PseudoSABR

Only if the Twins had actually tried to win the World Series. Well, at least we now know what's been wrong.

Obama 2016!

Via Democrat Congressman Mark Takano

You been advocating against gun laws throughout the thread. I guess I stand corrected, you'll be fine with gun laws 20 years down the road after your ad campaign does its magic.

I credit your finding common ground. A campaign to move the hearts and minds of gun-lovers is aspirational--it can not be the policy though. If we pass a law--with all the press that goes a long with it--and that law has no real effect, one could say it would be nothing more than an ad campaign. So at worse legislation is an ad campaign against gun culture and at best it will make it more difficult for the deranged to arm themselves with the most deadly of weapons.

Deserved? I don't know about that. Humanity--in moments such as these--seems hopelessly deranged--hellbent on self-annihilation swallowing the whole earth's innocent life. Yet, it is only humanity that can recognize that. In our sorrow over our own behavior, within that judgment of ourselves, maybe already demonstrate enough to be worthy of saving.

Right. But Levi's offering advertising in exclusion of changing the laws, and can we put that to rest as a bad idea?

As long as hearing that prong out doesn't lead to the exclusion of others. Some ideas serve a hegemonic purpose, that distracts and detracts. Our society has mastered "looking as if we care to find a solution" without actually caring to find one.

I think it's a foolhardy idea. I think an anti-gun ad campaign would face just as stiff opposition from the NRA than actual legislation. Gun-lovers aren't addicted, like tobacco users; their stance lies not in a place of ignorance or biological dependence. An ad campaign is a band-aid that just kicks the ball down the road. And really tobacco use was essentially banned from television both in ads and in television shows; I doubt we'll ever see that with guns. No more crime shows? No more superhero shows? If an ad campaign would have any effect it would need to be ubiquitous, and can't be a commercial inter-spliced into shows that glorify guns. Not mention this starts to move into first amendment territory. It's a good idea in a vacuum. Executing it to have any effect seems far more fruitless, than actually passing some sensible gun control legislation. That said, an ad campaign combined with actual legislation is compelling, but an ad campaign alone is a gun advocate's dream of a 'workable solution.'

Generally, it's far harder to minimize an idea or a culture than it is a physical object. Ad campaigns? Give me a break.

Well, let's give up on the war on terrorism, while we're at it, because your reasoning applies just as much there. Using this logic, laws are essentially just a waste of time. There's a big difference between pulling a trigger and bludgeoning someone. The mindset and the willpower to follow through are completely different.

On gun control: 1) Mandatory two-week waiting period, with multiple agency background checks. 2) Close the gunshow and internet loophole for background checks (how can anyone be against this?!) 3) Ban semi-automatic weapons and high-ammunition magazines. Yes, criminals may know where to buy illegal weapons; but these mass-shooters are not criminals. I have no idea how to buy illegal weapons, and nor do they. To believe that these people would go into some inner city and "Hey mister" gangster's is intellectually defiant. Making guns illegal will not eliminate violent crime, but it will hinder the latent crazies hiding in suburban normalcy. Convenience is not a right; and high-tech weaponry is not guaranteed by the 2nd amendment. On mental health: 1) Invest in those around you. It is your problem. Be okay with more taxes, cheapskates. 1a) Really pay attention and give a crap about the people around you. Both the VT and Tucson killers had taken creative writing classes where they invoked their predilection for distraught violence, and both were essentially ignored. These people can cry for help, but we have to take responsibility when we are within ear shot. 2) Establish universal Mental health care - it is a PUBLIC safety issue; not individual health issue. 3) Work to abolish the stigma of mental health, and work to eliminate to the barriers to mental health care. Not all the crazies will be identified by changes in mental health; that's not the point--the point is that it may stop some of them from going untreated or without care before they get to their breaking point. Maybe none of this works, but all we have to lose is some dollars and our convenience, which is certainly worth the cost to figure out what policies will work. These efforts, may not stop this or that mass killer, but they do help foster a culture that isn't going to stand by, throw up their arms, and say there's nothing we can do. Let's make it difficult for them, even if it means making life more difficult for ourselves.

Obama is pissed.

I'm convinced. Laws are thestupid.

This isn't a cool way to approach this debate, dude. What ever experience you've had is anecdotal (and really probably not transferable to the perpetrators of mass shootings), just like mine. While I could answer in the affirmative, I don't want to inflate my opinion because of some related work experience; I want that opinion to hold weight because of its merit, not my experience. I doubt this guy had a criminal record, btw (they almost never do). We are talking about another level of violence that our criminal system does not capture on a routine base. Actual criminals, typically don't do this kind of thing; they have very different motives.

http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/59775658.jpg I didn't intentional ignore your point because I didn't like it; don't insult me. It's obvious that if guns weren't manufactured legally they'd be harder to obtain, and even the most chemical complex drugs are probably easier to make and distribute than illegal weapons. You come at the availability angle, you come at the mental health angle, and you come at the culture angle. You don't stop one because it is difficult (like changing a mindset for instance).

