|
Post by angra on Dec 15, 2012 15:55:47 GMT 10
The poor dear (Andrews younger brother) is trying his best to keep up. He states the obvious, crawling up others' shirt tails - "Slipper isn't popular" He doesn't think Leunig is a cartoonist - "Fairfax’s cash for calendars contributor Michael Leunig: 'I am a cartoonist.'... No, Michael. No, you are not. But you might be a very old lesbian. " and links to a picture with a vague resemblance to Germaine Greer. Apparently he thinks this is funny. And climate change presents a threat to skiing, only second to the threat posed by gay marriage. I'm devastated! But the most patronising and childish is his reference to a report that climate change is altering the economic roles women are having to play in north east India. They might have to resort to "weaving and fishing." Bless 'em. Let 'em eat fish is what I say. Really Little Timmeh, you must try harder. Your big brother is a hard act to follow I know, and we can't all be as consistent and pure-of thought as he. Put a bit more balls into it and you might do better next time. Your report card this term - sadly a C minus. You must try harder. Sigh.
|
|
|
Post by angra on Dec 15, 2012 16:16:35 GMT 10
And and and...! When I was in the upper sixth we short-changed the head-boys bed!
And on the last day of Michaelmas term put clingfilm on matrons lavatory seat!
And once I said the Head looked like a dick head (behind his back)! And some other boys heard it and laughed!
Honestly he really does remind me of Downer.
|
|
|
Post by angra on Dec 17, 2012 6:56:13 GMT 10
Have I read this correctly? Timmeh is calling for - what exactly? (In his usual contradictory fashion, proudly free of the constraints of logic.)
"It's just that the answer to those questions may not be as simple as further gun restrictions. In fact, it may be something close to the opposite...There are numerous examples of private US citizens halting a shooting spree with return fire of their own."
He doesn't actually name any mind you. Maybe he's thinking of Diehard.
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Dec 17, 2012 7:37:09 GMT 10
It's definitely the right-wing meme of the latest shooting (actually, there has been a gun-spree since, in a hospital, but he only killed a FEW people, so it hasn't bumped the big one off the front page). The "teacher should have been packing" theory has gone mainstream now, that's all. thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/12/16/1342281/gop-rep-suggests-teachers-should-be-armed-with-assault-rifles/?mobile=ncI'm surprised to see an australian suggesting something similar. Does he think that would make australia safer? It's a stupid idea, for many many reasons. (1) The bad guys will just change their tactics. If the teachers are the only ones with access, then pop the teachers fast, and assume that anyone moving in the corridors is armed. This make-believe thinking about just arming more people consistently ignores the fact that people aren't idiots. If I'm a mugger and I think you might be armed, that's fine - I'll just make sure I'm the one who draws first. Of course, that just makes it that much more likely that you'll get shot ... (2) It means that teachers will have guns - thus upping the ante for difficult students. Yes, it's stupid, but we're talking about teenagers - and stupid is just kind of normal. Guns in the classroom can not possibly make for a more effective learning environment. That's obviously leaving aside the basic problem - that teachers did not sign up for a war zone. (3) Who the hell is going to trust J. Random Teacher with frikkin assault rifle? They're teachers, not tactical response professionals. They're also human, and it's only a matter of time (weeks, I suggest) before a teacher pulled a gun on a student for a reason less than protecting the classroom - and all hell will break loose. (4) The very same people who're calling for teachers to be tooled up are the people who will (and I believe history will support me on this one) flay them alive if they ever make a bad call (or a good call which doesn't happen to agree with Teh Right's politics). In the US, on the right of the spectrum, every day is open season on teachers. Any teacher would be extremely foolish to be influenced by anything being said on fox news - because fox news will hang them out to dry (and, it should be said, lie through its teeth) if a teacher is ever called upon to make a judgement call. (5) It's a classic case of re-fighting the last war rather than thinking through the problem. If they're going to arm teachers, then the problem will move elsewhere - to hospitals, movie theaters (oops), junior soccer games, girl guide meetings - anywhere that defenseless people gather. In short, it won't work. (6) The main problem is that it is, of course, just the latest diversionary tactic to avoid discussing the very obvious common thread in all mass shootings - a society awash in semi-automatic