Thought for the Day

[broncofan]

I actually have no issue with foreign cars, Bronco, I own a couple myself. My reason for not working on them is basically that there's a lot to learn and I'm too lazy to learn it. I can build and install a turbocharger on a Volvo fairly easily, as long as it's a recent model with an up-to-date computer. But retrofitting a carbureted engine can get complicated and usually results in a lot of turbo lag, which kinda defeats the purpose of the turbocharger in the first place. To sidestep that awkward conversation in which I have to tell my customer that I can do the job but can't provide a guarantee against lag, I simply advertise American Cars Only.

It's a 2018 s60 but truthfully I'm not good enough with cars for performance to matter that much. I'm lucky if I keep it clean and properly serviced.

[Stavros]

Had an argument with a gun nut recently where I said they should ban AR-15's. His counter argument (and I kid you not) was why ban AR-15's when other gun types contribute to far more deaths.

I read this article in The Atlantic a few days ago, in which the author quotes people who claim the AR-15 is a poor weapon for accuracy and efficiency compared to others -they are sufficiently obsessed to know which millimetre works best- with this typical remark-

"The AR-15 is not more lethal and is in fact a poor choice for defense or hunting. Las Vegas shooter fired over 2000 rounds with 57 deaths shows how poor a killing machine it really is."
https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/20...-ar-15/545414/

[Nick Danger]

It's a 2018 s60 but truthfully I'm not good enough with cars for performance to matter that much. I'm lucky if I keep it clean and properly serviced.

Probably would come as no surprise to you that most of my customers are teenagers with rich parents. I do install a lot of turbochargers for senior citizens on restored classics, recently finished a job on a sweet metallic blue '69 Camaro for a guy who's so old he probably shouldn't even be allowed to drive. But mostly it's teenagers with zippy little cars that I wouldn't be seen in.

My everyday ride is a stock F-150, I left my personal need for speed behind decades ago.

There's nothing we can do about the virus you said except just get infected. Then you look at countries that have many fewer deaths per capita so what do you say? That you can't trust numbers.

Here is a list of countries and homicide rate. The US has a homicide rate that is more than 4 times as great as the UK. You can't stop crazy people from doing crazy things? More like you cannot stop every crazy person from killing but if you make it harder you do end up stopping some crazy people from killing. The primary logical fallacy for Republicans is that no effort to protect the public is at all useful if it's not 100% effective. It's also the primary logical fallacy of 8 year olds.

Of course your entire argument begins with a strawman argument which is that all gun ownership should be illegal and not that certain kinds of weapons are dangerous in the hands of civilians, particularly those who have committed felonies or have psychoses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._homicide_rate

So where does that line of thinking end, Bronco? What am I left holding in my hand to defend myself, my property, and my family (no I don't have a family but I am writing for effect here) when the gun control advocates are done determining what I should and shouldn't be allowed to have? A .22?

What's the difference? If I wanted to kill you, a .22 would do the job. But if I wanted to defend myself, it probably wouldn't, not against a higher-powered gun.

To me that's a dead-end chain of reasoning.

[sukumvit boy]

Aung Sang Suu Kyi may have charisma and thus be leadership material, but too much was expected of her in a country as corrupt as Myanmar. She has argued that the 'communal violence' in Rakhine State is part of an historic claim to the Kingdom of Arakan and that the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army has been pivotal in the inter-communal violence that has displaced so many Muslims and Hindus in Rakhine State, indeed, it was the basis of the speech she gave in The Hague rejecting the claim of Genocide.

That Rakhine/Arakan has been multi-ethnic and multi-religious, including in the heyday of the Kingdom between the 15th and 18th centures, is now complicated by the brutal suppression of Muslim and Hindu people in Rakhine by the military, the claims that the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army is an Islamist outfit, and the more obvious fact that Aung Sang Suu Kyi is in reality powerless, as her detention has shown. For the military, she was a political showgirl, and if she failed to please the West too by not condemning her country's military response to a crisis which has erupted at varous times since 1948 and never been resolved (as is also the case with the Shan and the Karen rebellions), then it suggests she has been caught between two aspirations, unable to deal with either of them.

In the end, it is quite simple -the military owns the county, as it does in Egypt and Syria, and they and their familes and friends are not about to sell their inheritance to outsiders, unless it is in foreign investment deals in gas, real estate and natural resources from which the main beneficiaries are themselves.

