patrick.net

Bigsby says

No, but I also don't want you to think that I press dislike on the post of someone with a reasoned opinion that just happens to be different to my own.

Why would I think so? If you are staying up this late to chat, you are probably not someone who would do that. ;-)

Bigsby says

What is useful in saying God is this or God is that or God would do this or do that? You said God is gracious. You can't demonstrate the existence of God let alone assign personal characteristics, so to me it's not a very useful path to take.

I think the literal existence of God (as a supernatural being) is not important, nor is it knowable. Then it is just a faith thing that I choose to have.

If you get to define God's properties, anything you like, what would they be?

Peter P says

I do not believe equality should be a societal goal. It is really up to the individuals to decide who they are.

I'm not arguing equality. It has absolutely nothing to do with equality. Taxing wealthy people with marginally higher rates as their income rises (let's say 0.1% for every 100k as an example) is not a drive to equality. It's a step towards funding what is currently not being paid for. I'd rather do this than cut fundamental services to the most vulnerable in society. How would that benefit society as a whole? The richest in society would be totally unaffected whilst the poorest would be disproportionately affected.

Peter P says

If you get to define God's properties, anything you like, what would they be?

I don't assign characteristics to imaginary beings, but if you were to do so for the God of the Old and New testament, it wouldn't make particularly attractive reading a lot of the time.

Peter P says

Why would I think so? If you are staying up this late to chat, you are probably not someone who would do that. ;-)

It's 12.41 in the afternoon.

Peter P says

Really? There is so much more innovation going on here compared to highly-taxed nations.

There's a lot of innovation going on in Europe and elsewhere. Innovation wouldn't be affected by marginal tax increases on the richest. I'd say the US was more innovative in the past and there have been far higher tax rates in the past than there currently are. Innovation comes from good education systems and business environments that support and invest in such things. Slightly higher tax rates that could be used to improve the education system (for example) might actually improve innovation.

Bigsby says

It's a step towards funding what is currently not being paid for. I'd rather do this than cut fundamental services to the most vulnerable in society. How would that benefit society as a whole?

The government can be much smaller and yet services can be maintained.

Bigsby says

The richest in society would be totally unaffected whilst the poorest would be disproportionately affected.

Worse yet, we will all be affected because the incentive system is weakened.

Somehow I have a feeling that poor people will be better off if they become aware that they are much more than their labels.

For example, "X *is* a teacher" vs "X chooses to work as a teacher"

Peter P says

The government can be much smaller and yet services can be maintained.

Hmm, major cost cutting means major cuts in government funded services.

Peter P says

Worse yet, we will all be affected because the incentive system is weakened.

The incentive system wouldn't be weakened. It wasn't weakened in the past when tax rates were considerably higher than now, so why would it be weakened with a more gradated system that involved relatively minor tax increases?

Bigsby says

There's a lot of innovation going on in Europe. Innovation wouldn't be affected by marginal tax increases on the richest. I'd say the US was more innovative in the past and there have been far higher tax rates in the past than there currently are.

We have to agree to disagree. Much has happened in the last 20 years.

Bigsby says

Innovation comes from good education systems and business environments that support and invest in such things. Slightly higher tax rates that could be used to improve the education system (for example) might actually improve innovation.

My other pet peeve: education, in its current form, is over-rated.

First, we cannot force people to become educated.

Second, education needs to be flexible and board.

Third, students should be allowed to draw their own conclusions.

I propose teaching kids how to self-learn very early on. Then they can draw information from the internet. This can be done cheaply and effectively.

Internet is great. I wish I had wikipedia when I was young. But digging up information in the library was fun nonetheless.

Bigsby says

The incentive system wouldn't be weakened. It wasn't weakened in the past when tax rates were considerably higher than now, so why would it be weakened with a more gradated system that involved relatively minor tax increases?

But the last 30 years have been amazing, if you can overlook the increase in wealth gap, then it comes down to the philosophy of equality again.

Peter P says

We have to agree to disagree. Much has happened in the last 20 years.

It has and that is not going to be affected by minor incremental increases in the tax rates of the richest. We aren't talking a French style 75% tax rate here.

Peter P says

My other pet peeve: education, in its current form, is over-rated.

First, we cannot force people to become educated.

Second, education needs to be flexible and board.

Third, students should be allowed to draw their own conclusions.

I propose teaching kids how to self-learn very early on. Then they can draw information from the internet. This can be done cheaply and effectively.

Internet is great. I wish I had wikipedia when I was young. But digging up information in the library was fun nonetheless.

Everyone has their own theory about what would be best for education. Personally, I think building better schools, investing in smaller class sizes etc. etc. wouldn't be a bad use of funds. Better than spending money bombing the shit out of tribal states at the very least.

