How many more times?

[JohnRoberts]

I repeat, inner city gun violence where there are already gun control laws, is an economic problem related to a weak economy.

As much as it is a problem of (especially) young men with little opportunities (it comes down to inequality rather than the economy as a whole), the availibility of guns is a big part of the problem. You can buy a gun at a show in Arizona with no background check, no license etc. and take it to Chicago, NY, L.A. That's where the guns come from.

There's a considerable problem with income inequality, lack of opportunities and youth joblessness in the UK, but the rate of gun violence is very, very low.

At the risk of sounding like bad science fiction, there is more going on than chance and opportunity. All people are not created equal. If you want to force an equal outcome using workers with un-equal skills and capability, the skilled and capable will be disincentive-ized and under-perform because they are being under-rewarded. I guess you could drive the performance of everybody down to some lowest common denominator.  Kind of like government gets now from their employees (lose-lose we all get less).

Perhaps cull out the weak sisters at birth to drive more equality in outcome... (NO I AM NOT SERIOUSLY SUGGESTING THIS).

I now return you to our non-fiction programming.

JR

 

[living sounds]

Extremes never work. Highly skilled hard working folks should earn more than slackers, of course. But there are good reasons to level the playing field for the next generation. Winston Churchill and one of the rubber barons were in favour of a very high estate tax to make opportunities more equal, for example.

And again, historically in the US as well as in today's Denmark higher taxation simply works. In a globalized economy the problem is that countries get into a race to the bottom, so we have to make sure everyone is doing it. By higher customs and trade restrictions, if necessary.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Extremes never work. Highly skilled hard working folks should earn more than slackers, of course. But there are good reasons to level the playing field for the next generation. Winston Churchill and one of the rubber barons were in favour of a very high estate tax to make opportunities more equal, for example.

And again, historically in the US as well as in today's Denmark higher taxation simply works. In a globalized economy the problem is that countries get into a race to the bottom, so we have to make sure everyone is doing it. By higher customs and trade restrictions, if necessary.

If it was that easy we could just raise taxes all around the world and solve all the world's problems with massive government revenue.. They love to spend all the revenue they can get.

Begger thy neighbor currency devaluation and trade restrictions (like in the '30s after the depression), DID NOT WORK.

I draw a different lesson from history than you do, but that is not news. 

JR

 

[sodderboy]

I never mentioned bliss. 
The Bill of Rights is empowering, and not all people are responsible with that power.  The Second Amendment is not there for me to fight the laser bombs of a tyrant with my 12 gauge.  There is also tyranny in mobs, or the tyranny of a local politician who takes away my rights, and I cannot protect myself against an invader who will not wait for a 911 response. 

In the 20's the nazis and commies were in a race to save Germany.  The nazis won and began to remove the rights of certain peoples.  Before german engineering was turned towards genocide, tens of thousands were simply gunned-down a village at a time and burned in pits.  They had no Bill of Rights.  Would there have been a Kristallnacht in a country with a Bill of Rights? 
Mike

 

[lolo-m]

In the 20's the nazis and commies were in a race to save Germany.  The nazis won and began to remove the rights of certain peoples.  Before german engineering was turned towards genocide, tens of thousands were simply gunned-down a village at a time and burned in pits.  They had no Bill of Rights.  Would there have been a Kristallnacht in a country with a Bill of Rights? 
Mike

Man, in the 20's, in a village, nearly every poeple did have guns to hunt... but it didn't changed anything...

You won't save yourself with a gun but someone will easily steal it and turn the gun against you.
The bad (evil , name them as you want) know what they're doing. The good have to do something when they are surprised... Who will shoot the first ? Be serious, think a minute and you'll undestand that your gun doesn't help you except if you don't think... But I'm not american and a gun isn't a part of my body...

PS: sorry if I'm maybe a bit rude, but my english doesn't help me to be really precise...

 

[living sounds]

I never mentioned bliss. 
The Bill of Rights is empowering, and not all people are responsible with that power.  The Second Amendment is not there for me to fight the laser bombs of a tyrant with my 12 gauge.  There is also tyranny in mobs, or the tyranny of a local politician who takes away my rights, and I cannot protect myself against an invader who will not wait for a 911 response. 

