Shit… this guy is fast becoming the Michael Dell of campus shootings…
The online gun dealer who sold a weapon to the Virginia Tech shooter said it was an unnerving coincidence that he also sold handgun accessories to the man who killed five students at Northern Illinois University.
Eric Thompson said his Web site sold two empty 9 mm Glock magazines and a Glock holster to Steven Kazmierczak on Feb. 4, just 10 days before the 27-year-old opened fire in a classroom and killed five before committing suicide. Another Web site run by Thompson’s company also sold a Walther .22-caliber handgun to Seung-Hui Cho, who killed 32 people in April on the Virginia Tech campus before killing himself.
“I’m still blown away by the coincidences,” Thompson said Friday. “I’m shaking. I can’t believe somebody would order from us again and do this.”
Yeah… because who’d ever imagine that a hand gun might be used for shooting people? What are the odds?
I just want to go on the record as saying I think it’s wrong to shoot people.
And in more gun news, I remember one time I was listening to the Mike Webb show, and he became angry with a caller, and Mike started dry-firing his gun into the microphone, asking the caller if he knew what that sound was, and telling him if he came down to the station he’d get the real thing. Now THAT was some entertaining talk radio!
(Hey Goldy, have you ever considered doing a The Commentators-type show? Why not get together with Sharkansky (even thought you probably can’t stand the guy), or some other conservative, and shop it around to the local stations? That would be some entertaining talk radio, too).
BREAKING NEWS: 64,999,987 legal firearms owners killed no one yesterday.
Way to showcase your ignorance, Goldy.
Chris @3,
Okay, since you’re such a genius, explain to me what fact I got wrong in this post? What exactly is it that I wrote that showcases my ignorance?
Why is two different killers buying their guns from the same dealer not a coincidence, but seven different women fainting, front and center, at an Obama rally is a coincidence?
Is it me, or is an online gun dealer just another way to skirt local laws? Don’t get me wrong, I certainly believe in the right to bear arms, but I look at this and think ‘loophole city’. The way I see it, when I drive up to the Cabela’s here in Reno (no matter your opinions on firearms, go check out the Cabela’s in Lacey – SO worth the drive) to pick up the little Walther .22 pistol I’ve been eyeing for personal protection, I have no problem with filling out whatever paperwork is necessary with someone watching me while I do so, checking my ID’s carefully, etc…
And while this dealer’s story is pure and terrifying coincidence, it does illustrate the need to end online gun sales. Sorry folks, but face-to-face or not at all.
Tom Coburn of Oklahoma (who else) has introduced a bill to require the Park Service to drop its ban on carrying loaded firearms in national parks.
Any Republican here will tell you that the Bible REQUIRES that people carry weapons. It must. Somewhere. It’s just so……right.
Broadway Joe @ 6
There is nothing sinister about this. All federal and local laws still have to be followed. You pick out the firearm you like on-line. Then you contact a local firearms dealer in your own state to be the transfer agent. The local firearms dealer makes sure that you can legally own a firearm and that all the federal, state and local laws are followed. You pay a fee to the local firearms dealer, in addition to the price you pay to the on-line dealer for the firearm. The on-line dealer ships the firearm to the local firearms dealer. Then you go to the local firearms dealer to pick up your weapon after it arrives.
http://www.thegunsource.com/st.....uns_Online
So there is as much face-to-face, as if you were buying out of the local firearms dealer’s on-site weapons inventory.
It’s very hard for me to believe that saturating two generations of Americans with the imaginary violence of video games, movies, and TV shows has nothing to do with the desensitizing of Americans to violence. Guns and bullets are merely instruments. Murder is committed by the human mind, not by inert metal.
Gun violence appears to a cultural phenomenon. Among highly developed nations, America is unique in its level of gun violence. About the only other places you find anything similar are primitive warrior societies like Afghanistan’s. Americans have been desensitized to violence by irresponsible media and our freedoms assure ready access to the means of acting out the violent fantasies that dwell in some many American minds. I think the American phenomenon of mass abortions goes hand-in-hand with the American phenomenon of massive gun violence. I don’t believe for a moment that these things are inevitable byproducts of maintaining an open society that emphasizes individual liberties. They are a product of an indifference to life produced by aspects of our culture that we can change if we have the will. As we have seen with our unsuccessful forays into alcohol and drug prohibition, attempts to make the means inaccessible (shutting down abortion clinics; banning gun ownership) invariably prove ineffective. On the other hand, we could have a country with abortion clinics and gun shops on every street corner, but have far fewer abortions and gun deaths, if we could succeed in changing the attitudes of our countrymen toward the sanctity of human life — i.e., replacing indifference to life with affirmative valuation of life. Working on attitudes and values is not only the most cost-effective approach, but also by far the most effective one. It begins in the family. We must teach our offspring that violent entertainment, abortions, and using violence to resolve problems are not “forbidden fruit” (which merely increases their attractiveness to curious young minds) but are harmful, to be avoided like poisonous snakes and toxic chemicals, and for the same reasons. If your kids are smart enough to not eat Drano, then they’re also smart enough to understand that certain cultural influences in our society are just as bad for them.
dwell in so many
@10 Damnit Roger, just when I want to be able to discount anything you say as reflexive liberal bullshit, you come up with a post like that.
EXCELLENT!!! Best thing that you’ve written since I’ve been around HA, in my opinion. And right on the money!
@2 All well and good; but defending gun ownership by (correctly) pointing out most gun owners are trustworthy is a red herring. Such arguments utterly fail to provide any solution to the tens of thousands of gun deaths that occur in America every year. All they’re good for is fending off political attacks against private gun ownership laws. This effort is unnecessary because most Americans support the right of private gun ownership; and realistically, the political system is not going to take that right away.
What we need is an effective strategy to reduce gun violence that doesn’t depend on eliminating guns, because any strategy that does is bound to fail. Like it or not, the horse is out of the barn on gun proliferation. There are nearly as many guns as people in this country, so as a pragmatic matter, the only strategy that has any chance to work is one that focuses on eliminating the impulse in the human mind to use the guns available to the human hand. See #10 above.
@6 Probably has more to do with skirting sales tax.
