November 27, 2012

that would seem verfiable

"President Obama lost “every one” of the states with photo identification requirements for voting"

Lets first see what states have Photo ID laws as of 2012

http://politic365.com/wp-content/themes/P365-Theme/timthumb.php?src=&w=450&zc=1&q=70

http://readersupportednews.org/off-site-news-section/70-70/13646-an-interactive-map-of-voter-requirements-state-by-state

then we can see what states Obama won..




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012

States with Photo ID laws that obama won include:

Florida
Minnesota
Hawaii
and New Hampshire

On edit-Oh sorry Obama also won Pennsylvania, one of the "strict Photo requirement" states.

IF we include those states with some kind of ID law, the number just gets higher. The states with strict voter id laws were never likely to vote for Obama anyway.

So is it me or is this not even a good lie since it's so easily debunked?

August 3, 2012

I know many of you are slavering at the mouth over this

.. because you think you have fresh ammunition for the old canard that if we reduced guns then we would still have as high a murder rate as we do.

A few problems I see:

First, even with these killings, China still has less homicide then the US. China has a homicide rate around 1.2 per 100,000 people. The US is around 5
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Secondly, no one ever said knives weren't lethal. They are incredibly lethal, in some ways more then a gun.. at close range. But the whole point of a gun is the ability to kill someone from a distance before they can run away or fight back. There are few drive by knifings and I'm pretty sure snipers gave up on the bow and arrow long ago.

So great! You've proved knives are lethal in the right circumstances. Too bad no one was saying otherwise.

And lastly the basis for the argument behind this is fallacious.

Yes in China they have strict gun control laws and yet here was this horrible tragedy. And even in countries with gun laws stricter then ours, there are massecres using guns. The UK had Cumbria and Hungerford.

So , the argument goes, we shouldn't do gun control laws because criminals won't obey the law (since that is what makes them, by definition, criminals)

But wait.. if we take to it's logical conclusion then why stop at gun control laws? Why have laws against murder or rape or stealing? Why have laws at all.

Last I heard, people were still committing murder and rape and stealing. So why single out gun law when clearly criminals are willing to commit all manner of crimes? Is it possible that the demanding 100% effectiveness for any law is unreasonable? (especially when there are lots of variables for crime, gun availability being just one)

This is what bugs the hell out of me about these debates. Arguing we shouldn't concern ourselves with gun control laws because it's unlikely to stop all violence acts as a distraction to the real relevant question..

Are there gun control laws that would reduce gun fatalities and if so, which ones?

We can't even bring that question up as part of a debate on public policy without being attacked. Even researching this is seen as some back handed attempt at banning guns. Publicly funded research on gun deaths is now seen as political suicide. And that's a problem because as bad as the attack in China cited above and the massacres in the UK and elsewhere in the world...

When it comes to gun deaths, these other countries at their worst is nothing compared to our average day.

July 31, 2012

crab mentality

reading the comments here and on the main story, I also can't help but notice the massive amount of crab mentality going on.

I mean yes there is a lot of ignorance. Like the difference between someone who at least has the freedom to leave for someplace cooler as opposed to someone who has to stay all day in a cell 24/7 until someone lets them out.

And there's the logical fallacies. Like how someone else in the world not having air conditioning doesn't mean inmates aren't dying from the heat.

And there's the rush to judgment. Sure some of those inmates are violent murderers and rapists. Others are small time thieves, non violence drug offenders and some are there because they got rail roaded into jail (It's the height of ignorance to assume every person in a Texas prison is there because they deserve to be. Google Tulia Texas and a Texas defense lawyer named Ronald G Mock). I guess I could ask which of these groups deserve to be baked alive. But that would be silly. The heat doesn't care what you've done or if you deserve to die before it starts to kill you.

But all the arguments seem to (pardon the pun) boil down to is that since group A is having problems and needs help then group B which is also having problems and needs help should basically be left on their.

I'm screwed so you should be too, is the sentiment.

Thus the plight of group A becomes the excuse to ignore the plight of group B. So no one gets any help.

And then these same people wonder why nothing gets better.

July 22, 2012

part of the problem

We aren't allowed to acknowledge we have a problem.

We have far too many gun deaths in this country. That should be non controversial. And there's nothing wrong with having emotion about the fact that we out pace the world in gun deaths. (how can one NOT have emotion about that?)

But any attempt to bring this up brings forth a swarm of gun advocates that think any discussion of proposition to curb this problem is one step short of sending gun owners to death camps.

You can't have a serious rational discussion in all of that.

And so the problem just keeps on going.