weapons. All of the front-page incidents of the last decade in the US have involved people who would have found it extremely difficult, and probably impossible, to get hold of handguns or repeating firearms here in australia. These people weren't people with links to crime - they're not people who would have fulfilled the "only criminals will have guns" mantra. If the US had adopted australia's current gun laws back in (say) the 50's, then last week's shooting could not have happened. Just watching PJM this weekend, the sheer breadth of the arguments has been astonishing. Blame the pills, the parents, the lack of god in schools, the first amendment, unarmed teachers, the police, society, the neighbours, the media, some vaguely-defined and objective "evil" ... anything at all except the fact that a disturbed person could wander off with an assault rifle and a hundred rounds of ammo. It's probably too late now - getting the existing guns out of circulation is going to be impossible - but if the US had simply read the second amendment as it is written (and obviously intended - just read james madison's federalist paper on the militias), they'd be in the position of switzerland or israel now - where people do get to use guns, but in a regulated, disciplined training environment, and for the purpose of defending the country, rather than resolving marital disputes. On this issue, the US is currently stuffed. These shootings are going to keep happening. I'd like to say "unless something radical is done", but even if something radical is done, the guns are still out there.
|
|
|
Post by richard on Dec 17, 2012 9:13:21 GMT 10
Usual posters- This is the best article that I have found regarding the cult of gun ownership in the US. (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/16/after-sandy-hook-gun-control-and-the-south.html)
If you choose to, have a read. My take away from that piece is that firearm ownership is perceived by many as a powerful symbol of independence from despised government: a gun is a tool that can be used against tyrants.
That rightist fuckwits have seized and held this particular narrative is not surprising to me any more. Their nihilism is unbounded.
Anyway, as to Blair’s assertion that ‘numerous’ mass shootings have been foiled by armed civvies he links to this blog: (http://www.saysuncle.com/2007/04/17/mass_murderers_v_armed_citizens/)
I’m no expert on senseless massacres of the innocent by heavily armed crazy people but apparently there have been some incidents where people have been protected by gun owners. But I’m not entirely sure which ones....
In the first incident he cites the would be avenger appears to have been cut down after which the gunman went about his murderous business.
In the second incident he cites the would be avenger appears to have been shot whilst drawing his (legally) concealed weapon, rendering him dead and of no further use to the unarmed public.
In updates to his post, the author –‘Uncle’- mentions other historical scenarios: all of which do not seem to me to be examples of armed civilians foiling massacres. I was irritated enough to not bother reading ‘Uncle’s’ comment page.
Blair defends his dickhead position after a challenge tweet from Jonathon Green with spurious links to examples of armed civvies saving lives in the US. Apparently Green has not responded. Why should he? The examples are utter bullshit.
Who really cares? Blair is not a patch on the Bolter as a propagandist, nor has the unhinged readership of Akerman. Blair may have displayed potential when younger- John Birmingham described his as ‘funny’- but bludges now with his sub-Bolt schtick.
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Dec 17, 2012 9:24:06 GMT 10
"a powerful symbol of independence from despised government: a gun is a tool that can be used against tyrants"
And it's a great theory - except that the US maintains the most powerful military in history. If the population ever posed a genuinely violent threat to the government, the government would squish them like bugs.
See what happened during the LA riots - and then see what happened when the national guard turned up with proper weapons and training. It was over very, very quickly, in the middle of one of the most heavily armed cities on earth.
The idea that a citizen can defend himself against the government with an AR15 or barrett .50 cal is just conceited idiocy. If any of these bozos actually believed what they say, they'd be a member of the national guard - the ACTUAL militia that the founding fathers envisaged. They're far more likely to be beer-padded suburban bozos with fantasies of glory - and who, the if the government ever did turn on its people - will be far more likely to hop onto the internet and complain about the democrats than actually go get that gun and head out into the streets.
|
|
|
Post by jack on Dec 17, 2012 10:49:14 GMT 10
"They're teachers, not tactical response professionals."
