Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
For the first time since 1920, The New York Times has published a front-page editorial. The piece is entitled "End the Gun Epidemic in America".
"It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency. These are weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection".
Without wading into this thread at all (at least with this post), I'd like to thank you for pointing out that the editorial is a front page piece.
I usually read NYTimes articles (and those of several other papers) via website, but they do offer a PressReader service that provides an electronic version of the full paper - layout, ads, etc., page by page. Next best thing to holding the paper in your hand.
Thanks msf for the NY Times post. The editorial, "The Gun Epidemic", makes so clear to me that we Americans allow a private, money making entity to influence and fund our politicians to allow the proliferation of equipment built specifically for mass destruction. The whole notion that the writers of the constitution could have ever foreseen 240 years in the future the destructive machinery freely available to any Tom Dick or Harry is absurd to me. To think they would see now how these weapons were being used and shrug their shoulders and say 'get used to it', is ridiculous. And that is essentially what the stagnation of our government leaders is saying, 'get used to it'. I also doubt they could have envisioned a billion dollar lobbying group that could steer elected politicians into this polarizing inaction.
Islamic terrorists, domestic terrorists, drug gangs, mentally ill, school age kids... what do they all use in common in their quest for mass murder??? I will never understand any argument that says easy access or even legal access to weapons built specifically for mass destruction of other humans is a constitutional right... bull sh__.
@heezsafe, Last I heard James Madison was the author of the Second Amendment and he is considered a founding father. Nor did he intend for the amendment to apply to assault rifles and hand guns for every lone gunman:
Most of the founders did sign a little document which states, among other things: "...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles...."
The US public is like the proverbial frog in the pot of slowly heating water. They will not leave the comfort of their chair and internet to do anything. We might get a #tag campaign to change the gov't but that's about it.
We have given up freedom for security a long time ago ... and deserve neither. (I think I'll slip these earthly bonds before the roof fall in. So, don't worry about me.)
@heezsafe, Last I heard James Madison was the author of the Second Amendment and he is considered a founding father. Nor did he intend for the amendment to apply to assault rifles and hand guns for every lone gunman:
We've come a long way from the Fund Alarm days. Please - climate change is a serious threat, the Second Amendment was never intended to allow normal persons to have assault weapons, and sensible gun control is essential. These are not controversial views. In fact, to state otherwise is to demean yourself. You might as well argue evolution is merely a theory among many other equally valid theories.
@Dex, It's funny how when the Supreme court rules in favor of an issue people support they see the issue as settled and in accordance with the visions of the Founding Fathers. But when the Supreme Court rules in favor of an issue people don't support--say Obamacare in your case--it is seen as a gross miscarriage of justice and far from settled at all. This is human nature.
These are not controversial views. In fact, to state otherwise is to demean yourself. You might as well argue evolution is merely a theory among many other equally valid theories.
Huckabee at least deserves an A for colorful language: "But you know, if anybody wants to believe they are the descendants of a primate, they are certainly welcome to do it,”
Several seem to equate belief in evolution with the lack of moral or ethical framework or atheistic beliefs. My point not to malign the candidates as much as to show there remains strong anti-evolutionary sentiment in the country. It's that sentiment they're trying to tap into by waffling on the issue or outright denunciation of evolution. - Let's rephrase reid's argument to make it perhaps more widely accepted: "You might as well argue that the round-earth idea is merely a theory among many other equally valid theories, including flat-earth, egg-shaped, football-shaped and box-shaped theories."
Okay...we have identified the problem...now what's the solution, with soooo many assault weapons out on the streets already? I doubt that people would turn them in voluntarily.
Hi little5bee , "a journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step." Stop the sale of these weapons now and every year after there will be fewer of these mass murder tools available. Allow the sale of mass murder weapons as they are today and we will be dealing with an even bigger problem down the road. You have to start your journey some place.
But you and I know that won't happen. There will only be political rhetoric, maybe a minute of silence at a football game to "honor" the dead, probably setting the flag at half mask, certainly a group demanding more gun laws and another group saying Billy Bob from North Carolina should be able to target practice with a high powered assault rifle because the founding fathers said so. And after all that, all's back to normal.
Mike couldn't have put it better. A long journey. I won't see the change in my lifetime. Hell ... here in Michigan we have some stockpiling rooms full of ammo. (I've heard reports of shortages in stores). Anticipating what? I don't know. A lot probably has to do with fear-mongering.