Peter P says

But the last 30 years have been amazing, if you can overlook the increase in wealth gap, then it comes down to the philosophy of equality again.

One doesn't preclude the other. Great innovation isn't a product of massive wealth disparity. A decision has simply been made by those in positions of power to massively enrich themselves whilst wage growth for everyone else has stagnated.

Bigsby says

One doesn't preclude the other. Great innovation isn't a product of massive wealth disparity. A decision has simply been made by those in positions of power to massively enrich themselves whilst wage growth for everyone else has stagnated.

I think the risk altitude also changed.

People working in risky businesses (e.g. technology) appear to be doing fine. Higher tax rate with better social service may lower the risk appetite, which may or may not be a good thing.

Bigsby says

We aren't talking a French style 75% tax rate here.

Federal + State (CA) + FICA exceeds 50% marginal rate for many families that are not remotely rich.

Bigsby says

Better than spending money bombing the shit out of tribal states at the very least.

It is too early to judge what is happening in the Middle East. Energy is very important for growth and we are going to need fossil fuel for a long, long time.

But I agree that war is wasteful.

BTW, getting sleepy. Nice chatting. Perhaps we will meet in one of those coffee events in the future. :-)

Peter P says

Bigsby says

We aren't talking a French style 75% tax rate here.

Federal + State (CA) + FICA exceeds 50% marginal rate for many families that are not remotely rich.

75% is the income tax rate on wages over $1.4m (or so). That's quite a difference to the rate in the US.

Peter P says

It is too early to judge what is happening in the Middle East. Energy is very important for growth and we are going to need fossil fuel for a long, long time.

They were and are quite happy to sell it without being invaded. As for Afghanistan...

It's true that guns don't kill people, people do. Then why do we even care about the types of arms other nations have? Also, why aren't bazookas and rocket launchers legal to own? We should have zero concern about regulating anything that could be considered a weapon.

It irritates me that the conversation about shit like this goes straight to guns. Most of the time, those who did these mass murder flipouts were diagnosed and treated previously.

* Where is the support/monitoring of the patients? ("Take your meds")
* Where is the support for Caregivers? ("How can we help you monitor your family member/Teach you warning signs")

Seriously, it ain't rocket science. Who does this shit? We know:

Shy/Socially Awkward young men with Depression, Schizo, or severe Personality Disorders aged 14-30.

The only gun control law you might need is to have doctors "strongly recommend" caregivers to give up any firearms they have in these situations. Maybe give them a form that says "I was told to give up my guns when caring for a mentally ill individual".

Seriously, if you have depressed or schizo children, get rid of the gun and get a tazer instead. The odds of you needing the gun are outweighed by the likelihood that your family member is going to do something stupid with it to themselves or others.

BobbyS says

It's true that guns don't kill people, people do. Then why do we even care about the types of arms other nations have? Also, why aren't bazookas and rocket launchers legal to own? We should have zero concern about regulating anything that could be considered a weapon.

Ever heard of the phrase, "Don't bring a knife to a gunfight" ??? That is why we care about other nation's arms.

Now guns are already heavily regulated.

How many children did the USA kill in Iraq? Any Americans shed tears over that?

Call it Crazy says

So, what new gun laws are you proposing??? Maybe you should look at other causes besides the guns....

How about a ban on assault weapons? How more thorough background checks on those who own guns. And serious gun education for owners. For example, in this case, why the fuck did a suburban mom with a son who had personality disorder have multiple assault weapons?

Of course much better mental health services, support and education is the real answer. But that costs lots and lots of money (i.e. taxes) and much of what is needed could infringe upon personal liberties.

As I said, stricter gun laws will not prevent all of this shit, but can we at least agree that would shouldn't allow assault weapon sales and crack down on the huge, backroom sales at the thousands of gun shows each year?

Blurtman says

How many children did the USA kill in Iraq? Any Americans shed tears over that?

Yes, many Americans have cried because of the atrocities of that, or any war. And there are millions who are upset with the drone strikes that kill innocents.

But this is twisted and closer to home, so it is more upsetting. It is human nature to be more upset when it "could have been you or yours".

PeterP, you refer to me and many others as Trolls, have you seen how many posts on this thread you made?. You can't help yourself fill peoples threads with your comments and call everyone else around you a troll.

Troll.

I have not used the T word for a long, long time.

I do remember calling Marina Prime a troll. That was a fun troll.

Doesn't an extra grip turn a hand-gun into an "assault" weapon in some cases?

It is just a label. Assault weapons are not necessarily machine guns. I guess most people have the image of a Ak-47/MP-5/AR-15 in their heads.

This isn't a "gun control" problem, honestly, it's a "big pharma" problem. We seriously need to examine what pharmaceutical companies are creating to "treat" people with mental illness.