@7 Park rangers should have guns. Visitors should not. Instead, the parks should have more rangers to improve the safety of visitors. Law enforcement and public safety are jobs for trained professionals. Most people don’t have the training, knowledge, skills, and presence of mind to use guns effectively to defend themselves.
Our national parks are woefully underfunded, and this neglect has deepened under the Bush administration. The parks lack money for basic maintenance and repairs, for adequate staffing — for everything. Our national parks are one of our nation’s important vital recreational resources, and while user fees should play a role in funding the services they provide, the parks are a sufficient national interest to merit higher funding from general revenues.
cars kill a lot more people than guns, especially when they fall into the wrong hands. i think we really need to ban cars first, then maybe talk about guns. yeah. and then we can move on to spoons, which cause morbid obesity.
@12 Maybe you should rethink your reflexive, stereotyped notions of what liberalism is, what liberals want, and why we want it.
The right routinely confuses liberals with libertines and totalitarians — often simultaneously. We are neither. Liberals, for example, believe in limited use of regulation to create greater freedom. Indeed, the very notion of a free society is a product of liberal thought. It may help clarity if I also point out that “left” and “liberal” are not synonymous. Modern American liberalism has many conservative attributes; whereas classic leftist totalitarianism is antithetical to liberalism. Communists and socialists are our enemies as well as yours.
socialists too? hey! what about dem/socs in europe? are they our enemies? or just the upper middle class white kids that advocate seizing power for the “people” according to the tired old ‘spark’ model, while having no interest in being a worker on a collective farm without jack shit to say about how the party moves? hope its just the latter, as im rather fond of the former. communists are funny too — they should have a merger with the Society for Creative Anachronism.
@17 Cute, but not useful either as information or a strategy for saving lives, and not all that acurate as information, either.
In fact, for sheer numbers of fatalities, guns give cars a run for their money.
42,196 Americans died in car crashes in 2001.
29,573 Americans were killed by guns in 2001.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/.....deaths.htm
http://thegreenman.net.au/mt/gun_deaths_in_usa.htm
Interestingly, though, over half of all U.S. gun deaths are suicides. Presumably, many of these people would have chosen some other instrument if a gun had not been available. So, if you disregard suicides, about 3 times as many Americans are killed by cars as by guns.
I suppose you could use these statistics to argue that we should ban cars before we ban cans, and even to argue that we should ban food because obesity kills. This type of reasoning is what I call the Logic of Nonsense.
There is, in fact, a great deal of nonsense in this world that can be made to appear logical. Perhaps it is well that it is so, for the world is a better place because Hitler thought invading Russia made more sense than invading England, and the Tsar thought it was better to have $7 million in cash than to keep Alaska. The Logic of Nonsense is the source of blunders that save the world, so it does have a useful function in human affairs.
But, unfortunately, the Logic of Nonsense also can have deleterious consequences. For example, what if Khrushchev had decided that firing is Cuba-based missiles made more sense than turning back his ships? History tells us he almost did. The Logic of Nonsense is not to be trusted as a device for saving human lives or improving human society, despite the fact it occasionally intervenes to inadvertently produce that result.
firing his
keep the logic, hold the nonsense. guns dont “cause” school shootings any more than cars “cause” drunk driving accidents. silly rabbit.
@19 It may come as a surprise to you that most American liberals aren’t interested in exchanging our capitalist economic system for European-style economic socialism (which is actually a mild form of socialism that is more capitalism than socialism).
Also, it appears you are ignorant of history, for it was a liberal president who saved capitalism by slightly expanding government regulation and introducing some new government programs with very mild socialism-like tendencies.
You see, my friend, pure capitalism is not sustainable, because unfettered capitalism ultimately destroys itself. Every time. Like a wolf that eats its own young, capitalism must be constrained if its species is to survive. That is the essence of liberal economic thought: To use government regulation and programs judiciously to preserve capitalism by preventing it from fulfilling its own self-destructive tendencies.
N.b., I find the comment @19 long on polemics; divorced from reality; uninformed of history; and devoid of useful ideas. That’s liberal double-speak for “you’re completely full of shit.”
@22 See #24.
@22 (continued) A lightweight like you calling me “silly” says much about your intellect and nothing about mine.
So weary of the old “cars are deadly too” attempt to deflect criticism from evil deadly firearms. Perhaps try this line of analysis: What percentage of car fatalities involve cars used to kill people on purpose (whether homicide or suicide), vs. the percentage of gun fatalities involving guns used to kill people on purpose? I don’t have the answer but would be shocked if the latter isn’t much bigger than the former.
well gee thumper, youre starting to sound like pudge. i was saying im fond of the dem/soc model. you dont have to be if you dont want to. it was funny to see you get all worked up, commence namecalling, and assert your imagined intellectual superiority all over a lighthearted post.
and oh yeah, twice as many qualifies as “more.”
silly indeed.
@27 “What percentage of car fatalities involve cars used to kill people on purpose (whether homicide or suicide), vs. the percentage of gun fatalities involving guns used to kill people on purpose?”
According to the chart I linked @20, the breakdown of gun deaths in 2001 was:
Accidents: 802
Homicides: 11,671
Suicides: 16,869
I don’t know what the car figures are, but I would imagine that the number of homicides and suicides committed with cars is very small.
Mike- You need a license to drive a car. You need insurance to cover potential damage you may cause. Do you support the same for guns, since you are comparing them?
Just wondering.
Roger- car suicides happen. An enduring memory from my youth was delivering the newspaper to a house ane wondering why the car was in the garage with the engine running. The owner killed himself.
not that my opinion on it matters much to the larger debate, but just to be clear: im a gun owner and was raised in a law enforcement family. by my 16th birthday i wanted “anything but a gun” for my birthday, which was what i got. wouldnt touch one for 15 years, then noted with interest the story of Krsna scolding Arjuna for throwing down his bow in the Bhagavad Gita. as such, as long as despots would rule by the gun rather than by law and the will of the people, i think goodguys should stay trained and capable with same. hitlers happen. i hope never to point one at a living being, and dream of a sunny day when we outgrow such ugliness. and i also believe that in densely populated urban areas that the weight of the public health and safety side of the equation justifies placing restrictions on our right to carry in said environs. this last sentence seems to me an intelligent way to proceed with a debate on the subject. balancing the rights specifically granted in the constitution with its actual intent. appeals to emotion and fallacies of logic such as attribution of false causality, i believe, only cloud the rather important issue here as elsewhere. hence my rant against those damn spoons.