I think part (albeit a small part) of our problem is that familiarity breeds contempt. By that I mean that the easier it is to obtain these weapons the more acceptable their use becomes among the masses. We have numerous instances now in our rural area of drivers pulling guns out and sometimes shooting when someone makes a dumb traffic move in front of them, a big change from when I was young. While it might improve all of our driving ... the message permeates society that because everybody has them they must be OK to use.
I'd say at least make them harder to obtain and require some recurrent training. (You wouldn't hand one over to a cop and than not insist he be periodically reevaluated and retrained in safe use.)
Hi guys! As I see this, it's the value of life that needs to be elevated in this great nation, if one is truly going to change the present. Guns will always be with us.....it's how you think about people that must change. God bless the Pudd
I sense a little creeping pessimism in some of the most recent posts here. That’s not a positive sign since pessimism is often followed by failure.
A few days ago I referenced and recommended a new book titled “Stronger”. It emphasizes that optimism and resilience are essential elements on the road to a successful execution of any task. Pessimism is a self-fulfilling prophecy so never give up the race. The absolute closing statement in this fine book is “in the end everything will be OK. If it’s not OK, then it is not yet the end”. These worthwhile winning words are from the Brazilian writer Fernando Sabino.
I own several guns, but would not classify myself as a gun aficionado. I believe most gun owners accept that regulation is mandatory and that some additional changes are necessary to reflect evolving conditions. Rules and regulations are never perfect.
It is not a good idea to be either overly pessimistic or overly optimistic; extremes are dangerous things. As William Arthur Ward famously said: “The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails”. As investors, I suspect that we all are prepared to “adjust the sails”.
In the USA today, the law prohibits the sale of an automatic weapon. The operative regulation is that a single trigger pull produces a single shot. Unfortunately, it is a relatively easy mechanical manipulation to convert weapons back to their original automatic status.
Laws will be inadequate to solve this problem because of huge secondary and tertiary marketplaces, and the enormous supply of weapons currently available. There are roughly 300 million firearms circulating in the USA. There are no functional answers to this problem. Roadblocks will not do the job.
History tells us that criminals and terrorists will always find inventive ways to secure weaponry. There is nothing new to the weapons environment, support, or debate in the USA. What is new is the terrorist threat. We should focus on that problem. With resolve, it is solvable.
The action steps to make this happen will be difficult but not impossible. What is needed is political will, which seems to be somewhat lacking. The Congress is not aligned as to what the problem actually is, so no action is an easy outcome.
If you want to reduce the availability of these types of weapons, the root of the problem traces back to an election process issue. The NRA, who is the lobbying arm of the gun manufacturers, makes sure that the Congress knows how to vote. Gerrymandering creates safe seats, and any deviation from NRA dogma is met with a primary challenge...and of course the massive donations from the NRA go elsewhere. Renewing the Assault Weapons Ban originally signed in 1994 fell to this pressure and died on the vine.
Taking the NRA out of the picture is the challenge. Public shaming doesn't work...if the slaughter of dozens of schoolchildren didn't move the needle, the needle isn't going to move.
My personal favorite recommendation for this and many other reasons, is to take money out of the election process. Publically funded elections promotes a resolution to many ills. Coupled with fairer elections free of gerrymandering, the pols may react to the majority and their conscience in lieu of the wallets of the campaign funders.
History tells us that criminals and terrorists will always find inventive ways to secure weaponry... There is nothing new to the weapons environment, support, or debate in the USA... Laws will be inadequate to solve this problem because of huge secondary and tertiary marketplaces... There are no functional answers to this problem.
So MJG, this is your answer to why we shouldn't be pessimistic in your post?
There is no functional answer to the problem.
You are exactly right because there is a road block at every suggestion made. Why? Because of politics and because politicians are indebted to the NRA. There is no if, ands or buts about that.
How did these war weapons proliferate throughout America??? Seems like it should have been nipped in the bud. Well, because of the road blocks set up by the NRA and their cronies over many, many years.
"I'll give you my 'high power, assault rifle that can kill masses of people in seconds' when you pry it from my cold, dead hands." Didn't Charlton Heston say something like that? Pretty close.
Unfortunately, it is a relatively easy mechanical manipulation to convert weapons back to their original automatic status.