In the 20's the nazis and commies were in a race to save Germany.  The nazis won and began to remove the rights of certain peoples.  Before german engineering was turned towards genocide, tens of thousands were simply gunned-down a village at a time and burned in pits.  They had no Bill of Rights.  Would there have been a Kristallnacht in a country with a Bill of Rights? 
Mike

Sure, Germany had a constitution guaranteeing basic rights, the Weimar Constitution of 1919:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Constitution

These rights and provisions were in turn based on the Frankfurt consitutiton from 1848:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_Constitution


Naziism in Germany was a right-wing revolution, driven by sentiments of irrational belief and paranoia (conspiracy theories), characterized by militarism, xenophobia, delusions of grandeur, imperialism...

The mindset of the Obama-hating, firearms-hording, Bilderberg-Black-Helicopter-fearing, bible-thumping, anti-government right-wingers is very much on the same page psychologically, makes me shiver...

But in the US the interests of the upper 1-10% basically run the country (looking at studies that rank political influence by income) - and they are primarily interested in gaining even more money and influence, not in a theocracy or right-wing revolution. Unlike many of the right-wingers they are socially liberals.

 

[sodderboy]

I will withhold any comments on the french. 

Yes there was a Constitution in germany, until the politicians began to remove the rights Schtück für Schtück by the will of the overwhelming majorty.  Hmmm.

I invite anyone to listen to Paul Joseph Goebbels in his own words, The Goebbels Experiment (2005), and count the parallels with Progressivspeak and the current US administration with it's division of races and classes, the manipulation of (or rather voluntarily complicit in the present) mass media and specific phrases used by both reigns.
Mike

 

[JohnRoberts]

Naziism in Germany was a right-wing revolution, driven by sentiments of irrational belief and paranoia (conspiracy theories), characterized by militarism, xenophobia, delusions of grandeur, imperialism...

The mindset of the Obama-hating, firearms-hording, Bilderberg-Black-Helicopter-fearing, bible-thumping, anti-government right-wingers is very much on the same page psychologically, makes me shiver...

I am getting pretty used to being called racist for disagreeing with President Obama, being called a Nazi is a little new, but I understand your displeasure when your country's history is criticized (ask me how I know that). We all have skeletons in our closet, and I am far more concerned about today and going forward, not rehashing inconvenient history.
=====
There are modern day remnants of the Nazi movement behind the anti-Israeli activity in the middle East. Saddam (ex-leader of Iraq) was linked to factions involved in a 1941 nazi backed attempted overthrow of british in Iraq. 

But in the US the interests of the upper 1-10% basically run the country (looking at studies that rank political influence by income) - and they are primarily interested in gaining even more money and influence, not in a theocracy or right-wing revolution. Unlike many of the right-wingers they are socially liberals.

I have talked about this before, and the one (only) thing of value to come out of the occupy movement was the concept of separation of business and state, not unlike the constitutional separation of church and state.  We suffer from the economic distortions caused by crony capitalism, when large corporations get favorable treatment and use laws to diminish competition. The only good thing here, is that most of it is in plain sight so we can see it going on, of we bother to look (at lobbyists). In other nations like China for one growing example, the political leaders are billionaires, and they too are accumulating wealth and power behind closed doors.

The government's job is to be a fair referee, not a power broker to redistribute wealth based on one sides idea of what the fair outcome should be. 

---------

To bring this back to on-topic. I just read an interesting data based editorial written by a former prosecutor in DC back when they had the strictest gun law in the US. Gun related homicides actually increased dramatically while the laws were enforced, and dropped again after the Supreme court voided the DC law as unconstitutional. The old cliche "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" was the case there, as the illegal availability of guns to criminals was not diminished by the laws that mainly affect law abiding citizens. I won't bore you with the data, but here it is.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324081704578235460300469292.html

While this clearly points out that local/state gun restrictions will be limited in their ability to reduce gun crime, and guns currently appear to diminish gun homicides, when law abiding citizens are not deprived of personal gun ownership.

In an ideal world we could live without guns. I don't expect to see that ideal world in my lifetime, and would prefer that our leaders do not put our law abiding citizens in danger in the meantime while "helping" us. They surround themselves with armed guards. If they think it is such a good idea, disarm themselves first. (No I am not seriously suggesting that, just making a point).

JR

PS: More than 20 children have died from the flu this season, maybe they need to pass a law against that? The government needs to recognize what they can and can't, should and shouldn't do.

