also happen.

[Flixy]

More Jihadists. It is interesting that even in staunch anti-gun countries similar attacks also happen.

Yes, though the fact that it was (or is? haven't checked the news lately) unclear whether or not it's a Paris style terrorist attack, or a 'normal' shooting like the dozens you already have sure is a good indicator you have a problem.

[Lewkowski]

So far it looks like they were Jihadists who weren't very organized or 'officially' tied to a major terrorist group.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/04/us/san...ing/index.html

[Flixy]

Sure, but like I said, if a terrorist attack can't easily be separated from a regular shooting that happens multiple times a year, you've got a problem. And keep in mind the number of people killed in mass shootings is much higher than in terrorist attacks in the US the past number of years. And even for terrorists it's much easier to get a gun there than here (though obviously not impossible here, but they can't just pick it up in a supermarket). With each criminal act they have to commit before attacking you're increasing the chance to stop them.

[Ominous Gamer]

At least one of the victims was a Muslim that was active at the local mosque and knew Farook.

The way the news is laying out the events, it seems the wife was the radicalizer, dude should have stuck with Tinder. Crazy how the landlord is having a field day with allowing the news crews inside the terrorists' home.

[Being]

The way the news is laying out the events, it seems the wife was the radicalizer, dude should have stuck with Tinder.

A pussy whipped muslim extremist? Really? A must for the oxymoron hall of fame.

[Loki]

Apparently his father knew he was an ISIS supporter, despite claiming that the whole attack took him by surprise.