Gee, then why wouldn't we ban a gun that can easily be converted back to it's purpose, to be a mass killing machine??? Isn't that common sense. Blocked by the NRA and their money.
So here we are again. Politicians will tweet that we should pray for the victims. That's nice. They will compete to show more remorse then their election rival. Politicians will say we should pray for the policeman who gave his life trying to protect others when actually that dead police officer's family wishes you they had tried to take assault weapons off the streets. News networks will mercilessly show hours of coverage and interview those that want to voice contested opinions. And then we'll move on.
The shooting at San Bernardino will soon be out of our news and again politicians will argue, and again no changes will be tried. There are no functional answers to this problem. Umm, that's what you said MJG.
@Dex, It's funny how when the Supreme court rules in favor of an issue people support they see the issue as settled and in accordance with the visions of the Founding Fathers. But when the Supreme Court rules in favor of an issue people don't support--say Obamacare in your case--it is seen as a gross miscarriage of justice and far from settled at all. This is human nature.
Not funny at all. Where is the humor?
A horse walks into a bar and asks for a beer. The bartender asks; why the long face? That's a joke.
@heezsafe, Last I heard James Madison was the author of the Second Amendment and he is considered a founding father. Nor did he intend for the amendment to apply to assault rifles and hand guns for every lone gunman:
We've come a long way from the Fund Alarm days. Please - climate change is a serious threat, the Second Amendment was never intended to allow normal persons to have assault weapons, and sensible gun control is essential. These are not controversial views. In fact, to state otherwise is to demean yourself. You might as well argue evolution is merely a theory among many other equally valid theories.
Wow! I guess non of those things are controversial because you are the person who determines what is normal and essential. And if people disagree with you they demean themselves. What would you say if someone else determines what is normal and essential but you don't like it.
Hi little5bee , "a journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step." Stop the sale of these weapons now and every year after there will be fewer of these mass murder tools available. Allow the sale of mass murder weapons as they are today and we will be dealing with an even bigger problem down the road. You have to start your journey some place.
But you and I know that won't happen. There will only be political rhetoric, maybe a minute of silence at a football game to "honor" the dead, probably setting the flag at half mask, certainly a group demanding more gun laws and another group saying Billy Bob from North Carolina should be able to target practice with a high powered assault rifle because the founding fathers said so. And after all that, all's back to normal.
Terrorist in Israel are using knives. Other terrorists are using pipe bombs, suicide vests and IEDs.
The people using the guns improperly are influenced by and/or instructed by those who persuade them to or tell them to use the guns improperly. That is why we need limitations on free speech and restrictions on the means of communication of such improper speech e.g. social media. That is why we also need suspension of some civil liberties for those people. You can not do one without the other if you want to be successful.
If, people don't think these are the normal and essential steps to be taken they demean themselves and probably don't believe that global warming is an existential threat!
Hi little5bee , "a journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step." Stop the sale of these weapons now and every year after there will be fewer of these mass murder tools available. Allow the sale of mass murder weapons as they are today and we will be dealing with an even bigger problem down the road. You have to start your journey some place.
But you and I know that won't happen. There will only be political rhetoric, maybe a minute of silence at a football game to "honor" the dead, probably setting the flag at half mask, certainly a group demanding more gun laws and another group saying Billy Bob from North Carolina should be able to target practice with a high powered assault rifle because the founding fathers said so. And after all that, all's back to normal.
The people using the guns improperly are influenced by and/or instructed by those who persuade them to or tell them to use the guns improperly. That is why we need limitations on free speech and restrictions on the means of communication of such improper speech e.g. social media. That is why we also need suspension of some civil liberties for those people. You can not do one without the other if you want to be successful.
If, people don't think these are the normal and essential steps to be taken they demean themselves and probably don't believe that global warming is an existential threat!
Geez.
Who specifically are "those people", and who decides what additional peoples are to be included in that special group? Do you want to limit your abridgement of Constitutional rights to communications, or would detainment in camps also be needed?
I'm assuming you stop short of killing the families of those deemed as terrorists as advocated by Trump...or do you?
That is why we need limitations on free speech and restrictions on the means of communication of such improper speech e.g. social media. That is why we also need suspension of some civil liberties for those people. You can not do one without the other if you want to be successful.
Geez.
Who specifically are "those people", and who decides what additional peoples are to be included in that special group? Do you want to limit your abridgement of Constitutional rights to communications, or would detainment in camps also be needed?