 

[living sounds]

I am getting pretty used to being called racist for disagreeing with President Obama, being called a Nazi is a little new, but I understand your displeasure when your country's history is criticized (ask me how I know that).

Total non-sequitor. I have called you none of these things (and would not without good cause). Critizise my countries history all you like, there is plenty of cause for it. None of this is nor should it be personal. I was refering to the extreme elements on the right, who display all of the abovementioned characteristics.

Yes there was a Constitution in germany, until the politicians began to remove the rights Schtück für Schtück by the will of the overwhelming majorty.  Hmmm.

The Nazi party never actually received a majority of votes. But the democracy was too weak to withstand. Government turned into a tyranny, and weapons in the hand of citizens didn't and couldn't change that. This is one of the lessons to be drawn. By delegitimising government and its institution the right wing dismantles the democratic consensus, this is a parallel that can be drawn in the abstract.

No, I'm not equating the US today with Nazi Germany, please read my words carefully.

 

[living sounds]

I have talked about this before, and the one (only) thing of value to come out of the occupy movement was the concept of separation of business and state, not unlike the constitutional separation of church and state.  We suffer from the economic distortions caused by crony capitalism, when large corporations get favorable treatment and use laws to diminish competition.

On this I can agree. The question is how to address it. The disproportionate influence of the wealthy needs a counterweight, so what would you do to achieve that?

 

[JohnRoberts]

I have talked about this before, and the one (only) thing of value to come out of the occupy movement was the concept of separation of business and state, not unlike the constitutional separation of church and state.  We suffer from the economic distortions caused by crony capitalism, when large corporations get favorable treatment and use laws to diminish competition.

On this I can agree. The question is how to address it. The disproportionate influence of the wealthy needs a counterweight, so what would you do to achieve that?

I don't buy into the class warfare that demonizes the wealthy, but we need to get a handle on how money influences elections and government decisions making. There seems to be a connection when campaign spending rises into the $Bs. That money is not spent altruistically. There is implicit quid pro quo from both sides.

The best solution IMO is to get business [edit] government [/edit] out of the private economy, so there is less treasure to win from winning elections. Instead I see a trend from government to expand it's tentacles into the economy, which makes the politicians more valuable to those willing to pay for influence. We need to break that positive feedback cycle where politicians are on a constant money chase to retain office. Shrink government and we reduce the temptation to use it for profit, so break the feedback loop..

JR

 

[living sounds]

The best solution IMO is to get business out of the private economy, so there is less treasure to win from winning elections.

Business IS the private economy, isn't it? Typo? ;-)

 

[sodderboy]

If you mean government out of the private economy I am all there.  The broader scope of that is government out of people's lives.  That is what The Constitution is all about.  There is an early interview with Obama when he was briefly a state senator where he derides The Constitution as a document of "negative rights" that says what the government cannot do.  He disagrees with this in that he envisions a document that states what the government CAN and SHOULD do, like the US is some kind of bird-feeder with a huge book of laws.

The best first step is to keep the $$ locally and not send it to DC.  You have a better chance of a word with a local state senator than you do with his US counterpart. 

Mike
PS: People living with a Constitution and a complete Bill of Rights would not have been helplessly persecuted by a "minority" in Europe.  Don't just obsess on one of Ten Amendments.  It is a complete package.

 

[JohnRoberts]

The best solution IMO is to get business out of the private economy, so there is less treasure to win from winning elections.

Business IS the private economy, isn't it? Typo? ;-)

yes, a brain fart...  and it was a pretty powerful observation IMO... If government gets out of private markets, there is less incentive for business, unions, and wealthy individuals to manipulate and control government. That effort and money will go instead into more conventional (honest) competition in the actual marketplace.

JR

 

[JohnRoberts]

If you mean government out of the private economy I am all there.  The broader scope of that is government out of people's lives.  That is what The Constitution is all about.  There is an early interview with Obama when he was briefly a state senator where he derides The Constitution as a document of "negative rights" that says what the government cannot do.  He disagrees with this in that he envisions a document that states what the government CAN and SHOULD do, like the US is some kind of bird-feeder with a huge book of laws.

Yes, the constitution is very specific about limiting the power of a central government, for very specific reasons.  I believe Pres. Obama not only studied constitutional law but may have taught it. It appears he was not a fan of the founder's intent to limit government.

