Jump to content


Advanced Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

5,891 Excellent

About Thakkar

  • Rank
    Sometimes I 'member, sometimes I forget.

Recent Profile Visitors

10,394 profile views
  1. 641 days ago: Donald J. Trump (‪@realDonaldTrump‬) 22/5/16, 13:55 Crooked Hillary said that I want guns brought into the school classroom. Wrong!
  2. Let’s say that arming teachers is not insane. Mass Shootings occur in other places: malls churches, nightclubs, etc. If arming teachers is a logical solution to mass shootings at schools, then the logical solution to mass shootings elsewhere is to arm everyone everywhere, all the time.
  3. The Hoarse Whisperer (‪@HoarseWisperer‬) 22/2/18, 11:29 Ronald Reagan was surrounded by Secret Service agents when he was shot. I guess they just needed a few armed math teachers.
  4. The pro gun arguments are so weak that tangential erraticness is a feature, not a bug.
  5. I never miss an opportunity to post (and repost) this:
  6. Despite the hyper-masculine opines and pleadings offered by the Gun Right, their dreams of “a good guy with a gun” stopping a mass shooting (or other type of violence) are largely a myth. “Defensive gun use”—the idea that individual gun owners use their weapons to stop crime—is a cherished tenet of America’s gun obsessives. As argued ( http://www.thetrace.org/2015/07/defensive-gun-use-armed-with-reason-hemenway/ ) in the 2015 issue of the journal Preventive Medicine, this so-called “commonsense” is untrue. (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/armed-civilians-do-not-stop-mass-shootings ) Conservatives and the Gun Right have a second cherished myth: more guns equal less crime. This claim has also been debunked. (http://www.salon.com/2015/05/24/the_rights_big_gun_lie_debunking_the_phony_case_that_more_guns_will_stop_crime/ ) Moreover, social scientists have shown that there is a direct relationship (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/09/13/2617131/largest-gun-study-guns-murder/ ) between the number of guns in a society and gun violence. Experts on interpersonal violence such as David Grossman* have demonstrated that it is extremely difficult for a person to kill another human being, reliably, on command, and under stress, with a gun. The dream scenario of an individual person using their gun to stop a mass shooting is refuted by experts in police training and military tactics who detail how fighting in enclosed spaces such as a school or other building is extremely difficult for even highly trained personal. In fact, a group of gun fetishists tried to simulate their response to a terrorist attack like the Charlie Hebdo shootings in France. Their goal was to show that “a good guy with a gun” could stop “bad guys” with a gun. The result? The “Death Wish” and “Dirty Harry” role-playing heroes embarrassed themselves as they were repeatedly “killed” in the exercise. * I had the link to this, but I’ve lost it. You’ll have to search for it if you want the details.
  7. Amreica’s unique gun problem in 17 charts https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/us-gun-violence-statistics-maps-charts
  8. The usual refrain from gun advocates is that if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. Think about that. What they're saying is that criminals don't respect laws. Let the emptiness of that argument sink in. Laws, restrictions and sanctions affect everyone, including criminals. Otherwise, why have any laws at all? The existence of criminals is the very reason for criminal laws. Removing legal guns from American homes will immediately reduce by a quarter million (every year!) the number of guns in the hands of criminals because that's the number of guns stolen in burglaries every year, most of which are never recovered. (http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fshbopc0510.pdf) Severely restricting gun ownership will make guns more expensive and harder to obtain, even for criminals. No matter how you slice it, tighter gun laws = fewer guns and fewer guns = fewer gun deaths. So, again, the bottom line question is this: how many thousands of avoidable American deaths (yearly!) is your second amendment right worth? In the absence of gun control, what we have is an ever escalating civilian arms race with no end in sight. Everyone armed to the teeth and living in constant fear is no way to go through life.
  9. Snowden exposed the NSA was breaking US laws with their over surveillance. Senators like Feinstein were ok with it till she learned she herself was being surveilled.
  10. This is unnecessarily off topic, but here’s a brief response: it it wouldn’t be possible (or at least pretty hard) for someone like Assange to leak from closed governments. Because they are much more closed and secretive. As for Snowden, it’s perfectly conceivable he is now working for the Russian government. I have some sympathy for his predicament. I believe he ended up in Russia, not by choice. The US intelligence community and the Obama administration badly mishandled the situation, repeatedly, at several key junctures that eventually led to him ending up there. It’s easy for me, sitting comfortably at home to say that he should be brave enough to face the consequences of his actions. The consequence is possible death for treason. I can’t honestly say that I would react differently if faced with such a choice.
  11. This is the key point. The fact is many industries *want* illegal workers that they can exploit, pay low wages to, and have the option to stiff completely at times. While illegal workers work hard for low wages and risk a lot just to stave off deprivation, and while American workers have to face some wage depression as a result, the big beneficiaries laugh scot free all the way to the bank.
  12. That’s the money quote. I hadn’t considered that at all, and yet it’s so obvious. I used to respect Assange and his work. I still adhere to his original principles as expressed in the various pieces he’d written almost two decades ago. But now he is clearly in self-preservation mode and willing to do anything to get out of the bind he’s in.
  13. If the shoe fits, sure.
  14. I’m curious. What, to your mind, is an anti-globalist? Is it someone who chooses to settle for smaller profits by having their products made in America by American workers? Is it someone who invests in projects whichever country offers potential profits? is it someone who lifts restriction on multi national corporations from bribing corrupt foreign governments? Is it someone who signs a law that gives a tax holiday to multinationals to bring their profits home, instead of a law that demands they pay their fair share like many smaller companies already do?
  15. I didn’t even vote, because it is impossible to give a meaningful answer with articulating a boatload of caveats whichever way one votes.