@31 actually yes, as described above. i said “right to carry” but would certainly be open to debate as regards the need for pre-ownership screening, etc based on the same principle. personally i avoid going shooting with anyone that doesnt have law enforcement or military training. i have received both, and have shared same with a number of friends over the years that have expressed interest and appeared to be suitably alert, compassionate and conscientious.
Here is an interesting statistic:
Murder by:
People- 100%
Inanimate objects -0%
Who would of thought. Roof roof
Mike- You need a license to drive a car. You need insurance to cover potential damage you may cause. Do you support the same for guns, since you are comparing them?
I don’t. I think there should be the same restrictions as voting….. imagine all the dead,liberal gun owners. ehehehehe
And sometimes Republicans use dogs to commit murders.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marjorie_Knoller
@20 There is one important difference between suicide using a gun and suicide not using a gun. In the former it is easy to take a bunch of other people with you, witness almost any school shooting, for example. It’s harder to do that with other suicide methods. Of course it’s possible to kill oneself using an automobile by staging a spectacular accident in which others die. but then, automobiles are tightly regulated in recognition of the danger inherent in their use. So again, the same logic could be applied to firearm regulation.
Pelletizer@9: Glad to see you are thinking like us whom think right on this issue.
I think this is the interesting double standard. You liberals preach a modern liberal secular society of “freedom of speech”, “mind your own business” and “individual choice” to such an extreme extent, it makes it almost impossible to tie video games to human violence. Your comment above gave me a willing suspension of disbelief (oh… who said that once?). Even the gamers and the game industry would raise a hue and cry if now liberals join conservatives in trying to tie game violence to actual human violence, and the ACLU would get involved, and violent video games would continue to be sold and bought.
Thank you Pelletizer for waking up for a change.
Pelletizer: I am shaking my head in disbelief. Are you okay? “I think the American phenomenon of mass abortions goes hand-in-hand with the American phenomenon of massive gun violence.”
Which party is proudly for column A and usually excuses the people who perform column B as needing understanding, products of broken homes, etc?
Unnnnnnnnnnnnt: Times up. Donkeys.
Pelletizer: Real gun owners don’t perform heinous acts like VT or NIU. It is the morally deranged and corrupt individuals who buy a gun or two and they get lumped into gun owners. Gun owners own guns for years. These creeps are immediate gun purchasers.
Pelletizer vs. Mike in Seattle.
Usually I’d say two mindless liberal morons are going at it. But today for some reason, Pelletizer has become Roger Rabbit, at least for today, clear thinker for a change; while Mike is still Mike_The_Moron_of_Seattle.
Hey Mike Is Jim McDimWitt your congressman too?
Kazmierczak clearly had a history of mental illness including an earlier committment. Can at least most of us agree with that history he should not have had guns?
Roger 23
All well and good, and perhaps a small percentage of “progressives” have thought things through as clearly as you. Unfortunately, the politicians elected to serve the “progressive cause” revert to command and control regulation, “soak the rich” income redistribution, and favor-giving to special interests (not that the GOP doesn’t also). That’s why and how they get elected, not because they’re “preserving capitalism”.
The Democrat politicians implement your high-minded “liberalism to preserve capitalism” by screaming “soak the rich” while socking it to those of us trying to get rich, while getting rich themselves. Example: Bill Clinton’s tax deduction for donating his underpants vs. the “soak the rich” phase-out of damn near every tax deduction or credit at medium high AGI. “He got his, now screw everybody else” is how your liberal goals are implemented.
Here’s another example: the Democrats running this state letting Flexcar off the hook for not collecting sales tax for so long. Any widget maker in the state that pulls a similar stunt, whether out of ignorance or greed, would not be dealt with so charitably. Tell me how that supports your high minded “preserving capitalism”. yeah yeah it’s a worthy cause, bla bla bla, etc etc.
And before you lefties say “Clinton’s not a liberal”, the point is that he got voted in by liberals. You liberals will vote for any Democrat running, it does not matter who, because they have perfected the art of pulling your strings.
Good luck in 09! Maybe all your dreams will come true, and capitalism will be defended once again by Roger Rabbit’s Liberal Army. Yeeha!
Roger 23
“That is the essence of liberal economic thought: To use government regulation and programs judiciously to preserve capitalism by preventing it from fulfilling its own self-destructive tendencies.”
HA HA HA: Some of your teammates are challenged by the “judiciously” part.
yes silly me, attempting to point out the concept of fallacies of relevance such as false causality! and here of all places, among obviously superior intellectuals such as puddy et al. it must’ve been that damn “liberal arts” education that made me think that way. another argument against “socialized education” probably.
@10, wabbit: ‘Cultural excess’? Perhaps. However it is germaine to consider that we in this country worship at the alter of untrammels so-called “free” markets that inevitably are generally not free, and pander inexorably to the lowest common denominator. Conservatives decry the ‘decline’ of moral standards, yet worship the very engine that creates and propels this descent into atomism, alienation, undirected anger, and angst, the decline of ‘western civilization’ decried by those who are angry that the Enlightenment ever happened. Witness zip’s confused post at 44 above: The accusation that liberals advocate ‘command and control’ regulation, yet wails like a little baby that ‘producers’ aren’t given government handouts and tax breaks. This is indeed the epitome of the paranoid style of american politics (cf. Richard Hofsteader).
Simply put. Conservative ‘thought’ is indeed an oxymoron.
@7: Tom Coburn of Oklahoma (who else) has introduced a bill to require the Park Service to drop its ban on carrying loaded firearms in national parks.
I’m sure that is so comforting to Joseph Duncan. Coburn is such a mensch, a true inspiration to murderous pedophiles everywhere!
Assman 47
Tell me more about the government giving us all “handouts and tax breaks” oh asinine one. When you start from a class envy mentality, anything less than a 100% tax rate is a “handout”.