You're ignoring that, as the NRA and Timmeh maintain, the US Constitution guarantees the right of killbots to bear arms in shopping malls and school campuses.
So rather than rewriting (or re-interpreting) it, the Constitution clearly requires that kindergarten teachers and retail workers become appropriately more multi-disciplinary.
Their basic training ought to include the capability of assuming a tactical response footing at a moment's notice.
Furthermore, the duty of care beholden on teachers demands this. So, for example, a teacher will seamlessly transition from professional pedagogic practice to paramilitary tactical response without hesitation. Think of it as an extension of what they do all the time anyway, dealing with wayward students. This could be included in their enterprise agreements under, say, the provision for continuous improvement.
Because the US Constitution requires that all citizens live in a climate of fear, or at least (to put it more precisely) incipient mortal distress, in order that their freedom in the pursuit of happiness be preserved.
US citizens know that there is a necessary trade-off between safety of life, limb and property and constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms.
Not to forget the rights of Timmeh's ilk to the pursuit of cocksuredness and freedom from self-doubt.
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Dec 17, 2012 12:04:59 GMT 10
Blair's analysis is rubbish on several levels.
(1) Violent crime is dropping in the US. It has been since the early nineties, when the economy started to improve. It also tends to fall faster under democrat administrations. Make of that what you will.
(2) Gun ownership is not actually increasing. The number of guns keeps going up, but they're owned by a decreasing share of the population, who pretty much already owned guns to begin with. In other words, a steadily decreasing fraction of the US population is becoming steadily better armed. Any analysis that tried to claim that guns were making people safer would, presumably, need to address that conspicuous fact - and not one of them does. It's a very awkward thing to have to explain away.
(3) While the US violent crime stats are improving, they're still massively higher than they are in nearly every other country with more rational gun policies. Australia's violent crime rates have also been consistently falling (as they have in most developed countries), both before and after the assault weapons ban and gun buyback. Again - a bit awkward to explain that, if you believe that more guns = less crime.
(4) also rather awkward is the correlation between gun ownership and violent crime between US states, and (obviously) between countries.
But sure, if you just take the raw figure of gun sales and compare them with aggregated crime stats for a couple of years, then I guess one could fool one's self that more guns = less crime. It's not actually true, though.
|
|
|
Post by angra on Dec 17, 2012 12:21:43 GMT 10
To be consistent, shouldn't Blair also be supporting the legalisation of drugs?
This would actually also probably reduce gun crime as it would destroy the illegal drug economy/crime gangs and all that goes with it at one swoop.
|
|
|
Post by angra on Dec 17, 2012 15:01:55 GMT 10
And there's this interesting snippet which Timmeh can't help repeat...
"The market for firearms has increased constantly since the election of Barack Obama in 2008, with Smith & Wesson expecting almost $400 million in gun sales during 2012. "
So it's lefty Obama's fault is it?
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Dec 17, 2012 16:53:29 GMT 10
"So it's lefty Obama's fault is it?"
No, it's because gun nuts are convinced that he's about to take thar guns away. There was a (verified) spike in applications and purchases after his win in 2008, and there'll be another one after this last election.
It's because people are idiots, and they're played by the NRA and gun industry like marionettes.
|
|
|
Post by angra on Dec 17, 2012 18:21:45 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by angra on Dec 17, 2012 19:00:09 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by chookmustard on Dec 17, 2012 21:40:09 GMT 10
tB is not a blog I've looked at much. Worth dipping a toe in his filth?
|
|
|
Post by angra on Dec 18, 2012 4:14:13 GMT 10
chookmustard - when the Blot's on his hols, follow the usual perps for similar entertainment. However tb is noted for his penchant for litigation. Crikey had to silence all comments about him for some time after claiming that his wife was troll-posting to boost his hits and being threatened by lawyers. Worth a bash after that.
|
|