The best first step is to keep the $$ locally and not send it to DC.  You have a better chance of a word with a local state senator than you do with his US counterpart. 

Mike
PS: People living with a Constitution and a complete Bill of Rights would not have been helplessly persecuted by a "minority" in Europe.  Don't just obsess on one of Ten Amendments.  It is a complete package.

I will not go so far as to claim the constitution is complete or perfect. Our founders did not even believe that and made it possible to amend (albeit with some difficulty to pass those amendments).

I would like to see an amendment to limit spending and borrowing to a sensible fraction of GDP, while I am not optimistic that the public will ever show the discipline to reject getting free sh__ from the government.. as if the government actually has anything to give away. It is just borrowing in our name.

For those keeping score on public debt ratios, Japan after decades of malaise has a new leader ramping up their currency printing press as the entire world engages in a beggar thy neighbor central bank currency devaluation.  Japan has public debt approaching 2.5x of their GDP and have gotten away with >2x  for a while on the strength of their high tech product appeal. After decades of malaise it could turn much worse for them. Again I hope I am wrong. They have had a bad stretch. 

Our founders never anticipated that we would have access to enough borrowing to get ourselves in trouble. In free markets lenders generally impose discipline on the borrowers. The elephant in the room now is that we have a fed buying up marginal new government debt issuance so the natural market forces are diluted or completely ineffective. 

My recent gold buy is still underwater by 10% and I would dearly love to be wrong about the coming inflation, but right now with even Switzerland printing money to just remain in the same place, we are in a fluid time for relative currency valuations.

The good thing about the global linkage of the world economy is that it becomes harder for individual countries to distort their currency to help exports, but they haven't stopped trying yet. Interesting times ahead.

JR

 

[JohnRoberts]

Not to poke a sleeping dog i saw a small article buried in the middle of the newspaper where the administration is trying to get more mental health status information available to the existing gun purchase suitability check system. The administration proposed rolling back the fines for revealing mental health status just for this specific case.  Not surprisingly the medical community is pushing back against disseminating this information.

Mark your calendar because I agree with the administration, for a change. This seems like common sense, don't sell guns to unstable people. If we don't make this mental health status information available, the pre-purchase checks are incomplete.

No this is not a complete fix, but a prudent way to keep guns out of some hands they shouldn't be in.
=====

On a gun related theme, there is a court case pending in NYC trying to outlaw the stop and frisk policy by NYC police that has been so successful in reducing gun related killings and crime. The bad guys are smart enough to not carry their concealed weapons on them when there is a good chance they could get caught.

This case is important because it will influence other cities.  I consider it criminal how many lives they could save by implementing this in cities like Chicago where the street crime/murder rate is high, but don't. Rangel in NYC is leading the opposition calling this a race issue. If anything it is probably saving a higher number of minority lives that generally are the victims of street crime.

Perhaps they can come up with a less invasive technology to detect handguns in public. 

JR

 

[mulletchuck]

Stop and Frisk just annoys people.    It has not reduced gun related killings.

http://www.nyclu.org/node/1598

http://www.nyclu.org/content/stop-and-frisk-data

 

[JohnRoberts]

Stop and Frisk just annoys people.    It has not reduced gun related killings.

http://www.nyclu.org/node/1598

http://www.nyclu.org/content/stop-and-frisk-data

Opinions vary...

NYC crime rates have improved a bunch since the 1990s so this is not just mayor Bloomberg's recent nanny state smothering but Rudy Giuliani and Ray Kelly and others over the decades have also made a number of improvements that collectively made things better. There are also external factors like legalized abortion that reduced some of the raw material for poverty and poorly raised children from unwanted births (while opinions vary about that too).

The big complaint from the left is that this appears to be racial targeting, but if we look at the statistics for who are the victims and perps of gun crime it is exactly this same racial profile. It would be unrealistic to ignore these statistical patterns. If you want to really feel bad most of the crime and killings fall disproportionately on poor people. Stop and frisk was declared legal in a 1968 supreme court ruling but now there is a class action suit about discrimination?  If the police have been overly aggressive they can back off some. This is pretty much for appearances, so the miscreants stop carrying their guns with them on the street. If they don't catch many people with guns any more one could argue it is working. Maybe we need a class action lawsuit against the TSA. What percentage of the people they frisk are innocent (um 100%.. it is all for show).