I'm assuming you stop short of killing the families of those deemed as terrorists as advocated by Trump...or do you?
press
Who are 'those people' ?
The people deciding are the ones deciding to outlaw guns.
What does abridgement and restrictions on communication and additional suspension of civil liberties have to do with regulation of assault weapons?
Sounds like a strawman.
Not to me.
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent.
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on false representation of an opponent's argument. To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.
So what does your suggestion of an abridgement and restriction on communication along with additional suspensions of civil liberties have to do with regulation of assault weapons?
Comments
Except that's not what it says alone, and you know it. Same old deliberate misreading and misunderstanding; neverending.
"It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency. These are weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection".
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/opinion/end-the-gun-epidemic-in-america.html
I usually read NYTimes articles (and those of several other papers) via website, but they do offer a PressReader service that provides an electronic version of the full paper - layout, ads, etc., page by page. Next best thing to holding the paper in your hand.
For others, you can see a pdf image of the front page (including the full editorial) here:
http://www.nytimes.com/images/2015/12/05/nytfrontpage/scan.pdf
Sometimes it is worth seeing a paper visually for its full impact.
Islamic terrorists, domestic terrorists, drug gangs, mentally ill, school age kids... what do they all use in common in their quest for mass murder??? I will never understand any argument that says easy access or even legal access to weapons built specifically for mass destruction of other humans is a constitutional right... bull sh__.
We have given up freedom for security a long time ago ... and deserve neither. (I think I'll slip these earthly bonds before the roof fall in. So, don't worry about me.)
Link "Evolution and the GOP's 2016 Presidential Candidates" http://www.salon.com/2015/02/11/evolution_and_the_gops
Huckabee at least deserves an A for colorful language: "But you know, if anybody wants to believe they are the descendants of a primate, they are certainly welcome to do it,”
Several seem to equate belief in evolution with the lack of moral or ethical framework or atheistic beliefs. My point not to malign the candidates as much as to show there remains strong anti-evolutionary sentiment in the country. It's that sentiment they're trying to tap into by waffling on the issue or outright denunciation of evolution.
-
Let's rephrase reid's argument to make it perhaps more widely accepted: "You might as well argue that the round-earth idea is merely a theory among many other equally valid theories, including flat-earth, egg-shaped, football-shaped and box-shaped theories."
okay, got it.
Okay...we have identified the problem...now what's the solution, with soooo many assault weapons out on the streets already? I doubt that people would turn them in voluntarily.
But you and I know that won't happen. There will only be political rhetoric, maybe a minute of silence at a football game to "honor" the dead, probably setting the flag at half mask, certainly a group demanding more gun laws and another group saying Billy Bob from North Carolina should be able to target practice with a high powered assault rifle because the founding fathers said so. And after all that, all's back to normal.
Mike couldn't have put it better. A long journey. I won't see the change in my lifetime. Hell ... here in Michigan we have some stockpiling rooms full of ammo. (I've heard reports of shortages in stores). Anticipating what? I don't know. A lot probably has to do with fear-mongering.
I think part (albeit a small part) of our problem is that familiarity breeds contempt.
By that I mean that the easier it is to obtain these weapons the more acceptable their use becomes among the masses. We have numerous instances now in our rural area of drivers pulling guns out and sometimes shooting when someone makes a dumb traffic move in front of them, a big change from when I was young. While it might improve all of our driving ... the message permeates society that because everybody has them they must be OK to use.
I'd say at least make them harder to obtain and require some recurrent training. (You wouldn't hand one over to a cop and than not insist he be periodically reevaluated and retrained in safe use.)
Here - This just happened the other day in Michigan. Read it and weep.
http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/1-killed-2-injured-in-shooting-at-taylor-sportsplex/36786402
As I see this, it's the value of life that needs to be elevated in this great nation, if one is truly going to change the present. Guns will always be with us.....it's how you think about people that must change.
God bless
the Pudd
I sense a little creeping pessimism in some of the most recent posts here. That’s not a positive sign since pessimism is often followed by failure.
A few days ago I referenced and recommended a new book titled “Stronger”. It emphasizes that optimism and resilience are essential elements on the road to a successful execution of any task. Pessimism is a self-fulfilling prophecy so never give up the race. The absolute closing statement in this fine book is “in the end everything will be OK. If it’s not OK, then it is not yet the end”. These worthwhile winning words are from the Brazilian writer Fernando Sabino.