Aung Sang Suu Kyi's speech to The Hague in December 2019 is here-
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/...he-icj-in-full

An American academic looks at the ARSA here-
https://www.lawfareblog.com/arakan-r...u-might-expect

An Amnesty International report highlights attacks by the ARSA on Hindus-
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/ne...rakhine-state/

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-55950420

[Stavros]

[QUOTE=Nick Danger;1957823]

The essential logical fallacy of the pro-gun control argument has not suddenly become logical because there have been a lot of mass shootings, Stavros. If guns are criminalized only criminals will have guns.

- I agree that a comprehensive ban would limit the need for firearms to those who intend to use them for criminal purposes, though I would accept that farmers may have a need to own firearms, and there is a large sporting culture which engages in shooting at a competitive level, and not just the Olympic Games. It is not that hard to control access to guns in the case of sports, and, moreover, I think the people who want to engage in shooting sports would themselves be willing to surrender their storage of weapons at home and leave them in the clubhouse. Society would thus find a way to balance a ban with control.

And even this is pretty much beside the point of why Americans are actually allowed to own guns. Our founding fathers envisioned a society in which the citizens were in control, not the government.

-I agree that for your Revolutionaries, the concept of freedom and individual liberty was fundamental to the form of Governmen that was created in the two decades after 1776. Your problem is that the context in which the Amendment was ratified (and it was in any case a repeat of a clause in the 1781 Articles of Confederation) was one in which a) the new US was under military threat from the British (who did indeed return to the US with deadly intent in 1812), and b) the armed opposition to tyranny, which at the time was assumed to be the Monarchy, or any attempt by an American to create one or a tyranny of any other form.
For this reason the Heller judgment has been challenged because a 'well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state' does not by definition give an individual the right to bear arms when the intention is to 'defend' oneself against another indivdual -Washington did not want a standing army which could only be financed by taxation, but there was a standing army paid for by taxes.
Crucially, the evolution of American society and its law enforcement insitutions has created at least three levels of armed protection for the citizen -the armed forces, the National Guard, and local Law Enforcement. There is no need for an individual to own firearms for their own protection when the protection is already there. Moreover, the fact that individual gun ownership is allowed if anything, undermines the institutional basis of security and thus in effect de-legitimizes existing law enforcement as having a monopoly of the use of force. Gun Ownership is this eroding democracy in the USA, as was on full display on the 6th of January.

I am personally against all forms of armament control. I.E., I think properly vetted citizens of the USA should be allowed to own tanks, fighter jets, aircraft carriers, or any other tool of violence they desire. Anything the government has, the citizens should be allowed to have.

-This is just madness. There was a time when the mere idea of a Congressional Representative arriving at the Capitol in a tank would only be possible in a Mel Brooks movie. With Lauren Boebert in the House, the prospect of her arriving for work in a tank, wearing a full metal jacket, with a hand grenade in her bra, and a Magnum inside her jacket, Clint Eastwood style, is not as far fetched as the prospect of her using the weapons. Something tells me the time has come for you people to put a stop to this, or you are handing the keys of the Republic to people who don't respect it, don't want it, and will storm the Capitol again if they feel they need to. 'The Fire Next Time' may not just be a book by James Baldwin, but a slogan of intent.

Let's imagine for a moment that the Sandy Hook Massacre actually happened. It's a stretch, but I can go there. Adam Lanza approaches the school with an AR-15. The ARMED SECURITY OFFICER at the door says, "Hey, tiny human, you can't come into this school with that high-powered rifle and kill a bunch of children!" Little Adam levels his AR-15 at the officer but the officer's superior training wins out, and young, fictional Adam Lanza is shot and killed. Poor little guy.

-No, let's instead imagine a society in which armed guards patrol nurseries and kindergardens, and shopping malls and cinemas. Then ask yourself 'how did it come to this?' You imply there are so many bad people out there society has no other option but to arm itself and guard itself always assuming the armed guard will stop a massacre. Yet even with the knowledge they had, Washington DC's armed law enforcment could not defend the Capitol building, so where were the 'good guys' on the 6th of January?

Lastly, gun control works. If you want to know how, and where, look at Japan. If you want to know how it doesn't work, look at the USA, and not just what appears to be an utterly corrrupt NRA. Look at the context of gun control when it was first introduced -after the Civil War when Southern White folks were terrified freed slaves would come after them. Why did Ronald Reagan introduce gun control laws in California? Because the 'right of the people to keep and bear Arms' should not be extended to the Black Panther Party or its associates,also known as 'Americans'.
There is your freedom, your gun control, your precious 2nd Amendment -soaked in the Race that has shaped so much of American history, from Jamestown to today.