Goran_K says

We seriously need to examine what pharmaceutical companies are creating to "treat" people with mental illness.

rooemoore says

Of course much better mental health services, support and education is the real answer. But that costs lots and lots of money (i.e. taxes) and much of what is needed could infringe upon personal liberties.

I agree with rooemoore.

There is medication available to treat mentally ill individuals. There are therapeutic treatments also available. However, it doesn't come cheap.

It costs anywhere from $100-$300 per hour for a psychological or psychiatric session and anywhere from $50-$250 per hour for a therapy session with a therapist. Some will work on a sliding scale, but these people are harder to find.

We need to start getting more insurance companies to cover mental health and we need to get those companies who offer limited mental health coverage to start offering better coverage.

I'm more scared of "mind altering drugs that may alter perception and cause mood swings" than I am an AK-47.

Goran_K says

I'm more scared of "mind altering drugs that may alter perception and cause mood swings" than I am an AK-47.

Other people feel differently and that doesn't mean their feeling is any less valid than yours.

Suburban Gal says

There is medication available to treat mentally ill individuals. There are therapeutic treatments also available. However, it doesn't come cheap.

I just don't think there is a pill for every illness.

Goran_K says

This isn't a "gun control" problem, honestly, it's a "big pharma" problem. We seriously need to examine what pharmaceutical companies are creating to "treat" people with mental illness.

This is a load of crap. You can't pretend that prescription drugs are the stole cause of antisocial behavior and that mental illness wouldn't exist otherwise

Suburban Gal says

Other people feel differently and that doesn't mean their feeling is any less valid than yours.

I'm not sure I was invalidating anyone else's feelings.

Homeboy says

This is a load of crap. You can't pretend that prescription drugs are the stole cause of antisocial behavior and that mental illness wouldn't exist otherwise

I never made those points. But considering that "Batman killer", Eric Harris, and Adam Lanza were all prescribed mental illness drugs, perhaps it's time to take a closer look at what big pharma is creating to treat people for mental illness.

Call it Crazy says

rooemoore says

How about a ban on assault weapons?

What is your definition of "assault weapon"? This is a widely used term and I'm wondering on how you describe them.

Like most laws, arbitrary lines must be drawn with the help of professionals. For example, who determines the mph that constitute speeding on a particular road? It isn't an exact science, but it is still necessary to determine a limit for public safety.

For assault weapon classification, I think the expired law is a good place to start.

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

Call it Crazy says

Peter P says

I just don't think there is a pill for every illness.

and sometimes the pill CAUSES the illness...

They call it a side-effect.

After 9/11 we gladly changed our entire world in order to keep ourselves safe. We did this even though planes don't kill people, people kill people. We've done everything to keep people from using planes to kill people. We changed our laws, gave up our constitutional rights, we forbid people to fly for just looking cross eyed and we've allowed ourselves to be searched in areas that we formerly only allowed to be explored by our most intimate partners. We have spent ourselves into eternal hock implementing security and starting wars designed to kill the "boogie man". But let someone murder 27 people and the mere mention of making changes to protect ourselves becomes something akin to castration. We are willing to sell our souls to protect ourselves from a boogie man who flies a plane but we dare anyone to even suggest that we protect ourselves from the boogie man that lives right next door.

I am praying that medical science researchers find a way to give men the size penis they really want. Maybe then men will be able to feel powerful knowing that the gun between their legs is finally adequate and no longer feel the need to compensate. Until then we can only extend our compassion to those who are trying to fulfill that which God slighted them on. I'm sure a small dick is a terrible burden to bear.

Buster says

I'm sure a small dick is a terrible burden to bear.

How are you so sure?

Buster says

I am praying that medical science researchers find a way to give men the size penis they really want.

Just turn off the email spam filter and the solution will appear.

Call it Crazy says

rooemoore says

For assault weapon classification, I think the expired law is a good place to start.

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

Here is what has been said about the Ban directly from your link above:

...."Expiration and Effect on Crime

This is true. Others have said there have been positive effects because fewer assault weapons are in the public and the cost of weapons in general went up.

The point is why does someone need a weapon that is solely designed to take out several people in just a few seconds? Your logic is that because gun crime didn't rise ("due to the fact that the relative rarity with which the banned guns were used in crime before the ban ... the maximum potential effect of the ban on gun violence outcomes would be very small....") we should just continue to allow weapons that are extremely potent and not needed for personal protection.

In effect, your argument against an assault ban is that because non-assault crime is so high, the assault weapon crimes like this one and Virginia Tech can't put a dent in the crime stats. My point is that in these cases and others like them, if the perpetrators had to use non-assault weapons, few people would have died. And if more and more weapons are produced and enter the market, isn't the likelihood of deranged killers getting their hands on automatic weapons with large clips that are easy to reload going to become even easier?

One trained person with a regular hand gun could have taken out this kid in short order.