I own several guns, but would not classify myself as a gun aficionado. I believe most gun owners accept that regulation is mandatory and that some additional changes are necessary to reflect evolving conditions. Rules and regulations are never perfect.
It is not a good idea to be either overly pessimistic or overly optimistic; extremes are dangerous things. As William Arthur Ward famously said: “The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails”. As investors, I suspect that we all are prepared to “adjust the sails”.
In the USA today, the law prohibits the sale of an automatic weapon. The operative regulation is that a single trigger pull produces a single shot. Unfortunately, it is a relatively easy mechanical manipulation to convert weapons back to their original automatic status.
Laws will be inadequate to solve this problem because of huge secondary and tertiary marketplaces, and the enormous supply of weapons currently available. There are roughly 300 million firearms circulating in the USA. There are no functional answers to this problem. Roadblocks will not do the job.
History tells us that criminals and terrorists will always find inventive ways to secure weaponry. There is nothing new to the weapons environment, support, or debate in the USA. What is new is the terrorist threat. We should focus on that problem. With resolve, it is solvable.
Best Wishes.
If you want to reduce the availability of these types of weapons, the root of the problem traces back to an election process issue. The NRA, who is the lobbying arm of the gun manufacturers, makes sure that the Congress knows how to vote. Gerrymandering creates safe seats, and any deviation from NRA dogma is met with a primary challenge...and of course the massive donations from the NRA go elsewhere. Renewing the Assault Weapons Ban originally signed in 1994 fell to this pressure and died on the vine.
Taking the NRA out of the picture is the challenge. Public shaming doesn't work...if the slaughter of dozens of schoolchildren didn't move the needle, the needle isn't going to move.
My personal favorite recommendation for this and many other reasons, is to take money out of the election process. Publically funded elections promotes a resolution to many ills. Coupled with fairer elections free of gerrymandering, the pols may react to the majority and their conscience in lieu of the wallets of the campaign funders.
press
How did these war weapons proliferate throughout America??? Seems like it should have been nipped in the bud. Well, because of the road blocks set up by the NRA and their cronies over many, many years.
"I'll give you my 'high power, assault rifle that can kill masses of people in seconds' when you pry it from my cold, dead hands." Didn't Charlton Heston say something like that? Pretty close. Gee, then why wouldn't we ban a gun that can easily be converted back to it's purpose, to be a mass killing machine??? Isn't that common sense. Blocked by the NRA and their money.
So here we are again. Politicians will tweet that we should pray for the victims. That's nice. They will compete to show more remorse then their election rival. Politicians will say we should pray for the policeman who gave his life trying to protect others when actually that dead police officer's family wishes you they had tried to take assault weapons off the streets. News networks will mercilessly show hours of coverage and interview those that want to voice contested opinions. And then we'll move on.
The shooting at San Bernardino will soon be out of our news and again politicians will argue, and again no changes will be tried. There are no functional answers to this problem. Umm, that's what you said MJG.
A horse walks into a bar and asks for a beer. The bartender asks; why the long face?
That's a joke.
The people using the guns improperly are influenced by and/or instructed by those who persuade them to or tell them to use the guns improperly. That is why we need limitations on free speech and restrictions on the means of communication of such improper speech e.g. social media. That is why we also need suspension of some civil liberties for those people. You can not do one without the other if you want to be successful.
If, people don't think these are the normal and essential steps to be taken they demean themselves and probably don't believe that global warming is an existential threat!
Who specifically are "those people", and who decides what additional peoples are to be included in that special group? Do you want to limit your abridgement of Constitutional rights to communications, or would detainment in camps also be needed?
I'm assuming you stop short of killing the families of those deemed as terrorists as advocated by Trump...or do you?
press
Geez.
Who specifically are "those people", and who decides what additional peoples are to be included in that special group? Do you want to limit your abridgement of Constitutional rights to communications, or would detainment in camps also be needed?
I'm assuming you stop short of killing the families of those deemed as terrorists as advocated by Trump...or do you?
press
Who are 'those people' ?
The people deciding are the ones deciding to outlaw guns.
Assume = Ass (out of) U (and) Me
Sounds like a strawman.
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent.
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on false representation of an opponent's argument. To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.
So what does your suggestion of an abridgement and restriction on communication along with additional suspensions of civil liberties have to do with regulation of assault weapons?