@33: Like the Old Testament, I don’t find the Bhagavad Gita very convincing as a moral text. Both are bloodthirsty, sexist, approving of slavery, and otherwise morally confused. But that’s just me.
@17: Mike, I would submit that many of these ills would be reduced substantially if we (a) banned clothing or (b) reduced the population substantially. It light of your later posts, it is clear that many (myself included) took your first comment wrong somehow…because it did indeed simply regurgitate a standard rightwing talking point.
Thus your subsequent posts still leave me wondering…but your post at 33 above is quite sensible.
zit @ 49: Hey, you’re the one that was crying like a little baby about (Clinton) phased out “damn near every tax deduction or credit at medium high AGI” not me.
Which, of course, is a bunch of bullshit. But hey, it was right out of your mouth, zitster.
Roger,
Hope you’re feeling better.
Responsible gun owners may not be the people committing most of these sorts of mass killings, but they do share in the blame because many responsible gun owners do support gun groups that fight to make it easy for people like Kzmcezmcierizcmzmczak to acquire guns.
I think we should locate plenty of gun dealers on every republican – leaning college campus in America. That way – the silly inbred bastards will just shoot themselves and we can free our country from their evil.
BBG@55: No, but when a lefty peacenik crazy gets a gun, the Republican gun owner will plug the idiot and make their day.
Jesus better stay away from Buddypud. Buddypud would fill that peacenik full of lead!
I think it’d be interesting to break down crime stats on the basis of party affiliation. Murder, rape, robbery, etc. Something tells me D’s and R’s would each have their crimes that they would be committing out of proportion to their numbers in a given area. For example, I’m sure most HOV violators are Republicans. Don’t know why. Just a hunch.
@29
Chronic pain, untreated illness, or mental illness are present in almost all suicides.
We now know that the shooter at Northern Illinois University had a long history of mental illness.
We need to do a better job taking care of people.
@32 “Roger- car suicides happen. An enduring memory from my youth was delivering the newspaper to a house ane wondering why the car was in the garage with the engine running. The owner killed himself.”
Of course car suicides happen. One of my buddies in Vietnam drove a car into a concrete bridge pillar a week after he returned home. But they’re not common. Far, far less than half of fatal car crashes are caused by suicidal intent. I have no idea what the percentage is, but I’ll bet it’s less than 1%.
Ass 52
You really are an ass. Or you can’t comprehend the written word. Take your pick: either one illustrates why you will never have to worry about income tax rates. Hows that EITC treating you, loser?
32, 33, 34 – Actually, you do need a license to carry a concealed gun (on your person, in your briefcase, in your car, etc.) in Washington and virtually every other state. (Perhaps Alaska is an exception; I don’t know.)
Mrs. Rabbit and I had a discussion on this topic earlier today. One of our neighbors is a domestic assault victim and the Mrs. thinks she should get a gun. I told her, no, she should get a cell phone. Here in the city, the cops are only a few minutes away. Let the cops handle it. But if you live in a rural area where the police are an hour away — well, in those places, virtually everyone has guns and that makes perfect sense. One of the many benefits of living in a city is that you have the option of letting trained law enforcement professionals handle situations that call for a professional law enforcement response.
@34 I agree with you that guns are only for people who have received competent training. Military is best, followed by law enforcement, but a private course is adequate if it’s a good one.
@35 Percentage of stupid dogs who eventually get put down by a vet: 100%
@39 I woke up a long time ago, puddinghead. Thank you anyway. To avoid any possible misunderstanding, I am NOT advocating a governmental solution to the problem. Citizens need to take this into their own hands. If they don’t buy these products, and don’t let their kids buy them, there will be no market for them and the products will disappear.
#62 Roger Rabbit says:
How long does it take someone to kill someone? More or less than the “few minutes” it takes the cops to get there?
Would you rather your wife have a gun in her hand or a cellphone if someone broke into your home?
@40 What rock have you been sleeping under, puddinghead? I announced my personal opposition to abortion, based on my personal religious and moral beliefs, on this blog … oh … about 3 years ago.
The difference between you and me, if there is one, is that I understand that not everyone shares my beliefs, and I don’t believe I have the right to make them live in accordance with what I believe. Prohibition doesn’t work anyway. What I envision is a society in which abortion is legal but rarely occurs because most people choose some other alternative.
@41 Nonsense. A “gun owner” is anyone who owns a gun. Al Capone was a gun owner. So was Lee Harvey Oswald.
@44 “Unfortunately, the politicians elected to serve the ‘progressive cause’ revert to command and control regulation, ‘soak the rich’ income redistribution, and favor-giving to special interests (not that the GOP doesn’t also). That’s why and how they get elected, not because they’re ‘preserving capitalism’.”
Not really. Politicians aren’t as complex as you portray. They all pander to the common denominator.
@44 (continued) An argument can be made that politicians soaking the rich balances out with the rich soaking the rest of us.
@62: No, no one seriously concerned with their own safety should put their well-being in the hands of another. If that domestic assault victim fears for her life she should be the first person to make a serious effort to protect it in whatever way she is most comfortable with. For some people, that is acquiring and learning how to use a firearm. For others, it is a cell phone, or mace, or a taser, or a big dog. All of those remedies have their own potential pitfalls, but none is as effective at stopping someone dead in their tracks as a gun used by someone trained to use it in self-defense. I go into this in more detail in this post.
@4: Goldy, darling, google “defensive gun uses” and you’ll find a wealth of information on how the mere presence of a gun used in self-defense can deter criminals without even firing a shot. Granted, anyone who has a gun for self-defense should be prepared to use it if necessary, but often even brandishing it will scare away someone who has the intent to do harm. Also, I’ve been using a gun of one sort or another for 15 years and while I have discharged thousands of rounds of ammunition, I’ve never shot anyone. Hopefully I will never have to.
THe only thing out of BO’s mouth is BO.
Only BO says: “Jesus better stay away from Buddypud.”
Only BO thinks Jesus is crazy!
Bo lives up to his name.