I don't want to open up a wide ranging race discussion until I am properly a minority myself (soon enough). Some more folks drinking from the same everything is racist kool-aid fountain are the EEOC that has filed lawsuits against two companies for using criminal background checks to screen employees for employment suitability.  Apparently there is a disproportionate number of african americans with criminal records so doing criminal background checks must therefore be discriminatory.

That is pretzel-like logic IMO. Glad to see that the Holder and the justice department weren't too busy to submit a filing to NY courts in the stop and frisk case.

JR

PS: I live in MS. I do not claim that racism does not exist but lets use some common sense.
 

 

[living sounds]

I'm currently reading Nassim Taleb's book "Black Swan". Highly recommended. One obvious takeaway is not to assume causality too quickly. Things are usually a lot more complicated than they appear.

There are many good explanations why crime rose and fell, for the US Stephen Pinker has some interesting ideas in his book "The Better Angels of Our NAture", he also puts out some good arguments against the legalized abortion idea BTW., and the quite recent lead hypothesis has so far proven to be asthonishingly hard to falsify.

The thing is, even if "stop and frisk" works to catch criminals and get hold of their weapons, there might be short-, mittle- or long-term problems caused by it, many unintended, that ultimately make it bad policy. E.g. alianating certain groups of people against the police might result in more crime over time than the program currently stops. It might actually be a cause for higher crime in that segment of the population.

 

[JohnRoberts]

I'm currently reading Nassim Taleb's book "Black Swan". Highly recommended. One obvious takeaway is not to assume causality too quickly. Things are usually a lot more complicated than they appear.

Indeed life is complex...  The problem with macro economics is rarely are there only one or two variables.

[edit- just heard a joke... God invented economists to make weather forecasters look good. /edit]

There are many good explanations why crime rose and fell, for the US Stephen Pinker has some interesting ideas in his book "The Better Angels of Our NAture", he also puts out some good arguments against the legalized abortion idea BTW., and the quite recent lead hypothesis has so far proven to be asthonishingly hard to falsify.

A number of these are hard to prove or disprove. They're theories or opinions.

The thing is, even if "stop and frisk" works to catch criminals and get hold of their weapons, there might be short-, mittle- or long-term problems caused by it, many unintended, that ultimately make it bad policy. E.g. alianating certain groups of people against the police might result in more crime over time than the program currently stops. It might actually be a cause for higher crime in that segment of the population.

I thought I was clear, IMO stop and frisk is not about actually catching criminals with guns, but convincing them that it is not worth the risk of being caught to carry weapons in public. Just like the TSA doesn't catch terrorists, it discourages them from carrying weapons onto planes. Stop and frisk effectively reduces the number of weapons in public areas, reducing the likelihood they will be misused in public where it more likely to involve innocent bystanders.  (As I also mentioned I would love to see a less invasive technology used to detect weapons in public places, where they are not allowed.)

I have argued multiple times that improving the economy and job market would do more to improve the quality of life for people in poverty but the politicians persist in passing more laws and regulations and free giveaways that hurts more than helps the economy.

Yes "Stop and frisk" is only one facet of the total efforts by law enforcement to reduce crime.  I do perceive more rather than less racial tension in the last several years and I blame politicians all the way up to the top for adding fuel to the fire with inflammatory rhetoric. The argument against stop and frisk is about racial targeting, IMO political posturing for short term benefit not a thoughtful attempt to address underlying issues. (Note: I heard your mention of long term unintended consequences and I suspect political speech, and professional partisan opinion leaders, makes a huge difference in how people interpret events.) I still cringe at the memory of Obama's knee jerk public response to the black Harvard professor's disagreement with Cambridge police. As the facts were revealed the officer was not the one who behaved badly, but the president with his initial response reinforced all the bad racial stereotypes and made an impression that no beer party in the rose garden can undo. 

Again I don't argue there is no racial tension, it is probably coded into our hunter-gatherer genes to distrust people who don't look like us, but the politicians seem to be stirring this up for political gain, not trying to damp it down for the greater good. It is a little surprising (to me) that electing a black president has not made this entire issue mostly moot.  It is an unfortunate distraction and dilution of energy away from fixing structural problems with the economy we still haven't addressed. 2% growth may be better than other regions of the (free) world, but not a true employment recovery that can support our government's profligate spending.

Of course maybe I'm wrong.

JR