I'm not sure "liberty" has really belied the 2nd-amendment rally-cry so much as self-interest. They want the laws they want and don't want the laws they don't want, and would rather put the crazies away institutions than give up their own toys. To fear that the government might label you crazy, requires some abstract thinking that goes counter to narcissistic self-interest that really is at the heart of pro-automatic guns crowd. And let's hope as society begins to address prevalent mental and emotional instability, we don't begin with presumption that institutionalization is good idea.

Last I checked I can't manufacture near automatic weapons under a heat lamp in my basement. The availability of guns is part and participle of the culture that demands that availability. One way to deal with the mindset that unreasonably desires bigger, faster guns is to make bigger, faster guns illegal. Laws have political function as well as enforcement function; sending the message that we don't approve these kinds of killing machines would certainly help delegitimize that the attitude that desires them.

...and nothing (or as little as possible) will be done to limit high-magazine semi-automatic weapons or to sincerely address mental health. I'm ashamed by how desensitized I've become to this phenomenon. That said, best wishes to the families of the victims--their lives are inextricably changed.

I'm disappointed this thread isn't about a certain ballboy.

Well we shouldn't simply pick a number at random, but the wage we do pick should be based on where wages would be if they had grown at the same rate as GDP. The market is broken when not even trickle-down effect seems to be happening. There's far too much legal protection on the investment, ownership side and--obviously--not enough on the labor side. Like others, I think 15 dollars is rather absurd, but there's an intelligent way to institute a wage increase that would simulate a functional market. I don't care if stat-geeks or policy-wonks that come up with it, but that the specific number is hard derived is disingenuous strike against the minimum wage.

There's no legit merits to potato chips! There's no legit merits to soap operas! There's no legitimate merits to breast implants! Blah. Blah. In a country that values liberty, you don't judge the legality of things on whether they may or may not be beneficial (or because a few people are unwilling to see something's benefit). And there's plenty of evidence that marijuana serves a variety of medical and non-medical purposes. Really who the heck are you to judge? Can you legitimately say that all your forms of entertainment and coping mechanisms have merit? (I mean how the heck is the message board legal! Especially the "Sports Bar" forum!) You'd be surprised how many successful, motivated, good-meaning people get stoned on a daily basis. Undercutting the motives of pot smokers by proof of your own anecdotal experience is totally disingenuous.

No, an increase in prices would not cancel out the benefit of a higher minimum wage. Everyone would pay the higher price, not just those benefiting from a wage increase. One could see a minimum wage hike as a subsidy we all pay through price. I know people are opposed to spreading the wealth around, but when the GDP continues to outpace wages; the market isn't doing the job of spreading wealth. The market is rigged so that wealth stays concentrated among the same few. And regarding your point about high skill jobs. With any increase in minimum wage, there is some squeeze in the middle. But plenty of high-skill jobs aren't economically valued the way we would have it. In general, I don't want a class division between high-skill and low-skill people; because that creates the cycle of poverty mikewins referred to above.

Honestly, when conservatives finally understand that crime is connected to poverty, this nation will be a lot better off. If you want to paint a minimum wage hike as being tough on crime; I'm all for it.

Pandering? That's an insulting analysis. A minimum wage increase is not emotionally or irrationally motivated. (In fact, I think the only side of the discussion that has made a play for pathos so far is the anti-minimum wage side). It's completely rational to demand a livable wage. It would have huge economic boom for not only those earning a living-wage, but those that provide basic services. What's irrational is an economic system that favors labor markets that devalue civil rights. (Hi China, Hi child labor, Hi no minimum wage) What's irrational is when pro-free-market people complain about government interference in wages, but happily except their government granted limited liability, their bureaucratically-enabled share holding, and a host of other policy that end-rounds the market to encourage investment and buttress business. What's irrational is the way the GDP has outpaced real wages for decades (well, since this concept of trickle-down economics). What's irrational is refusing to institute an economic policy that would help the majority of Americans because that policy would make it hard for some small business in some places to stay open. What's irrational is to believe that the market won't provide someone who is willing to do business paying a higher minimum wage. It couldn't be that the problem in Kansas or Alabama is wage related? No. More business incentives will fix poverty. Less business regulation will fix poverty. *Really, the people that benefit from no wage increase are those who capture bigger profits as the GDP grows and don't pass it on to their workers (because often they are low/no-skill jobs, where experience means little). I say let's get new ownership. The new boss, might be the same as the old boss, but he'll have to pay more.