Ever been assaulted, Marv? I have had the experiencce twice. Once they came up behind me and hit me in the head. Kind of interesting what a blow to the head does. I expect it does not allow for the quick and acurate use of firearms. The second time a bunch of folks who disapproved of my then long hair jumped out of a car to take a swing. Since I was young and fast, I got away. Should I have shot them?
@73: Part of self-defense is maintaining awareness of your surroundings. Just because I carry a firearm doesn’t mean I should take unnecessary risks and wander blindly into clearly dangerous areas.
68: Bullcrap Pelletizer.
Gun owners are responsible people.
Lee Harvey Oswald was a deranged individual. Al Capone was a syphilitic individual. Neither were responsible.
Sorry K you were assaulted. Did they catch them? Were they donkey or Repubs? Did it happen in a donkey controlled area?
Most certain they were not caught, at least not for my assaults. First time were two Black kids. Wanted my wallet and got it. Second time were HS atheletes. Wanted to beat on long hairs. I got away. You make the call on party affiliation.
Don’t piss off Buddypud, k. That crazy SOB is out to shoot Jesus!
@70 Let’s talk about this in slightly more detail. A Yale professor of political science has written an interesting book called “The Great Risk Shift: The New Economic Insecurity and the Decline of the American Dream (Paperback).”
Before I discuss Prof. Hacker’s book, however, I’d like to preface the discussion by quoting from an article from the Associated Press today:
“Even when experts were declaring the economy healthy, many Americans voiced a vague, but persistent dissatisfaction … to many people, something didn’t feel right ….
“The frustration of $3 gas and $4 milk, … health care costs that have risen four times the rate of pay, … retirement security that is only as good as the increasingly volatile stock market … Americans’ declining confidence in their economy is triggered by a storm of … pressures, … compounded by anxiety that was … the result of a long, slow drip of worries and vulnerabilities.
” … Mark Zandi, chief economist of forecaster Moody’s Economy.com … [sees] ‘angst that … is not going to go away even when the economy improves.’
“… [T]here may be more to it than just cyclical ups and downs. What does the economic future hold? Many Americans feel increasingly unable to answer that question with assurance, and they appraise it with a sense that they are less in control of the outcome. … They talk about challenges like the rising cost of getting to work or medical bills … as a continuing struggle. …
“A year ago – months before economic alarms went off – nearly two of three Americans polled by The Rockefeller Foundation said that they felt … less economically secure then they did a decade ago. Half said they expected their children to face an economy even more shaky.
“Other polls have registered similar unease in the past few years, showing large numbers of Americans dissatisfied with the economy, and worried about retirement security, health care costs, and a declining standard of living. The surprising thing about many of these readings isn’t that they’ve recently skyrocketed. It’s that in recent years they’ve registered consistently high levels of worry without ever seeming to ease.
“‘This has just been a period of great disconnect between what the aggregate economic statistics show and what leading politicians talk about and what ordinary Americans are feeling,’ said Jacob Hacker, a Yale University professor and author of ‘The Great Risk Shift,’ which charts increased economic insecurity. ‘I think people are saying, where did the gains go? Where did the boom go? And now that it’s gone, what are we going to do?’ …
“Except for the late 1990s, pay has been stagnant for more than a generation, barely keeping pace with inflation. In 1973, the median male worker earned $16.88 an hour, adjusted for inflation. In 2007, he earned $16.85.
“… [T]he largest gains went to workers at the top of the pay scale. Now, economic worries are rising fastest in households with smaller paychecks, and that chasm is widening. ‘Over the past decades … there has never been such a wide divergence in the experiences’ separating richer households from poorer ones, Richard Curtin, the director of the University of Michigan’s consumer ….in summing up the most recent figures. …
“Worker optimism, which soared in the late 1990s, never fully rebounded after the last, brief recession. Although jobs again were plentiful, it became clear the new economy’s opportunities came with few of the old assurances. …
“In the past decade, scores of companies have frozen or eliminated benefit plans providing a guaranteed pension. Many have replaced them with 401(k) plans whose future worth depends on workers’ investment skill. Almost half of all households are at risk of coming up short in retirement, according to the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College.
“Worry also grew about the cost of health care, with good reason. Since 2001, the cost of health insurance has gone up 78 percent …, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Over the same period, wages rose about 19 percent … people polled by the group say they are worried about paying more for health care or insurance. …
“Maybe the downturn in optimism is temporary. … But some believe a fundamental change … is taking place. Since the early 1980s, consumers’ contribution to the economy has risen …. Interest rates and inflation dropped, making homes and other assets worth more and cutting borrowing costs. The spread of easy credit promoted spending. Now, those are drying up … [and] that could drive consumers’ contribution to the economy back down ….”
Quoted under fair use; for complete article and/or copyright info see http://tinyurl.com/ysda7w
Now back to Prof. Hacker’s book. Quoting from an Amazon.com review by Henry J. Farrel, who gives this book a 5-star rating:
” … As discussed in Jacob Hacker’s book, people who have signed up to Health Savings Accounts … seem to be much less happy than those who have traditional coverage; they presumably wouldn’t `choose’ them if there were better options on the table. Nonetheless, the number of Health Savings Accounts is growing … and larger employers such as Walmart are increasingly trying to move away from traditional plans to HSAs …. The choice … is to accept a worse deal from your employer, or quit and hope that you’ll somehow find something better somewhere else. Not much of a choice. Yet nonetheless, when the mantra of `choice’ is invoked by the right, it often refers exactly to choices of this kind. There’s something weird going on.
“Jacob Hacker wants to unravel this weirdness. He’s a political scientist – his major empirical contribution in the last few years has been to describe the mechanisms through which Gingrich and others have deliberately sought to undermine welfare state institutions, inch by inch … this book … help[s] explain how the right’s renewed emphasis on `personal responsibility’ is less an exercise in increasing choice, and more a means of transferring risk away from large collective actors (such as governments or firms) to individuals, who typically have far fewer resources to deal with disaster when it happens.
” … Hacker is trying to change the political debate, to push back against current ways of framing these issues, and in so doing, to redefine the intellectual terrain. This is why the book was attacked so vigorously (and incoherently) before it was published, by people like Brink Lindsay and Glenn Reynolds. If Hacker’s framing … succeeds in taking hold, it will make it much more difficult to chisel away the foundations of the American welfare state … and … easier to expand welfare state principles to new areas.