If you let gun ownership define America, don't be surprised if the owners destroy it.

[fred41]

Kevin Bacon moment lol. My last car was a Volvo S60. I had to get rid of it because, here in NYC, we prefer bicycles...so I had to get up every morning just to move the car because - alternate side of the street parking. Once the battery was dead because I wasn’t driving it far enough to charge it. The other half of the Kevin Bacon moment is that the S60 has a turbo engine.....and for a while...was produced in (drum roll).....China .

[Nick Danger]

[QUOTE=Stavros;1957848]

The essential logical fallacy of the pro-gun control argument has not suddenly become logical because there have been a lot of mass shootings, Stavros. If guns are criminalized only criminals will have guns.

- I agree that a comprehensive ban would limit the need for firearms to those who intend to use them for criminal purposes, though I would accept that farmers may have a need to own firearms, and there is a large sporting culture which engages in shooting at a competitive level, and not just the Olympic Games. It is not that hard to control access to guns in the case of sports, and, moreover, I think the people who want to engage in shooting sports would themselves be willing to surrender their storage of weapons at home and leave them in the clubhouse. Society would thus find a way to balance a ban with control.

And even this is pretty much beside the point of why Americans are actually allowed to own guns. Our founding fathers envisioned a society in which the citizens were in control, not the government.

-I agree that for your Revolutionaries, the concept of freedom and individual liberty was fundamental to the form of Governmen that was created in the two decades after 1776. Your problem is that the context in which the Amendment was ratified (and it was in any case a repeat of a clause in the 1781 Articles of Confederation) was one in which a) the new US was under military threat from the British (who did indeed return to the US with deadly intent in 1812), and b) the armed opposition to tyranny, which at the time was assumed to be the Monarchy, or any attempt by an American to create one or a tyranny of any other form.
For this reason the Heller judgment has been challenged because a 'well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state' does not by definition give an individual the right to bear arms when the intention is to 'defend' oneself against another indivdual -Washington did not want a standing army which could only be financed by taxation, but there was a standing army paid for by taxes.
Crucially, the evolution of American society and its law enforcement insitutions has created at least three levels of armed protection for the citizen -the armed forces, the National Guard, and local Law Enforcement. There is no need for an individual to own firearms for their own protection when the protection is already there. Moreover, the fact that individual gun ownership is allowed if anything, undermines the institutional basis of security and thus in effect de-legitimizes existing law enforcement as having a monopoly of the use of force. Gun Ownership is this eroding democracy in the USA, as was on full display on the 6th of January.

I am personally against all forms of armament control. I.E., I think properly vetted citizens of the USA should be allowed to own tanks, fighter jets, aircraft carriers, or any other tool of violence they desire. Anything the government has, the citizens should be allowed to have.

-This is just madness. There was a time when the mere idea of a Congressional Representative arriving at the Capitol in a tank would only be possible in a Mel Brooks movie. With Lauren Boebert in the House, the prospect of her arriving for work in a tank, wearing a full metal jacket, with a hand grenade in her bra, and a Magnum inside her jacket, Clint Eastwood style, is not as far fetched as the prospect of her using the weapons. Something tells me the time has come for you people to put a stop to this, or you are handing the keys of the Republic to people who don't respect it, don't want it, and will storm the Capitol again if they feel they need to. 'The Fire Next Time' may not just be a book by James Baldwin, but a slogan of intent.

Let's imagine for a moment that the Sandy Hook Massacre actually happened. It's a stretch, but I can go there. Adam Lanza approaches the school with an AR-15. The ARMED SECURITY OFFICER at the door says, "Hey, tiny human, you can't come into this school with that high-powered rifle and kill a bunch of children!" Little Adam levels his AR-15 at the officer but the officer's superior training wins out, and young, fictional Adam Lanza is shot and killed. Poor little guy.

-No, let's instead imagine a society in which armed guards patrol nurseries and kindergardens, and shopping malls and cinemas. Then ask yourself 'how did it come to this?' You imply there are so many bad people out there society has no other option but to arm itself and guard itself always assuming the armed guard will stop a massacre. Yet even with the knowledge they had, Washington DC's armed law enforcment could not defend the Capitol building, so where were the 'good guys' on the 6th of January?