“Hacker’s account is twofold. First, he looks at the various ways in which risk has increased over the last few decades. Jobs: Hacker discusses how expectations of stable employment have nearly disappeared, how part time and temporary work have increased, and so on. He argues … that `flexible’ jobs don’t necessarily increase choice for employees, because these work arrangements are typically set up ‘for the convenience of employers, not workers.’ … Families: having a family increases your risk of going bankrupt, and involves massive, and increasingly risky investments in housing and education. Old age: as defined benefit pension plans become vanishingly rare, individuals take on more and more risk through defined contribution plans, which will do well if the stock market does well, and do badly if it doesn’t. Health: health care has become ever more expensive, posing greater risk both to the uninsured and the insured (and people move back and forth between these groups far more often than most people realize).
“At least some of this increase in risk is … hard to trace it back to specific decisions made by particular people or groups. But what isn’t hard to trace back are the decisions made by policy makers to exacerbate these risks by aiding and abetting the transfer of risks to individuals rather than countering it.
“This is the second prong of Hacker’s argument. We know that policy makers could have done differently – they have done differently in other countries. But in the US, thanks to Gingrich and others like him, government has sought to increase individuals’ exposure to risk rather than to decrease it, typically under the mantra of increasing ‘choice’ or ‘freedom.’ Thus, … Health Savings Accounts …, [and] the effort to tear down Social Security, and replace it with a system of ‘private’ or ‘personalized’ (depending on which buzzword works better with focus groups) accounts, regardless of the enormous switchover costs. Instead of trying to mitigate risk, government under conservatives has sought to pile ever more risk on individuals, even if the fiscal consequences are horrendous. Hacker argues that not only are these policies ideologically loaded – they transfer risk from corporations to the middle and working classes – but they don’t make any sense in their own terms.
“High degrees of personal risk are a hindrance rather than a spur to beneficial economic activity. If people perceive that their jobs are risky, they’re likely to underinvest in specialized training (here, there is a well established literature in political economy which suggests that an extensive welfare state goes hand-in-hand with the development of specialized skills). Personal investments in education are less attractive if the rewards from education are highly uncertain.
“In the book’s conclusion, Hacker briefly describes a variety of policies that might help mitigate personal risks …. Despite this short discussion of policy options, ‘The Great Risk Shift’ isn’t … intended to contribute to specific policy debates, but to transform very broad public arguments … to claw back territory from what Hacker describes as the Personal Responsibility Crusade by making policy makers deal with the problems of risk, and by making ordinary people realize that the economic risks that they face haven’t descended from the skies. In large part, those risks are the result of conscious, deliberate choices made by conservative policy makers (and sometimes by centrist Democrats) … to help pave the way for the transfer of risk to individuals, and not to intervene when government could play an important role in mitigating risk.
“[T]his book is going to succeed or fail to the extent that it changes wider public debates. … I wholeheartedly hope that it succeeds; … I think that this is a highly valuable, and indeed potentially explosive book. This … book … deserves a wide readership, so that next time a Newtoid starts talking about … ‘increasing choice’ or ‘personal responsibility,’ he or she will be called on it. Even if George Lakoff and others’ arguments about political framing are rather reductive, political debate is shaped profoundly by the language that it is conducted in and the concepts that it invokes. This is a fiercely and tightly argued effort to change those concepts.”
Quoted under fair use; for more information about the book and/or the complete review (and other reviews), see http://tinyurl.com/2uwo4v
Buddypud hates people who love peace.
Jesus, you have been warned!
@73 “Should I have shot them?”
I’m tempted to say “yes” because there would have been that many less morons voting for Bush in 2000 and 2004, but the voice of responsibility inside my head says that killing is to be avoided unless it’s you or them.
BO Reread #72.
@75 Being responsible has nothing to do with being a “gun owner.” Ownership is a legal concept. As such, it does not contain the value judgments you attempt to graft onto it. A gun owner is anyone our laws recognize as having legal title of a gun.
@75 (continued) P.S., a word of advice: Don’t attempt to apply for law school. You don’t have what it takes.
Jesus: Blessed are the peacemakers.
Buddypud: Die you Peace loving nut!! Die Die Die!!!
BO must be another name for headless lucy. Only headless would insinuste something as STUPID at #80.
@76 “Were they donkey or Repubs?”
I believe the operative terminology here is “criminals.” You seem to be having a hell of a problem with vocabulary tonight, puttybutt. What are you drinking, and how much of it have you drunk?
@82 Jesus wasn’t crazy, but you are.
@ 56
Jesus: Turn the other cheek
Buddypud: Show me both of them peacenik cheeks so I can shoot them both off!!
Buddypud, armed to the teeth comes to Peter at the Pearly Gates.
Buddypud: Open up them damn gates! I am here to plug the Jesus so full of holes he will wish he was back on that peacenik cross of his! Crucifying is too good for them peaceniks!!!
Buddypud: pick up the gun Christ. I ain’t agonna ask you a second time.
Jesus: But you will just shoot me. I love all mankind.
Buddypud: I am going shoot ya anyway, so make my day PEACENIK!!!
Chris darling @74,
Um… I made no editorial comment about gun policy in this post, except to point out the obvious fact that the general purpose of a handgun is to shoot people, self defense or otherwise.
That said, for all your claims about the effectiveness of handguns as a means of self defense, you can Google the literature too and find that the number one risk factor for being killed or injured by a gun is having one in the house.
No doubt the Virginia Tech shooter would have been unlikely to achieve such an astounding death toll had other students or faculty been armed, but mass murder is rare whereas domestic violence, suicide and carelessness is not. I do not have the data or the skill set to conduct a proper cost benefit analysis, but I’d betcha dollars to donuts that a more widely armed society would result in a net increase in death and injury from firearms.
And by the way, while I haven’t shot a gun in years, I sure as hell enjoyed it when I did, and wouldn’t mind heading out to a shooting range for a little refresher. But I would NEVER keep a gun in the house with a child.
BO@Everywhere:
Blather what you want about you ignorant rants about Jesus, Our Lord and Saviour and your hatred for him.
Show me how Jesus is a lefty peacenik crazy? Proof is all you need. This should be hilarious.
Since Jesus is against murder, He would not condone abortion.
Since Jesus is against murder, He would be against using embryonic stem cells but would be for adult stem cells.
Since Jesus is for charity, He would be against you cheap charity liberals who don’t give from the heart or pocket.
Puddy
Blatantly Obvious clearly has a better grasp on what the Gospel means than do you when it comes to violence. If you need a refresher course on what Christ said about violence, I’d be happy to help you. Neither Matthew nor Mark, nor Luke nor John, said, “Arm thyself. The rabble is at the door. Shoot, shoot, ye who believes.” Puddy, you believe in the GOP gospel: every man for himself, and women just don’t count. Sweet dreams, you infidel.
@ 93
Jesus says
Buddypud says
Why do you have such a hardon for shooting Jesus, Buddypud?
please dont shoot Jesus, pud. he’s suffered enough for the likes of you. and anyways why is it that modern day evangelicals’ behavior looks a LOT more like that of the pharisees than that of Jesus? you know — really self-righteous, loudly proclaim their views as the only “right” way, make a public show of their alleged spirituality while being completely intolerant of others, advocate things like torture, believe everyone but them is going to burn in hell (about which they seem not-so-secretly smug and happy), etc etc. looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, but claims to be a “Christian.” hmmm. not for me to judge, but i’ll pass on joinin that “flock” just the same. my belief in and respect for the teachings of Christ prevent me from embracing such views as expressed by many of those that claim the rights to His name in this time.
Last time lefties,
Show me where I advocated shooting Jesus?
URL
Time and Date Stamp?
Citation?
BO claimed Jesus is crazy, I didn’t.
Good try lefties. Didn’t say it. Didn’t think it. Headless Lucy BO did.
I asked BO to demonstrate where Jesus was crazy. He failed miserably.
Popemeister @ 8:
Thanks for the clarification. But that process seems kinda awkward to me, and probably not saving much money other than local & state taxes (hat tip to Roger for that one).
And to be honest, I’m also looking at less lethal means of self-defense. Anyone know how much a good taser will set you back? Or maybe one of those collapsible steel batons as well. My one problem with a gun is that my courier route takes me through California for a stretch while getting back into Reno, and the local cops on both sides of the state line that I’ve talked to have, how shall we say, made the waters pretty murky on the issues of registering a weapon for more than one state, CWP’s, blah blah blah……
Proud Leftist: Since you have such a great command of the Good Book let’s do a Bible Study:
“But understand this: if the owner of the house had known in what part of the night the thief was coming, he would have stayed awake and would not have let his house be broken into.”
” And this know, that if the goodman of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched, and not have suffered his house to be broken through.”
Or how about this one Leftist:
” “For it is just like a man about to go on a journey, who called his own slaves and entrusted his possessions to them. “To one he gave five talents, to another, two, and to another, one, each according to his own ability; and he went on his journey. “Immediately the one who had received the five talents went and traded with them, and gained five more talents. “In the same manner the one who had received the two talents gained two more. “But he who received the one talent went away, and dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money.
“Now after a long time the master of those slaves came and settled accounts with them. “The one who had received the five talents came up and brought five more talents, saying, ‘Master, you entrusted five talents to me. See, I have gained five more talents.’ “His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful slave. You were faithful with a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.’
“Also the one who had received the two talents came up and said, ‘Master, you entrusted two talents to me. See, I have gained two more talents.’ “His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful slave. You were faithful with a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.’
“And the one also who had received the one talent came up and said, ‘Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow and gathering where you scattered no seed. ‘And I was afraid, and went away and hid your talent in the ground. See, you have what is yours.’
“But his master answered and said to him, ‘You wicked, lazy slave, you knew that I reap where I did not sow and gather where I scattered no seed. ‘Then you ought to have put my money in the bank, and on my arrival I would have received my money back with interest. ‘Therefore take away the talent from him, and give it to the one who has the ten talents.’”
So Proud Leftist why did Jesus’ story have the guy with Ten Talents get the one talent? Why isn’t that just like being a Republican? Take from the little guy and give it to the richer guy? Or is it the little guy saw stuck on stupid and lived it and Jesus was making a point to occupy until He comes again?
Ummm… I rest my case Proud Leftist
Michael since you have such a great command of the Good Book let’s do a Bible Study:
Jesus in John said “I and my Father are One.
In the Bible it says “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
So as it says in the Bible Jesus was with God from the beginning, explain to me God’s/Jesus’ ordering of the destruction of the Amorites “But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee”
Michael come out of darkness, only let BO Headless Lucy stay in darkness
Proud Leftist & Michael:
In the Good Books Headless Lucy above used “Do not resist an evil person.”
Almost all the 16%ers here claim GWB is an evil person. So why are you too not heeding God’s word? Why are you resisting him? What cheek has he smote?
As I see it he gave to you tax relief. Yet Jesus said “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” If GWB was caesar as some of you claim you’d be getting taxed more and more!
Proud Leftist & Michael:
This is lost on BO Headless Lucy.
“Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.” Who are the merciful; Republicans who give to charity from their heart or liberals who give away other people’s money not their own?
Even Pelletizer who lives off of guvmint largesse gave $100 to Katrina Relief, you two on the other hand said “Fire Mike Brown. Me give money to those people? That’s the guvmint’s job, not mine. No way.”
Proud Leftist & Michael:
This is lost on BO Headless Lucy.
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. Who are the peacemakers; people who espouse Neville Chamberlain’s position (most 16%ers here) or those who stand up to the terrorists and rids the world of them? Why did God/Jesus have King David destroy and subdue through war Israel’s enemies so his son Solomon could have peace?
How do you reconcile during the last years of King David’s reign, David stored immense treasure of gold and silver, and brass, and iron, for the Lord’s Temple on Mount Moriah?
Mike_The_Moron_In_Seattle: How am I espousing my views when I have the Bible to back me up, God’s word?
God/Jesus gave the criteria for those who will see Jesus and those who will burn in hell:
“Here is the perseverance of the saints who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus.”