Lastly, gun control works. If you want to know how, and where, look at Japan. If you want to know how it doesn't work, look at the USA, and not just what appears to be an utterly corrrupt NRA. Look at the context of gun control when it was first introduced -after the Civil War when Southern White folks were terrified freed slaves would come after them. Why did Ronald Reagan introduce gun control laws in California? Because the 'right of the people to keep and bear Arms' should not be extended to the Black Panther Party or its associates,also known as 'Americans'.
There is your freedom, your gun control, your precious 2nd Amendment -soaked in the Race that has shaped so much of American history, from Jamestown to today.

If you let gun ownership define America, don't be surprised if the owners destroy it.

I'm going to field this argument Stavros because you've truly touched the heart of the matter - Why DOES gun control work in Japan, or England, but not in the USA?

There are several reasons but the most obvious is that there are already 600 million guns in the USA. Pandora's Box is already open here. If you'll recall the myth, it cannot subsequently be closed.

Also, the USA is a society given to crime and violence. We are wealthy. Walk down any suburban street in the USA and every house you pass, there's probably $30,000 worth of shit in there - electronics, high-end furniture, jewelry, gold, cash, you name it, we've got it in our homes. I don't think the same can be said of most other countries.

We also have no genuine collective identity. In Japan, everyone is Japanese. In England, there's a culture stretching back to medieval times. But in the USA, you're on your own. The guy who lives next door to you may very well hate your guts for reasons unknown. I recently saw a video in which a guy gunned down his neighbors in the streets over a snow-shoveling argument. Things get testy here, real fast. We're a society of cowboys and yahoos. There's a LOT of testosterone in the USA, aggravated by a lot of media instigation. Your manhood might get tested anytime, anywhere.

And then there's the ill-conceived War on Drugs, which is what brought us to this sad state. The USA is obviously the largest consumer base for illegal drugs in the world. It's a trillion-dollar market, and a lot of very violent people want a piece of it.

Gun ownership certainly does NOT "define" America. America defines gun ownership.

I can scarcely imagine the sheer numbers of police that would be required to keep the peace if guns were outlawed. You'd literally need multiple cops on every corner. Because the highly-advanced, ultra-violent criminals of this country would steal everything in sight if they knew it was all undefended.

I'm not pushing American exceptionalism here. I'm saying, though, that the USA is not like your country, and certainly nothing like Japan. We have our own society here that is quite different from every other society on the planet - MORE violent, MORE wealthy, MORE of everything.

If you want to pose a legitimate argument against guns in America, you need to know America. Trust me, you don't.

[broncofan]

Kevin Bacon moment lol. My last car was a Volvo S60. I had to get rid of it because, here in NYC, we prefer bicycles...so I had to get up every morning just to move the car because - alternate side of the street parking. Once the battery was dead because I wasn’t driving it far enough to charge it. The other half of the Kevin Bacon moment is that the S60 has a turbo engine.....and for a while...was produced in (drum roll).....China .

lol I moved to NYC after college and was there for a year. I brought a car with me and once I figured out how difficult it was to use and park I sold it. That took a month and a half.

And btw, getting up to move the car so I could walk, use public transport, or bike and avoid tickets probably would have lasted two weeks before I was ticketed, booted, and/or towed. Even putting my car in a garage in NYC cost too much to be worth it. I did love that city to be honest but it's not the easiest place to live.

[Laphroaig]

Anything the military or police have, the street gangs can get. So basically what gun control advocates are espousing is a society in which the gangsters are armed and you are not.

You live in England, Stavros. I realize there are gangs there, but they are laughably small and quiet compared to American gangs, which have now infiltrated all of American society. The government wanted a War on Drugs. They lost.

I'm not pushing American exceptionalism here. I'm saying, though, that the USA is not like your country, and certainly nothing like Japan. We have our own society here that is quite different from every other society on the planet - MORE violent, MORE wealthy, MORE of everything.

If you want to pose a legitimate argument against guns in America, you need to know America. Trust me, you don't.

So what you're basically admitting is the USA, a supposedly progressive and forward looking nation, is actually too backward to effectively implement gun control measures that have been successful in many other countries?

[Laphroaig]

Interesting thing about England - all the mass knifings. Instead of mass shootings over there, you've got crazy people going out into the streets and hacking people up with machetes. Nothing stops crazy people from doing crazy things.

Indeed but a crazy with a machine gun can do a lot more damage than a crazy with a knife, so your argument, which isn't exactly an original one, is pure bollocks...