Someone long ago said Paul has no bearing on the commentary of Jesus: “Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus according to the commandment of God our Savior, and of Christ Jesus, who is our hope, ” or “but at the proper time manifested, even His word, in the proclamation with which I was entrusted according to the commandment of God our Savior”
Come on 16%ers lets study the Bible since BO Headless Lucy went there like with his South Carolina flag issue last week.
#73 k says:
Sorry you were assaulted twice, despite seeing fights (fist/knife/gun) at some of the gigs I played when I was younger I’ve never been assaulted. Probably something about me being very observant of my surroundings and my exercise program. Most criminals are pussies, they prey on easier victims, not people that fight back. Just like school shooters never go shoot people at a gun club. they shoot unarmed people that won’t fight back.
Should you use a gun? Your call, I wasn’t there. You ran away once which ensured your safety which was probably a good decision. If you feel you don’t have what it takes to aim a gun at someone under pressure and pull the trigger, then by all means don’t buy a gun. Statistics show the gun will be used against you.
“who’d ever imagine that a hand gun might be used for shooting people? What are the odds? ”
Do a little math. Pretty damn low actually.
I’m a lot more worried about getting hurt in a car accident.
Just remember, if Jesus was shot rather than crucified, you’d be seeing the image of a pistol, and not a cross, on top of churches, dangling from people’s necks, and hanging from rear view mirrors.
What Buddypud fails to understand is that Jesus came with a “New Testament”. And as much as Buddypud would like to use the Old Testament to make Jesus out to be a warmonger and all around Rambo, he can’t, except by undoing Jesus’s words and Testament.
That is why Jesus said things such as
Jesus is the true Prince of Peace, and Buddypud espouses killing him.
@108
It’s hard to envision a bobbleheaded plastic Glock nodding away on the dashboard of Puddy’s ’76 Chrysler station wagon.
“You shall know them by the fruits” (MATT 7:16)
Your fruits, Puddy, are dried on this blog for all to see: You’re just another hypocrite trying to use Christianity to excuse your mean-spirited, greedy conservatism, which has the great fear that you’ll have a tiny part of your income taxed to support the poor and disadvantaged. You look pretty much like a camel to me, so good luck with the needle.
Rant all you want about how great your belief in the words of Christ are…we can see for ourselves where your heart is.
is
BO Breath: There are few lefties I respect. GBS, a religious individual agreed that Jesus and God are in the old and new testament. In think GBS understands the Bible better than you. So I guess you disagree with him.
You don’t understand Jesus was before the New Testament. He was in heaven with His Father. I don’t need to prove anything about God and Jesus. In the Good Book, God says He doesn’t change. Maybe you got amnesia when that was read. You can blather all you want about Jesus only
Sempersimper: My heart? You don’t know my fruits. As I’m doing my taxes I just realized I gave over $25,000 to charity this year.
I stand behind my charity numbers every year.
Besides I like a 57 Chevy.
SimpleSempleton: What do you give to charity?
By your fruits (and money) you know them too well.
SimpleSempleton: Your fruit is rotten and you know it. So how is the empty suit today?
Quote of the day from the ex-girlfriend of the NIU mass murderer. “He was a victim, too.”
Buddypud, the more you deny the truth, the more obvious your lack of knowledge regarding the Bible is.
And Jesus said
You not only want to shoot the Prince of Peace, you call him a liar.
You warp the words of Christ to fit your secular greed, and to justify your hatred and zealousness to kill.
There is a special place for people who have heard the word of Jesus and deny him, Buddypud.
And you are not going to like it.
Puddy, etc.
I don’t believe your charitable contribution schtick any more than I believe anything else you say. I don’t expect you to care, but just be advised that making extravagant claims about charitable giving is taken the same ways as the rest of your crap.
It’s obvious that you need this blog far more than it needs you, for whatever sick shit you’re putting out.
You’re a voice crying in the wilderness that’s certainly best ignored
‘Ta ta.
And Buddypud, regarding charity, this is what Jesus says
Your bragging of your charity is exactly what Jesus warns against.
Buddypud, I have a blessing to lay on you. Read your Bible. You might actually learn something.
But then, I should probably quit talking about Jesus to Buddypud. That psychopath wants dearly to shoot him.
Headless BO Sempersimper Lucy: Why do you use Bible verses but reject Jesus in your life and lifestyle? Why do you hate Jesus? You used the same verse in 95, 109 and 118. Why is that? Poor Biblical skiilz? I used many verses and I don’t repeat myself. I could care less what you think. I don’t lose sleep over your feelings for me.
Where were you when Katrina hit? Did you go? Did you cancel a vacation and use that money to help them? Did you work with people you didn’t know in a strange state? Did you teach your children about helping those downtrodden? Where was your pocketbook when Katrina hit? Did you send alms to the poor? Oh yeah you kept your money.
Where were you when the after Christmas Tsunami hit? Did you watch it on CNN and say “Those poor people”. Did you send alms to the poor? Oh yeah you kept your money.
Where were you when the call for volunteers to feed the homeless in Seattle? Did you feel moved to go and volunteer? Oh yeah you kept your ass in your seat.
Jesus and the United States Government know what I give to charity. They also know you are like Al Gore giving $357 in a year he made over $200K and they also know you are like Bill Clinton who deducted his used under ware.
You will get the last word here. I am finished with your two names of the day.
Goodbye!
self righteous? check. proclaiming it in public? check.
etc. etc. etc. looks like the bible backs me up here pudbutt. i think you get the letter but not the spirit. actually youre not so good at the letter either, but we’ll be generous. and why do you want to shoot him anyways?
Because, the words say so much, Buddypud. But your posts continue to demonstrate that you either do not read His words, do not comprehend them, or reject them.
I know you are not illiterate, nor are you completely stupid. I can only surmise that you reject Christ’s words.
Not a wise move, my friend.
Puddy’s religion is this blog. He can’t live without it. He promised once that he was leaving, and how long did THAT last?
Little things like personal integrity and honor quickly gave way to his pathological need to come here and spew his hypocrisy.
He DOES serve two purposes: Entertainment, of course, and for quotation to fundies to embarrass the shit out of them that he claims membership in their group.